Shouldn鈥檛 Republicans check with the head of the GAO before they make the economy a campaign issue?

The head of the GAO, David M. Walker, has spoken, and the economic outlook is not good. As sensible people, we all knew in our gut that this reckless, runaway deficit spending is dangerous to our future economic security and now we have confirmation:





"This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids."





The accountant-in-chief's professional opinion is that the American public needs to tell Washington it's time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.





The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.





http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct28/0鈥?/a>|||Usually politicians from both parties pretty much skew (as in lie about) anything they want the people to be concerned (or not concerned) about in regard to the economy and other issues. The Republicans do not want the general public to really know the true story on the economy and the Democrats are scared of people blaming the Clinton administration for the current economic catastrophe.





Fox news is the worst for skewing news reporting toward Republican Conservative Rightists.





We have been living in an economic bubble propped up by the government and this will tumble in the near future. The housing market is already going bust.





Too many people in the US live on credit and that is going to send us crashing someday, along with the war expenses. The money for these wars and all the terrorism stuff is not just being pulled off a tree; it is going to catch up with us sooner than later. It is not reasonable to believe the US can sustain the amount of cash drain that the wars and terrorism have brought and keep on not raising taxes. Where is the money going to come from? Foreign nations are sure not going to loan us anything.





I am older and I remember the days under Nixon and Reagan. It was a very tough time for the middle class with gas shortages and mortgages at 16% or 17% , etc. Everyone seems to have forgotten those days but they were not the "good ole times".





The state of the US government has nothing to do with the Stock Market. If you look up how the Dow and NASDAQ are figured you will see it is just a sampling of certain stocks; a kind of indicator that is not an actual science.





We do no have a surplus; we have a huge deficit.|||Remember, image is everything|||MR WALKER HAS "THE TITANIC" SINKING.


AND WE KNOW IT DID.|||Greenspan said the same type of thing in 2004. Republican economic policy is all politics. Dollars and cents don't mean anything to the Republican base.





Republicans vote on tax cut promises. Start to finish. That is it.|||The stock market is at an ALL TIME HIGH. Enough said.|||Everything in your rant makes campaigning on the economy perfectly appropriate.





Out of control government spending on social programs...





I know it's unappealing to you liberals who would rather run a negative campaign against the current administration.|||I agree with you. What happened to our surplus???





Please see some of the answers to my last posted question. Some of these people even suggested that the GAO is a political tool that states a position against which ever party is in power solely for the purpose of political balance. They never even lend credence to the notion that perhaps, both parties are doing a poor job of running the government.





I really have to say that the people calling you a liberal and a hate-filled person here in this question are nothing more than political tools themselves.





I would have to say that the stock market being at an ALL TIME HIGH (Sarahsmam) has nothing to do with the future. Please refer to the stock market gains in the year 1999 and compare to the losses suffered in 2000. So no, not enough said.





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||The GAO has nothing to do with the economy.... and said economy is doing very well without it.|||Did you understand what subject the head of the GAO was talking about? Walker was discussing the federal debt, which is different than the federal deficit. The deficit is a year to year accounting of spending, versus the debt, which is the accumulated debt of the country. Also, it is possible to have a good economy, but run a federal deficit. So, I think your confusion on the subject is leading you to a bad conclusion.





The federal debt has been growing to 8 trillion over many years, and not the result of only one administration. So blaming it on the current Republican administration is naive.


Associating what Walker is stating about the federal debt and the current state of the economy is also wrong, he wasn't talking about the current economy.


I do agree that runaway deficit spending is a dangerous thing, though. I think it would be a good thing if the government started cutting programs to reduce the debt. I personally vote against any new federal program/initiative that comes up on the ballot to spend more money.