Obama '08?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19886&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
How to Grow Out of the Deficit
As Washington debates the fate of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, many lawmakers have fallen into a logical trap of their own making. Although they recognize that tax increases hurt the economy, they argue that our huge deficit requires Congress to raise revenue through a tax hike, says Edward P. Lazear, a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.

This argument rests on the flawed premise that we can reduce the deficit only by increasing taxes, as if high levels of spending are a given. Not so.

To reduce spending and reignite growth, this Congress or its successor should take two actions, says Lazear.

Cut the level of spending that has been increased so dramatically since 2008.
Institute an "inflation-minus-one" rule to constrain future spending increases.
Even if President Obama succeeds at lowering the deficit to 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2013, our public-debt-to-GDP ratio will still be dangerously high, at over 70 percent, or nearly twice what it was during the Bush years. As economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have shown, such high debt-to-GDP ratios are associated with low growth.

In order to return to the healthier spending ratios of the past two decades, Congress should do the following:

Enact a budget that brings spending for fiscal year 2012 at least half way back to where it was in 2008.
Begin limiting future spending according to an inflation-minus-one rule.
If this policy was enacted it would take three or four more years to get to a balanced budget. And if an aggressive Congress cuts spending even faster than the limit imposed, those additional cuts would be baked into future budgets, says Lazear.

Source: Edward P. Lazear, "How to Grow Out of the Deficit," Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2010.

In order to return to the healthier spending ratios of the past two decades, Congress should do the following:

Enact a budget that brings spending for fiscal year 2012 at least half way back to where it was in 2008.
Begin limiting future spending according to an inflation-minus-one rule.
If this policy was enacted it would take three or four more years to get to a balanced budget. And if an aggressive Congress cuts spending even faster than the limit imposed, those additional cuts would be baked into future budgets, says Lazear.

You post about okie was satire of the crudest sort and based upon false logic as I demonstrated with very little effort.

I was only taking the piss out of you. I'm sorry you took it seriously.

Satire is unmistakable.

OK, lets do that.

While we are at it lets eliminate the Dept of Education

the Bureau of Indian Affairs

, govt funding for elections

lets force everyone on welfare to pass a drug test or they get cut off.

We can also cut of SS disability benefits to anyone collecting them due to a previous drug problem.

Lets also eliminate the thousands of govt employees that dont do any real work except wander around and tell each other how important they are.

And therein lies the problem.
Nobody can agree on what needs to be cut.

You say that the BIA and the Dept of Ed are needed, so we cant cut them.
I say they arent needed and can be cut.

You say its a violation of civil liberties to force people on welfare to pass a drug test to collect benefits, I say it isnt.

If I have to pass a drug test to get a job, and if I am subject to random drug tests to keep that job, then why is it a violation of someones civil rights to expect them to stay clean to collect govt money, they are essentially getting paid to not work.

The same with SS Disability payments to people that used to have a drug problem and now claim they cant work.
If they cant work because they USED to do drugs, then lets make sure they arent still doing drugs.
If they are, why should the taxpayer pay for those illegal drugs.

You immediately say cut the defense budget and raise taxes, but you seem to think that everything else is sacred and cant be cut.

I think you have touched on the heart of the matter. The anti okie gang finds collective support in repeatedly bashing him for the same few errors & ideas - an easy target, that enables them to avoid tackling other serious issues which they haven't yet demonstrated the ability to master.

Been waiting to see if you would respond to your clear error regarding campaign financing and the massive advantage that Citizen's United has given Republicans this cycle. You seemed awful sure of yourself, but when evidence was presented showing you were incorrect, you simply.... faded out of the conversation.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you failed to notice that okie did say "I hate to have to go there". It is admittedly a socialist view though: but hardly a Marxist one. It is a view in general practice in all western Christian societies.

It's a bit like declaring somebody a fundie Puritan because they object to the knickerless can-can being performed on prime time TV.

Do you object to the knickerless can-can being performed on prime time TV parados?

Spendi, what liberals fail to realize is that conservatives are not against all regulation

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Been waiting to see if you would respond to your clear error regarding campaign financing and the massive advantage that Citizen's United has given Republicans this cycle. You seemed awful sure of yourself, but when evidence was presented showing you were incorrect, you simply.... faded out of the conversation.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The decision merely restored some equlibrium to the advantages Labor Unions have with respect to campaign activity. Moreover the info you offered did nothing to address the basic question - which party has more funds available to it.

I already noted the complexity of campaign financing -primarily a result of government efforts to control & regulate it - and the difficulty in getting comparable data. You have asserterd that you know the Republicans have far more money available for their campaigns - however you have so far provided no data to back it up.

You are quick to criticize others of making unsupported assertions, but so far your only response to others who call you on the same point is to shout louder about extraneous data.

a black-and-white view of things that fails to take into account that the people you call 'producers' are as morally fallible, and more importantly, reliant on government and public policy for their wealth and happiness as anyone else.