Deleted member 1487
Cheney was just justifying policy, not making it with that comment. He's right, deficits don't matter politically or really economically (to a point). The problem is that raising taxes after the Dot Com bubble bursting would put the brakes on the economy and push us into recession/depression. Stimulus was needed as well as a strong intervention into the economy to fix the flaws created by the Reagan years, but instead a bubble was reinflated in the housing market. Part of the issue is we had far too much money injected into investments with a declining 'real' economy, leaving housing the only sector of demand to soak up the investment money floating about. Now its government debt that's soaking up investment money.The U.S. public of the Reagan years which only rewarded Reagan for racking up deficits and the U.S. public of the Bush 41 years which only very much punished Bush 41 for rising taxes and likely cost him the election had a bigger impact on first term Bush then anything Cheney had to say.
Now if Bush had to do it over again starting at 911 I think he would have raised taxes after 911 and did his stimulus through war spending and done some other things quite a bit differently, but back then he was just too focused on winning a second term and not falling victim to the fate that befell his father to see the big picture.
Until we create sustainable demand and real wealth growth rather than just passing existing wealth back and forth, which is a solid point that Carl made, then we will continue to have this problem. That is the same issue that Bush faced in the '00s, but did nothing about because ideologically he couldn't raise taxes or enact spending in a government led policy to reorient the economy for a sustained pattern of growth via creating new industries, job training, and infrastructure spending. IOTL he tried to stimulate demand by tax cuts, but by cutting for the wealthy the most that just created a lot of investment money seeking returns in a demand starved economy, hence the bubble that popped in 2008. Without war Bush isn't going to raise taxes, because there is no need in 2001 or beyond, he may just try and cut them, but without the 2002 electoral victory he probably won't get the votes to cut taxes and the government budget remains balanced, but demand lags and the economy limps into extended recession/depression. Its questionable if he survives 2004 then.
The big question is who the Dems run in 2004, because they might well have a good shot at winning if the economy is in the doldrums and there isn't an foreign policy issue for Bush to leverage.