Artful Dodger:

> More specifically, the idea that the government can stimulate the economy by spending money is a deeply flawed idea. The liberals here think it's a good idea, even though it's been a proven failure. Yet they want to continue to do now and into the future that which has not worked in the past.

The truth is that every American president since WW II has raised the debt ceiling and increased the deficit. The first truly massive increase came during the Regan administration and every president since then has just added more wood to the fire. The only president to not increase the deficit for 1 year was Bill Clinton who finished his last term with a surplus, and that was only 1 year of the 8 years he was in office.

I think that any president who comes to Washington is very quickly faced with the reality of ever increasing Department of Defense costs. It was the War on Terror that did it for George W. Bush. Barrack Obama promised to scale back by bringing the troops back from Iraq, but I think he was unrealistic. Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Lybia) left to their own devices is a recipe for disaster. So the American government is committed to those expenses for decades to come.

At the same time the American government insists on passing irresponsible tax breaks. Every president since WW II has raised taxes on the middle class while giving tax breaks to the super rich. The rich can argue all they want about "creating jobs by paying less taxes" but the reality is that unless taxes are raised, the USA is never going to get out of its debt. Raising taxes is the most unpopular medicine to the current disease.

Direct government investment and spending in infrastructure was effective in the past, but considering the current deficit any form of spending will be unpopular. The Bush administration survived the economic problems by spending a lot of money and employing a lot of people in war. However, that is not a sustainable approach because when the war ends then the companies (defense contractors) involved in the war make a lot less money.

I think that the only way Washington is going to get out of this mess is if both parties make a true effort to work together. Otherwise they will keep blocking each other and accomplishing nothing. After seeing some of Republican debate a couple of days ago I was left with the feeling that none of the candidates has a concrete solution. They all talked on generalities and concentrated more on putting a negative light on their opponents than on giving real answers to real problems.

I was most bothered by Michelle Bachman. She kept talking of the "economic miracle" of the Regan administration. It seems to me that people confuse the popularity of the man with the real track record of the economy in that period. If the candidates are selling Reganomics as a solution then they have to think twice. It was 30 years of Reaganomics that brought the USA (and the rest of the world) to the current mess.

I have said before the what the USa needs to do is get rid of all the current tax breaks, then give tax breaks only to companies that create jobs at home. For every new job created in the USA, a company would get a tax credit. If a company wants to manufacture overseas, then the price is no tax breaks for that company. It would go a long way to creating jobs and levelling the playing field for smaller companies that cannot compete with big companies manufacturing their products cheaply abroad. However, none of the candidates in both parties will talk about that because their big contributors are companies that benefit from the current system.