(02-22-2012 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:44 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Right we can grow government spending at 6-12% a year for decades and but rolling it back 5-15% would be the end of civilization.

He didn't say we should grow it at 6-12%.
Here's the quote:

Quote:"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy," he said in part of his response. "So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies."

Explain why he is completely wrong. Explain how cutting government spending will increase GDP.

Cutting spending decreases the debt and, long term, increase the health of the National Economy. Longer term spending makes you look like Greece

Which is all fine and good in the long term. How does the short term look? What would a 10% cut in federal spending (actual cut, not increase cut) do to next year's GDP? *Hint: I'm looking for an actual number which you should be able to calculate if you know what you're talking about.

The problem is very simple. At some point you are going to have to take the short term hits in order to avoid unmitigated disaster in the long run. Whenever that point comes, it won't be pretty. But if it doesn't come, what will happen instead will be a lot worse.

Except that these guys (Rob, Max, Atlantic) apparently think that even when the unmitigated disaster comes, like it has in Greece, you should STILL keep borrowing and spending.