TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10430151.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Leaders at the G20 summit in Canada have reached agreement on a deal to cut national budget deficits without stunting economic growth.

Summit host Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the group's richest members should halve their deficits within three years.

Notice he didn't say halve their national debt. Cutting the annual deficit in half means we're still going deeper into debt, but at half the speed.

I suppose that makes sense. I keep hearing people say Obama is a half fast President.

One news report said that Obama administration felt that other
nations were more concerned with deficit reduction than stimulating
their economies.

It sounds to me like the other countries are putting the correct priority first since
the cycle of increasing government spending needs to be stifled.

Did you ever notice that an economy is never to be left to grow naturally, but always
must be stimulated in some fashion (which usually has some serious consquences)?

SIA

jester wrote: I keep hearing people say Obama is a half fast President.

jester wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10430151.stm

Leaders at the G20 summit in Canada have reached agreement on a deal to cut national budget deficits without stunting economic growth.

Summit host Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the group's richest members should halve their deficits within three years.

Notice he didn't say halve their national debt. Cutting the annual deficit in half means we're still going deeper into debt, but at half the speed.

I suppose that makes sense. I keep hearing people say Obama is a half fast President.

I don't understand your issue. Halving the deficit is one step closer to eliminating the deficit, which is a step closer to eliminating the national debt. You have to start somewhere, and, if I'm not mistaken, you don't walk a hundred miles in one step.

Actually... it'd be really easy to stop the whole deficit... you make everyone pay with cash, if you don't have the cash, you don't get to spend it. Problem solved.

Heh, but seriously, I almost fell off my chair laughing at the movie theater while watching the new A-Team movie. "Oh no! They have plates with which they can make counterfeit money! There's nothing to stop them from printing up tons of unbacked cash!"

What's the Federal Reserve been doing for the last several decades?

Quick! Call the A-Team! (Van modified to be more "green" )

Well, slowing down the death spiral is a start...



The problem with "stimulus" is that the government creates no value. Anything it has is taken from someone else. Therefore, when the government taxes/inflates/borrows and spends it is taking capital from those that are productive and transfers it to those that are not (individuals or businesses). Welfare takes money from people who work to create wealth (wealth as in things that have value - goods and services that people want) and gives it to those who create nothing. Bailouts take money from those business that are producing things that people want, things of value, and gives it to businesses that make things that people do not want. This is a destruction of wealth, literally a regression of civilization.

It is refreshing to see the Europeans starting to figure this out, which is not unheard of since they are usually a couple of generations ahead of us in societal trends. Hopefully we will learn from their mistakes.

dcphoto wrote:
I don't understand your issue. Halving the deficit is one step closer to eliminating the deficit, which is a step closer to eliminating the national debt. You have to start somewhere, and, if I'm not mistaken, you don't walk a hundred miles in one step.

Study this for a few mins and then restate your point. I don't disagree that half is better in this case but a better solution is to live within one's means. I believe they call that "pay go", which hasn't been followed. We have Gov spending that is out of control and growing by the minute. Bigger Govt isn't the answer.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Balance the budget or go home.

Quahog wrote:

dcphoto wrote:
I don't understand your issue. Halving the deficit is one step closer to eliminating the deficit, which is a step closer to eliminating the national debt. You have to start somewhere, and, if I'm not mistaken, you don't walk a hundred miles in one step.

Study this for a few mins and then restate your point. I don't disagree that half is better in this case but a better solution is to live within one's means. I believe they call that "pay go", which hasn't been followed. We have Gov spending that is out of control and growing by the minute. Bigger Govt isn't the answer.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

My point remains unchanged. Living within one's means is important, but becoming able to live within one's means is a long hard road. Not to mention, if you suddenly reduced government spending enough to eliminate the deficit there would be a deleterious effect on the economy. Changes such as these (no matter how badly needed) have to come at a reasonable pace, otherwise you risk falling deeper into the hole. Let's start with half, and keep the deficit at that level for a little while. Then halve it again, and again, and again, until you can eliminate it. Then you can start thinking about reducing debt.

If you continue to cut the deficit in half you will never reach 0... it's a math joke, but true.

I still think that rewarding government entities with bigger budgets if they spend all their previous year's money is a great way to ensure that they will need a bigger budget next year too.

Actually, I meant keep cutting it in half until the number is small enough to eliminate, not keep halving it ad nauseum. I agree about budgets too.