+1

Not arguing that. Jut the manner and timing. Unfortunately, we have a dysfunctional Congress that is unable (mostly unwilling) to do anything about anything.

I agree. At some point. But during a recession isn't it. Our most pressing problem is getting out of the recession and getting folks jobs and that needs more govt spending, not less. Once the economy is better, then it makes sense to attack the debt.(And at that point we might also consider - gasp - revenue increases as well as what "has to go.")

It would be nice if we hadn't fought that unnecessary war in Iraq. Then we'd be in a much smaller mess. But it's all the Democrats fault, you know. Big spenders and such.

Argh. Don't mind me today. I'm an old lady fed up with stupid (not you, Mike.)

P.S. Not saying that you're doing this, but I'm completely impatient with analogies between govt budgets/spending and family ones. A govt budget is NOT the same thing as a family budget.

Though I have neither seen nor done the studies, I can't imagine that the tools and machinations of war are anything but an accelerant where climate change is concerned.

1. Look at graph.
2. Understand and agree that the Bush Tax cuts, which were a return of surpluses, are no longer relevant because those surpluses no longer exist. Agree that they have to go away.
3. Recognize that the wars are a major contributing factor. Recognize that with two wars winding down (and if we can keep McCain from getting us involved in Iran), that factor will go away.
4. Recognize that, as pointed about above, if we can get the economy moving, then we don't really have a problem anymore.

Now, with regards to #4, we can then argue with what is the best way to do that. That may involve some tax cuts that replace the eliminated Bush tax cuts, but we have 10 years of evidence that GIANT tax cuts don't make giant increases in economic activity. In fact, high earner tax cuts have led to more layoffs, offshoring of jobs, and other negative impacts.

IMHO, we need a tax policy that encourages creation of jobs here in the U.S. That includes bringing back some of the private sector jobs we eliminated, because government employees buy cars, go out to eat, etc. Hell, look at East Tennessee- the National Labs, UT, and TVA are two of the largest employers. Two of the above paid for the roof over my head when I was a kid.

But I digress- the graph above has to be acknowledged by anyone before participating in a "the debt is too damn high" discussions.

I thought TVA still got $$ for river navigation and non-power ops, but true, the power side is self-sustaining (from us ratepayers, of course).

The point of the graph is not to blame for the past...well, partly it is. But those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and those who do can see some past is NOT prologue. If the tax cuts expire and STAY dead, other than what we deem important for economic stimulus, and we shut down our two wars and keep out of a third, then the future doesn't look as bleak.

I'm not saying the budget is balanced either, but the graph clearly shows that last 10 years, we've had a revenue problem primarily, not a spending problem. And our laissez-faire tax policy encouraging offshoring and keeping profits overseas has strangled job growth, which strangles GDP growth because, hey, people with jobs actually spend money (go figure), and tend to take less unemployment $.

Deficits are not new things. We ran them up in the 80's building a 300-ship Navy and Star Wars. We got ahold of them in the 90's by raising taxes, which all the 'experts' said would kill the economy in the 1990s. Hm. So when one of the same 'experts' tells me we have to make draconian cuts to bring the budget deficit to zero, I dig a little and find they have their own axe to grind- maybe it's privatizing Social Security, or it's privatizing Medicare, but after reading Shock Doctrine, my eyes are wide open to this kind of bull***t.

It's like running a business- if you look like you're sliding into the red, you have two choices- you can cut, cut, cut until the red is gone, or you can grow your top line while managing your expenses better. Mindless idiots do the former, good managers do the latter. The problem is, both Congress and the private sector are full of the former (mindless idiots) who can't take 10 minutes to analyze the problem, or who don't because they have another agenda.

We've been here before. Debt to GDP was higher after World War II (I think it was right at 100% of GDP). I seem to recall we did OK in the 50s, and we even managed to rebuild Japan and Germany while we were at it.

Then again, check out the tax rates back then. But you should be sitting down first.

in fairness, I don't think it was in January 2009, it was more about February when they $500-billion Recovery Act passed.

Different context. With labor as beat down as it is there is little chance of an outbreak of hyper-inflation. Inflation is not a simple function of the money supply. There are also questions of velocity and whether labor can achieve gains in income to keep pace with inflationary pressure. Looking around America these days, I see little to fear in that department.

Mike,

If you think we need to address the debt NOW, do you agree we should also raise some taxes (or at least close some loopholes)?

Or does all the solution have to come from cost-cutting?

I for one would be fine paying taxes at the pre-Bush tax cut level. In fact, I'd much rather do that than inflict pain on SS, Medicaid, and Medicare recepients. I can handle it; they can't (and shouldn't).

But then, I don't belong to the Tea Party.