Does spending really matter?

Is the deficit as big as we think it is? Are the politicians in Washington blowing it out of proportion? Today, in America we have a President who loves to spend. In fact he has not vetoed a bill since he has gotten in the White House. My question is, doesn't America have enough fixed assets and capital that will cover the deficit? For example, all of our natural resources or the national parks. Since we have these fixed assets does the deficit really matter? Has it changed our lives? I don't think so, I have not changed one thing about my life because we have a deficit. Why do reporters like Brendan Murray keep reporting the negative and not the positive aspects of the deficit? Maybe because it is all political.


Jim said...

Negative news will always sell better than good news will. Perhaps that is why people often speak of the nations negative deficit. However, just because we may be in a deficit, does not mean we are in one all year long.

Dr. Tufte said...

-1 for a badly formatted link in Salty's post

Everyone should probably be made aware of the fact that the Bush administration is a big spender, and that this contrasts badly with their reputation.

I think reporters focus on the deficit for 3 reasons. The first is the one in Jim's comment. The second is that they have talked about the deficit so much in the past that they don't have to spend time explaining it anymore. A third is that this is cheap talk. They can talk all they want about the deficit without actually changing anything - for the better or the worse.

Marie said...

I think that the deficit could be talked about more clearly to the American public; however, I do understand the concern. The Bush Administration is spending a lot of money, and the American public feels that the money is coming out of their income. I think most American feel that it creates weakness within our country.