Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (115408)	9/1/2008 10:44:33 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

skeeter, >newt talked a good game, but did he actually reduce spending or just reduce the amount it increased?< He reduced the growth rate. However, that has been my point. That's all we really need to get back to surpluses over time. If long term nominal GDP growth is 6% (3% real growth and 3% inflation), all you have to do is slow the growth of government to below 6% and the budget deficit will shrink and eventually turn to surplus because tax revenues will approximate the growth of nominal GDP growth. You can substitute any numbers you want if you think mine are too optimistic. Just keep the growth rate of government at the inflation rate and get out of the way. It's that easy. Now we just need to convince a democrat for vote for that. LOL The longer term problems are the medicare and SS promises. If we keep them, the growth rate of government is going to explode. Those were mistakes made decades ago by government expansionists that don't understand economics at all and that wanted to get elected.