There are many things wrong with the Republicans. The surplus is just one. No one sits on a single point to come to a view. ......... That lot cannot be identified with equitable distribtuion of wealth in any context.
Thats one reason why the old man prefers the Republican.
Since you asked, even though I hate to dwell too much into US politics and its fiscal policies, as it is a very complex equation, just as complex as the reason or reasons why you think the old man prefers Republicans to Democrats. I really do not know much of the old man's thinking and I really do not give much thoughts to it either.
However, having said what I said, perhaps it is good for me to state the following to clear the air somewhat.
Reagon's years were the best years in recent times, as far as the people in USA are concerned, but using supply-side fiscal policies, the country was in deficit but the economy was booming. It was the period of cold war and defence spendings contributed a large part to the deficit. Supply-side fiscal policies mean reducing taxes on the rich and rich corporations, so that it will induce investments and spendings which is good for the economy.
Clinton's years were the best years too, but the deficit was reduced primarily because of the end to the cold war, which means defence spendings dropped drastically. But defence spendings can be dropped because Reagon ended the cold war. Clinton taxed the rich and rich corporations and put an end to supply-side economics. But we should remember that Clinton had a bit of economic luck during the dot-com bubble boom, which was never repeated since it gone bust.
Bush's years were a mixed bag of fortunes. The dot-com bubble burst. He reverted back to a variant of supply-side fiscal policies, where tax cuts were given to the rich and rich corporations so as to infuse investments and spendings and to revive the economy. Bush must have done good work during his first term as his popularity poll was very high then. He was re-elected too.
However, to answer your question as to which policy that was good while also contributed to the deficit, the answer may not be as simple. Yet, perhaps it can be answered by saying that the present ballooning deficit that the USA is facing is due to an increase in social security spending and medicare, while federal revenues had not increased enough to compensate for the rise in federal spendings on social security and healthcare. Defence spendings had been flat and budgeted for, even with the Iraq war costed in. As you know my stance by now. I am for social security spending and medicare spending, as I have always felt it is the duty of a responsible government to take care of such matters.
During his latter term, supply-side economics seemed not to have worked its magic like the manner in which it played out for Reagon, due in part to the emergence of a strong European economic bloc and the rise of China and India's economies, where institutional buyers are pumping money into. Besides, the mortgage woes and the global economic slow-down during his latter term magnified the budget deficit and he cannot tax the rich corporations as this will nail the coffin shut for the US economy during such trying times.
To conclude, the Republicans, as opposed to the Democrats, are less protectionist in trade so perhaps this could be one of the reasons why the old man prefers the Republicans. Other than that, I really don't know and I don't think I need nor bother to know either.
