Now we know. It's the Tea Party's fault!!!

[pinqy]

Socialism will fail everywhere it is tried because it requires too much government money in relation to private sector money. .

ummm, in socialism, there is no private sector.

 

[Mustang]

Socialism will fail everywhere it is tried because it requires too much government money in relation to private sector money. Totalitarian communisim is the ultimate in government spending and has never failed to produce massive deprivation and misery.

Before we started liberalizing/socializing our own economy, it was the most innovative, productive, creative, prosperous, and most free economy that had ever existed.

some of our liberal friends really REALLY do not seem to want to look at that truth or the reality of that situation.

Our economic downturn (precipitated by the housing bubble) which began in earnest with the recession of 2007 and became a very real economic crisis with our banks teetering on the brink of financial collapse didn't have a damn thing to do with gov't spending, or socialism, or the CRA, or any of the other red herrings side show games that conservatives have accepted as dogma. It was all caused by runaway markets, heavy speculation, and a casino-style approach to investing where bankers made VERY bad financial 'bets' and then passed off the bad risk (instead of holding on to their own risky bets, of course) to unsuspecting third party investors who were ASSURED that the investments were triple A-rated because the bankers paid the rating agencies to give those bad investments those great ratings. Then to cap it off, there were no resources in reserve to cover the potential losses in a worst case scenario because the insurance laws didn't apply to unregulated (as opposed to deregulated) financial instruments known as Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps in the world of shadow banking.

Where the gov't WAS a fault was for allowing the deregulation mania that initially started in the late 70's in areas like airlines to eventually spread to the financial services sector, culminating in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, despite the fact that the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 80s and early 90's was a signal that loosening effective regulation could (and, in fact, would) lead to very serious problems where the taxpayer had to pick up the tab.

But the deregulation mantra crowd were like preachers at a revival meeting. They preached about the sins of regulation and the salvation message was that free and unfettered markets would set us all economically free as a new era of economic growth began. In reality, the preachers of this message, like televangelists, were the big winners. They reaped the vast majority of financial rewards on the way up, and they were bailed out as the house of cards came falling down, even as regular working folks, average investors, and tax payers paid the tab for the binge.

Now, the private sector preachers and their shills who jumped back and forth from gov't jobs (where policy and law could be made) to the private sector (in order to reap some of the financial rewards they helped to pave the way to create) want to blame ancillary players? It's maddening, to say the least. It's like blaming Poland for WWII.

Worst of all? They're ready to do it all over again. And why not? What price have they paid? Maybe the occasional fine that's a fraction of their earnings? So, after everything that's happened, one would think that nobody could possibly buy into the message that what we now need is to remove recently enacted regulation from the financial sector. But amazingly, that's not true.

 

[Foxfyre]

Socialism will fail everywhere it is tried because it requires too much government money in relation to private sector money. .

ummm, in socialism, there is no private sector.

Not in the socialist part, but many countries, Europe and the United States included, there is a blend of socialism with capitalism; in China you have socialist/communism blended with a degree of capitalism. In all cases, the capitalists prosper; the socialists less so.

The only thing keeping such countries from becoming all capitalist is the heady addiction to power that those in socialist/totalitarian governments invariably succumb. It is extremely rare that a government, once it achieves power, ever relinquishes it voluntarily. That is why the Founders intended that our own central government be extremely limited in what it would and would not be allowed to do. It was never to be regarded as a career for those elected to high office, but rather would be a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a time and then go back home to live under the laws they passed.

But with the encroachment of socialism into our govenment, not only do most of our elected leaders now have one goal which is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, but they exempt themselves from any laws that they do not personally wish to experience.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The situation in Greece and Europe is not the same as in the US.

It's not very different. California is virtually identical to Greece; a failed state, bankrupt and run purely for the benefit of the public employees, with no thought at all to the citizenry and particularly not to companies that would be needed in a sustainable economy.

The Europeans unwisely created a unified currency encompassing 17 nations without a unified political system to go with it that would have had uniform economic policy.

Europeans unwisely created a social system that benefited bureaucrats at the expense of industry and private enterprise, while practicing a voluntary genocide leaving birthrates at 40% of basic replacement.

Western Civilization, including the USA, is committing mass suicide.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Socialism will fail everywhere it is tried because it requires too much government money in relation to private sector money. Totalitarian communisim is the ultimate in government spending and has never failed to produce massive deprivation and misery.

Before we started liberalizing/socializing our own economy, it was the most innovative, productive, creative, prosperous, and most free economy that had ever existed.

some of our liberal friends really REALLY do not seem to want to look at that truth or the reality of that situation.

When exactly was this "golden age"?

 

[g5000]

Of course we dont want to mention the two years that President Obama had a super majority in the Senate

That might have something do with the fact he never had a super majority and it being just a figment of your imagination.

 

[Mustang]

The situation in Greece and Europe is not the same as in the US.

It's not very different. California is virtually identical to Greece; a failed state, bankrupt and run purely for the benefit of the public employees, with no thought at all to the citizenry and particularly not to companies that would be needed in a sustainable economy.

The Europeans unwisely created a unified currency encompassing 17 nations without a unified political system to go with it that would have had uniform economic policy.

Europeans unwisely created a social system that benefited bureaucrats at the expense of industry and private enterprise, while practicing a voluntary genocide leaving birthrates at 40% of basic replacement.

Western Civilization, including the USA, is committing mass suicide.

California and Greece have about as much in common as New York and Macedonia. In other words, they're not similar at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

California and Greece have about as much in common as New York and Macedonia. In other words, they're not similar at all.

What color is the sky in your world?

Ours is blue.

Boskin and Cogan: California's Greek Tragedy - WSJ.com

 

[Mustang]

California and Greece have about as much in common as New York and Macedonia. In other words, they're not similar at all.

What color is the sky in your world?

Ours is blue.

Boskin and Cogan: California's Greek Tragedy - WSJ.com

The sky in your world is perpetually cloudy and threatening rain. You're the quintessential nabob of negativity in all things. Chicken Little is an optimist compared to you.

Aside from that, if I had a nickle for every time the WSJ has been dead wrong about something, particularly about economics, I'd have more than enough nickles to turn in for a fistful of hundred dollar bills. For example, for quite some time now, the WSJ has been predicting that interest rates on US borrowing costs would go WAY up unless deficits were reduced. Interest rates have actually declined even as overall debt has gone up.

California has a dynamic and diverse economy with a vibrant technology sector and one of the largest agriculturally productive areas in the whole world. It's also one of the largest economies in the world. It would rank number 8 if it was a country.

Greece doesn't fare so well. I just looked it up, and Greece ranks number 39 out of 43 in the European region.

Greece Economy: Facts, Data, & Analysis on Economic Freedom

 

[Uncensored2008]

The sky in your world is perpetually cloudy and threatening rain. You're the quintessential nabob of negativity in all things. Chicken Little is an optimist compared to you.

I see.

So the California economy is great, Gov. Walker was recalled, and Barack Obama is competent...

Well, not so much.

Here is the extreme left acknowledging that California is not only bankrupt, but sliding into the abyss.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31923599

Aside from that, if I had a nickle for every time the WSJ has been dead wrong about something, particularly about economics, I'd have more than enough nickles to turn in for a fistful of hundred dollar bills. For example, for quite some time now, the WSJ has been predicting that interest rates on US borrowing costs would go WAY up unless deficits were reduced. Interest have actually declined even as overall debt has gone up.

California has a dynamic and diverse economy with a vibrant technology sector and one of the largest agriculturally productive areas in the whole world. It's also one of the largest economies in the world. It would rank number 8 if it was a country.

10 years ago, California had the 7th largest economy in the world. Today it's 11th and Texas will replace California as the largest state economy within 5 years. It's true that the Texas economy is growing rapidly, but more that that, the economy of California is crumbling under the insanity of Jerry Brown and the idiot socialists. While the state actively purges business, it replaces the loss with illegal aliens. democrats see this as a winning strategy, because it keeps them in office. But the state is in flames and falling fast. The budget is created to serve the public employees, particularly the prison guards.

Greece doesn't fare so well. I just looked it up, and Greece ranks number 39 out of 43 in the European region.

California and Greece are siamese twins.

 

[Foxfyre]

It was not all that long ago that Californians were among the nation's most prosperous. In the latest CNN analysis, Californians didn't make the top ten and are slipping.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was not all that long ago that Californians were among the nation's most prosperous. In the latest CNN analysis, Californians didn't make the top ten and are slipping.

SEIU and the other public parasites set off a nuclear blast known as Jerry Brown, which has utterly destroyed the state. The parasites are still feeding off the carcase, but the once great state is dead.

 

[Foxfyre]

It was not all that long ago that Californians were among the nation's most prosperous. In the latest CNN analysis, Californians didn't make the top ten and are slipping.

SEIU and the other public parasites set off a nuclear blast known as Jerry Brown, which has utterly destroyed the state. The parasites are still feeding off the carcase, but the once great state is dead.

I am the eternal optimist, remember? I don't believe anything is hopeless. Maybe there are still enough Californians with a clue who will be willing to elect a Scott Walker or some such along with enough non-liberals in the legislature to allow him or her to put some reforms in place. Break the back of the SEIU and whatever other public unions are burying you and you have a shot. Start rolling back some of the more onerous regulations and taxes and create a more business friendly environment, and the good jobs will start coming back. It won't happen over night any more than it has happened in Wisconsin. You didn't get into the mess California is in overnight.

But I can't believe there is nothing that can't be fixed if the people have the will to do it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am the eternal optimist, remember? I don't believe anything is hopeless. Maybe there are still enough Californians with a clue who will be willing to elect a Scott Walker or some such along with enough non-liberals in the legislature to allow him or her to put some reforms in place. Break the back of the SEIU and whatever other public unions are burying you and you have a shot. Start rolling back some of the more onerous regulations and taxes and create a more business friendly environment, and the good jobs will start coming back. It won't happen over night any more than it has happened in Wisconsin. You didn't get into the mess California is in overnight.

But I can't believe there is nothing that can't be fixed if the people have the will to do it.

There aren't, though.

The state is becoming Mexico, corrupt and brutal. It is failed welfare state with everyone productive fleeing. I don't see any hope for my beloved state.

 

[Mustang]

The sky in your world is perpetually cloudy and threatening rain. You're the quintessential nabob of negativity in all things. Chicken Little is an optimist compared to you.

I see.

So the California economy is great, Gov. Walker was recalled, and Barack Obama is competent...

Well, not so much.

Here is the extreme left acknowledging that California is not only bankrupt, but sliding into the abyss.

News Headlines

Aside from that, if I had a nickle for every time the WSJ has been dead wrong about something, particularly about economics, I'd have more than enough nickles to turn in for a fistful of hundred dollar bills. For example, for quite some time now, the WSJ has been predicting that interest rates on US borrowing costs would go WAY up unless deficits were reduced. Interest have actually declined even as overall debt has gone up.

California has a dynamic and diverse economy with a vibrant technology sector and one of the largest agriculturally productive areas in the whole world. It's also one of the largest economies in the world. It would rank number 8 if it was a country.

10 years ago, California had the 7th largest economy in the world. Today it's 11th and Texas will replace California as the largest state economy within 5 years. It's true that the Texas economy is growing rapidly, but more that that, the economy of California is crumbling under the insanity of Jerry Brown and the idiot socialists. While the state actively purges business, it replaces the loss with illegal aliens. democrats see this as a winning strategy, because it keeps them in office. But the state is in flames and falling fast. The budget is created to serve the public employees, particularly the prison guards.

Greece doesn't fare so well. I just looked it up, and Greece ranks number 39 out of 43 in the European region.

California and Greece are siamese twins.

You need a lesson in fundamental Econ 101

In case you hadn't noticed, the economy slipped into a recession in 2007, and despite the fact that the recession is technically over, growth is anemic because (drumroll please) demand is down. The fact that demand is down is the reason for the following:

1. Businesses are not hiring.

If they had customers, they would be hiring.

2. Tax receipts (both sales tax, and state and federal income tax) are down.

That's a natural occurrence of reduced private sector spending.

3. Gov't expenditures are up.

That's ANOTHER natural occurrence of reduced private sector employment.

Consequently, Obama isn't some profligate spender as conservatives like to portray him since the increase in the deficit are the short term results of #2 and #3.

At the same time, America and American workers are competing with emerging economies. Hell, we put the ball in motion when our gov't (both Republicans and Democrats) embraced globalism. And our corporations LOVED the cheap labor. Apparently (and not surprisingly), corporations don't feel any sense of patriotism. They just care about profit maximization.

Those emerging economies like China and India actually have the nerve to want cars instead of bicycles. So, they're now competing for oil on the world market. Hence the high gas prices. No president can control that.

My guess is that Americans are likely going to have to eventually accept a falling standard of living, not because of Obama, but because of globalization, and because people like private equity managers (Mitt Romney comes to mind, to be quite frank) who are, and always have been, driven by the profit motive and not the national interest.

And the Republican House is doing what to address the problem? They're doing pretty much nada because they care more about regaining power than helping the American people. It's sad really. They're SO worried that if they do anything to help the economy recover, they'll won't retake the reins of power. So, they've essentially made their choice. Their personal and professional interest trump the nation's interest. This is probably the greatest single textbook case where pay should be tied to performance. THEN they would get off their collective asses.

But Republicans have reasons to be happy. They've got lackeys like you. You guys just go out and repeat their nonsensical talking points in order to paint a picture that just so happens to serve their interests despite the fact that it's not economically valid.

You want to see the American (and the world) economy REALLY tank? Put some ideologically-driven people in power who embrace the nonsensical notion that all our economy needs in order to recover is to cut gov't spending to the bone at a time when private sector spending is already depressed. What they hell, cut taxes too. Do you know what will happen next? The economy will contract BIG time, tax receipts will fall even further, and the future deficit and debt will make today's numbers look like the good ol' days.

And, aside from all the human suffering that these ideologically-driven policies will create, the saddest thing may be the fact that they won't even acknowledge they were at fault for pushing these policies, just like they refuse to this day to take responsibility for all the havoc that was wrought on our economy by the financial deregulation pushed by the right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am the eternal optimist, remember? I don't believe anything is hopeless. Maybe there are still enough Californians with a clue who will be willing to elect a Scott Walker or some such along with enough non-liberals in the legislature to allow him or her to put some reforms in place. Break the back of the SEIU and whatever other public unions are burying you and you have a shot. Start rolling back some of the more onerous regulations and taxes and create a more business friendly environment, and the good jobs will start coming back. It won't happen over night any more than it has happened in Wisconsin. You didn't get into the mess California is in overnight.

But I can't believe there is nothing that can't be fixed if the people have the will to do it.

There aren't, though.

The state is becoming Mexico, corrupt and brutal. It is failed welfare state with everyone productive fleeing. I don't see any hope for my beloved state.

I know it isn't funny--it is actually heartbreaking--but that does explain why you didn't object to giving California to Liberalland in the divorce thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know it isn't funny--it is actually heartbreaking--but that does explain why you didn't object to giving California to Liberalland in the divorce thread.

The sad thing is that California already IS Liberalland.

 

[Mustang]

So far as I know, no Tea Party group is giving the OWS any thought at all. The groups are totally unrelated and there is no comparison or connection between the two. The purpose of the Tea Party is to build up and restore. The purpose of the OWS seems to be to tear down and destroy.

Again individual Tea Partiers will have as many different opinions and convictions on social issues as you will find across the country. For instance there will likely be as many pro choicers as pro lifers at any given Tea Party rally. You also will find a good mix of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats at any given Tea Party rally though Democrats will likely be in the minority as the Democratric Party promotes the opposite of Tea Party goals.

Remember the thesis of this thread is the current Administration's continued efforts to demonize, accuse, and blame the Tea Party as their current target as they are running out of steam blaming and accusing others.

The Tea Party is absolutely not an offshoot of the GOP. The GOP has fallen all over itself to court approval from the Tea Party though and the Tea Party chose to attempt to reform the GOP rather than form a third party.

It is beginning to pay off too based on Joe Biden's comments.

The ONLY focus of the Tea Party is smaller, more efficient, more effective government, fiscal sanity and responsibility, and a return to our Constitutional roots promoting individual liberties. In my opinion, those trying to make the Tea Party movement into something else are those who despise those Tea Party goals.

Agreed. As to the GOP? Wasn't it John McCain that called the TEA Party 'Hobbits' during the Debt Ceiling debate?

The elitists [RINOS] within the GOP are having a very tough time accepting them in thier midsts. I wonder why?

Yes, the old guard Republicans don't like the Tea Party any more than the Democrats do. And that is because the old guard Republicans are largely Democrat light and, like mos tof the Democrats, are in it to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and fortunes rather than any motive to be competent public servants. They're interested in what looks good and makes good press, not in solving problems.

The Tea Party is doing its damndest to put people into power who are public servants and who do want reform and to restore America to its former greatness.

Then they damn well better develop a working knowledge of economics (knowledge of how economics actually works in the real world) as opposed to embracing an ideological-driven theory about how they think economics should work. Otherwise, they're going to do some serious damage to the economy by embracing austerity.

And how could that happen you might wonder. It's actually not complicated if you know something about economics. Our economy now suffers from reduced demand. That's another way of saying reduced spending. So, to cut gov't spending at a time of reduced private sector spending only serves to contract aggregate spending even further. That additional decrease in overall spending (regardless of its source) results in a drop of overall income which FURTHER reduces private sector household spending as people cut back even further. It's a downward spiral. But that's not the worst of it. It's quite possible that in an effort to decrease the national debt too soon (prior to an economic expansion) the debt as a percentage of GDP could rise. What that means in laymen's terms is that attempts to focus in on cutting the debt at the wrong time could very well create a greater debt to GDP ratio than we have now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You need a lesson in fundamental Econ 101

ROFL;

Izzatrite? This should be fun...

In case you hadn't noticed, the economy slipped into a recession in 2007, and despite the fact that the recession is technically over, growth is anemic because (drumroll please) demand is down. The fact that demand is down is the reason for the following:

Wait a minute, Obama claimed that if we borrowed a trillion dollars, he could get the economy pumping again. So why, given your expertise in economics, did Obama's application of Keynesian theory not work?

1. Businesses are not hiring.

That's rather unusual. In economic downturns of the past, 5 year recessions are unheard of. In fact, the last time a recession stretched out this long was also the last time Keynesian stimulus was employed...

If they had customers, they would be hiring.

Did you come up with that by yourself, or did you get some help from common dreams. Funny thing, they built a new loan sharking, er I mean, check cashing and payday loan place down the street. And they were hiring people, but the place hadn't opened, ergo there were no customers at all. So how could they hire with no customers? You know, based on your brilliant grasp of business economics?

Standard Disclaimer: Illegal immigration centers and payday loan sharking are the only new businesses opening in the peoples Republic of California.

2. Tax receipts (both sales tax, and state and federal income tax) are down.

So, your claim is total tax receipts for 2011 are less than 2007?

That's a natural occurrence of reduced private sector spending.

Isn't most infrastructure spending, i.e. capital investment, tax deferred or exempt? If I buy capital equipment, can't I depreciate it to alter the tax structure based on the estimate life of the fixed asset?

Are you sure you have any idea what you're talking about?

3. Gov't expenditures are up.

And what a brilliant move by Obama. Since income has dropped, the only thing for an economic genius, one who passed econ 101, to do is sharply increase expenditures.

Barack sure is smart...

That's ANOTHER natural occurrence of reduced private sector employment.

Actually, that is an occurrence of increased public sector employment. Under Obama, SHARPLY increased public sector employment.

Consequently, Obama isn't some profligate spender as conservatives like to portray him since the increase in the deficit are the short term results of #2 and #3.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You Obamabots tried those lies already, only to be shot down.

Obama spent 24.1% of GDP in 2011, a record amount in U.S. history. Dubya hit 23.1% Obama way outspent.

At the same time, America and American workers are competing with emerging economies.

Well that's brand new, prior to Jan. 20, 2009 there was not one item made in China - everything was domestically produced...

ROFL

Hell, we put the ball in motion when our gov't (both Republicans and Democrats) embraced globalism.

Oh, about 1945 then?

And our corporations LOVED the cheap labor. Apparently (and not surprisingly), corporations don't feel any sense of patriotism. They just care about profit maximization.

Unlike Dear Leader, who only cares about Americans...

{Every nation thinks highly of itself, it seems, and America should get over the idea that it is anything special.}

Barack Uber-fuckup Obama.

Those emerging economies like China and India actually have the nerve to want cars instead of bicycles. So, they're now competing for oil on the world market. Hence the high gas prices. No president can control that.

Is THAT why there are high gas prices? Is that your final answer?

My guess is that Americans are likely going to have to eventually accept a falling standard of living, not because of Obama, but because of globalization, and because people like private equity managers (Mitt Romney comes to mind, to be quite frank) who are, and always have been, driven by the profit motive and not the national interest.

Your guess is a poor one, but you don't have any understanding of why.

And the Republican House is doing what to address the problem? They're doing pretty much nada because they care more about regaining power than helping the American people.

The most effective way to help the American people is to keep Obama from causing more damage.

It's sad really. They're SO worried that if they do anything to help the economy recover, they'll won't retake the reins of power. So, they've essentially made their choice. Their personal and professional interest trump the nation's interest. This is probably the greatest single textbook case where pay should be tied to performance. THEN they would get off their collective asses.

If pay were tied to performance, Obama would be writing us a check.

But Republicans have reasons to be happy. They've got lackeys like you. You guys just go out and repeat their nonsensical talking points in order to paint a picture that just so happens to serve their interests despite the fact that it's not economically valid.

So, my opposition to Obama means I am a lackey of the Republicans, then?

You want to see the American (and the world) economy REALLY tank? Put some ideologically-driven people in power who embrace the nonsensical notion that all our economy needs in order to recover is to cut gov't spending to the bone at a time when private sector spending is already depressed. What they hell, cut taxes too.

I've just seen the worst recovery in 40 years based on the idea that a trillion dollars could be siphoned from the public treasury and given to public employee unions and the UAW.

Do you know what will happen next? The economy will contract BIG time, tax receipts will fall even further, and the future deficit and debt will make today's numbers look like the good ol' days.

That appears to be the goal of Obama and the socialist radicals of the DNC.

And, aside from all the human suffering that these ideologically-driven policies will create, the saddest thing may be the fact that they won't even acknowledge they were at fault for pushing these policies, just like they refuse to this day to take responsibility for all the havoc that was wrought on our economy by the financial deregulation pushed by the right.

The way you acknowledge the disaster Obama has created?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then they damn well better develop a working knowledge of
economics

Wouldn't it be better if you developed a working knowledge first? Because son, you aren't going to be passing and econ 101 class.

(knowledge of how economics actually works in the real world) as opposed to embracing an ideological-driven theory about how they think economics should work. Otherwise, they're going to do some serious damage to the economy by embracing austerity.

LOL

Unabated raiding of the public treasury by well connected looters supported with massive deficits is your idea of a sound economic policy?

And how could that happen you might wonder. It's actually not complicated if you know something about economics.

Then it must be terribly complicated to you...

Our economy now suffers from reduced demand.

Ah yes, you read a Krugman column once and now think you are qualified to pontificate on macro economic systems.

To be kind, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You are tossing out buzz words that you believe support your party.

Tell me this sparky, how much demand was there for the iPhone in 2005? None? Because there WAS NO iPhone?

So then, based on your lack of grasp of the words of that fraud Krugman distorting Keynes, how in the FUCK did the iPhone come to exist? Didn't there have to be demand, so that Apple would make iPhones to meet it?

Because you have never had an introductory course in economics, you've never heard of Says law. But the fact is, that demand for the iPhone was create by the supply of iPhones. Jobs and co created product, people saw the product and desired the benefit of that product. It was the supply that created the demand, no amount of demand can create a supply.

Or try it the other way around. In 1970 in Cambodia, 3 million people starved to death. These people desired food, they demanded food, yet the demand resulted in no supply at all. Because demand cannot and does not create supply - supply creates demand.

That's another way of saying reduced spending. So, to cut gov't spending at a time of reduced private sector spending only serves to contract aggregate spending even further.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you perhaps mean "aggregate demand?" Yet another term you've heard, but have no clue what is the actual meaning of...

That additional decrease in overall spending (regardless of its source) results in a drop of overall income which FURTHER reduces private sector household spending as people cut back even further. It's a downward spiral. But that's not the worst of it. It's quite possible that in an effort to decrease the national debt too soon (prior to an economic expansion) the debt as a percentage of GDP could rise. What that means in laymen's terms is that attempts to focus in on cutting the debt at the wrong time could very well create a greater debt to GDP ratio than we have now.

Wow dude, you are completely clueless.

I am a Rothbardian - but even from a purely Keynesian perspective, you are utterly clueless. You have no idea what you're babbling about.