Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Not a stupid question at all, Bucco. The answer is fairly obvious, I think. The administrations we've seen in recent decades all operated similarly, albeit in different ways. But all added to the result of deficit spending and more national debt. Each justified their actions in different ways. The actions they took which were not fiscally sound were done for purely political reasons. Each administration acted to appeal to its political base.

If we start to look at Bill Clinton, he had less of an effect fiscally than his successors mainly because he was unsuccessful in achieving his political objectives. He sought sweeping healthcare reform which would have been hugely expensive, but failed. He governed at a time when the economy was performing quite well and he was unsuccessful in doing anythig to screw it up. The results were pretty good.

George Bush followed. I may be criticized for this oversimplification, but Dick Cheney made sure his administration was salted with extremely conservative political neocons. They came with strong beliefs that the U.S. could influence the world, but principally the Middle East where all the oil that we needed came from, by trying to plant democracies in the region. The presence of Saddam Hussein coincided nicely with the events of 9/11 and the key neocons convinced President Bush that the invasion of Iraq would quickly lead to the democratization of that country, and the hope that democracy would spread to other countries in the region. They were perfectly willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (as well as the lives of thousands of young Americans) to accomplish that objective. At this point we all know that the expenditures now approach $2 trillion and the outcome is still uncertain. On a parallel course, the Bush administration also used the oft-criticized "reconciliation" rules to pass the largest tax decrease in the history of the federal income tax. Both the war and the tax cuts were very popular politically, but resulted in a multi-year run of deficit budgets and a rapid escalation of the national debt.

Then came Barack Obama. He was elected on a platform of change. While he governs pragmatically, no doubt he has many liberal objectives...costly liberal objectives. He came into office facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and has largely reversed its course thru the expenditure of large amounts of money--TARP, stimulus and the like. That may prove to be the most unavoidable spending of his administration. He continued the expensive war effort but also continued to drive towards healthcare reform, something he campaigned on and which he sincerely believes in. But the clumsy and politically charged creation of the legislation may result in it being one of the more expensive entitlement programs in history. But again, something done to satisfy political objectives and his liberal political base.

Mine is a gross simplification of what I think has happened over the last three presidential administrations. For similar reasons--political and to a degree ideological--all of the last three Presidents drove the country in different directions but always with the same result--deficit spending year after year and a ballooning of the national debt.

I believe we are now close to a point when "the piper must be paid" relative to our run of fiscal irresponsibility. Regardless of what the political objectives of a future President might be, the need to resolve our fiscal imbalance will take precedence over any political ideology or objectives. I believe that resolution will take the form of painful cuts in government spending and large increases in the taxes paid by Americans.

So there you are--my overview of how we got to where we are and why, all in only a few paragraphs.