Would You Rather Be Shot or Hanged?

Assuming nominal GDP growth of 2% per year and inflation of about 2% a year, which of the following would be better:

  1. Federal deficit spending of 2% of GDP per year for the foreseeable future
  2. Federal deficit spending of 5% of GDP per year for the foreseeable future
  3. A balanced federal budget, i.e. no deficit spending, until growth picks up
  4. Federal deficit spending in excess of 5% of GDP per until growth picks up
  5. There’s no way to tell
  6. None of the above

The first is the CBO baseline projection, i.e. what would happen if we go over the “fiscal cliff”. The second is the CBO “alternative fiscal projection”, i.e. what would happen if President Obama’s proposals are adopted in full.

Over at Forbes there’s one take on the question.

13 comments… add one
  • c, a, b, d

    I left off ‘e’ although it is probably the best answer as well as ‘f’ since people are going to demand some sort of policy even given that ‘e’ is most likely true.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I believe the gist of the linked analysis is someone is assuming nominal GDP growth of far more than 2% per year.

    I’d rather swing on a star.

  • PD Shaw Link

    My personal preference is probably somewhere btw/ c and d. I think the state of the economy necessitates some special government services such as unemployment, even if it requires defecit spending. (One could argue that such services could be funded from cuts elsewhere, but my stated priority would be to fund programs such as unemployment over balancing the budget)

    I also think the defecit is a long-term problem and we will probably do a better job of dealing with it as such, with triggers to be applied when some objective measure is reached (such as, two quarters with over x% growth)

  • jan Link

    “Obama based his re-election campaign on “the rich should pay their fair share” and “I killed Osama.” Well before the election, it was clear from the government’s own figures that taxing the top two percent would make only a tiny contribution to solving our deficit problems.

    Why was this not pointed out by the media, who played along with the “tax the rich” fairy tale? Why was this not the central theme of the Republican campaign?”

    Why indeed?

    Answer: because the media has forged an undying support for a democratic president. Therefore, their reporting, whether it’s investigative or simply tackling the facts, is mired down in their own political ‘terms of ideological endearment’ and personal endorsements. This is why Benghazi has gone under the guide wire, and is rapidly disappearing from the public eye, day by the day — even though 4 people needlessly died at the hands of an irresponsible and politically charged environment, currently presiding at the top of the WH food chain.

    As for the meme of the “the rich paying their fair share,” it is part of the economical equation of the left which makes no mathematical sense. If 60 billion/yr is achieved by the top 2% being taxed even higher, that means this will only cover 20 days of borrowing, @ the rate of a 3 billion dollar daily rate figure. How is that going to make even a dent in the deficit!

    Furthermore, when the president talks about “fair share,” it registers as a lie when looking at how the real tax fractions break down for the rich versus other class categories. The top 1% pays 39% of all federal income tax, while making only 13% of the income. This is virtually three times their fair share of taxation. The middle 20% of income earners, though, pay only 2.7% of all federal income tax, while earning 15% of all income. Then there is the lower 40% who pays no federal income tax, but garners 10% of paid cash by the IRA as a group.

    We are living an economic Pozi scheme at best — where only superficial, sensationalized scapegoats are being highlighted to attack and tax, while serious reform for the major weaknesses in our economy are being ignored, such as almost everything — from medicare/medicaid, SS, bloated pensions, under-performing educational models, and so on infinitum!

  • Personally, I’d rather kick your ass in cowgirl boots.

    Let’s do some bull-riding and see what comes up.

  • I ain’t wore them red boots in weeks!

  • Y’all are reiterating the same damn crap that the columnists are saying.

    Everybody here is smarter than that. I know. I’ve been hanging out here for what, four, six years?

    I know Michael’s girl was nine.

  • The media, media, media, jan. That’s crap. The Republican party went virtually holistically after women during this last election cycle.

    I’m 55 years old, and have never seen anything like it. What the fuck was that? A bat out of hell?

  • If you’re real spare with the dime, Durango makes some nice boots for about $80. Boots my dress shoes now, unless I’m doing the Tango.

  • I say we send all the Republicans to a New Year’s party with John Tower. Google it.

    The n we send all all the Democrats out to Southern california, to hobnob with Streisand and Gore. Al.

  • steve Link

    “This is why Benghazi has gone under the guide wire, and is rapidly disappearing from the public eye, day by the day ”

    Read the whole Benghazi report. I did. That is why the GOP politicians stopped talking about it.

    “As for the meme of the “the rich paying their fair share,” it is part of the economical equation of the left which makes no mathematical sense.”

    It actually comes out to about a trillion dollars over ten years. A lot of money. More than we get from extending Medicare age until 67.


  • Honestly, steve, what kinds of choices were those?

  • jan Link


    The official Benghazi report was somewhat muddled and vague. Republicans were not particularly happy with it, saying there are many more questions than there are answers to what went on there. The generic biggie in that report was that there were systemic problems relating to Benghazi, without really naming what they were.

    Still unanswered are why there was no State Department response to the multiple attacks that went on before the main event at Benghazi? The British pulled their people out. The Red Cross left. Our action was to decrease security. Why? Who waived the normal structural security to the Benghazi building, which is usually afforded these compounds? Who changed Susan’ Rice’s talking points? Who instructed her to give false information? Why was Gen. Carter Ham relieved of his duty in N. Africa, when he wanted to help the people under attack? Where is the photo op of the situation room, where aids have already said the Benghazi attack was being watched in real time by the WH? When the mission to kill OBL went well, and helped fluff the prez’s reputation, such a picture was immediately streamed, along with vivid info on what happened in that compound. Why have explanations for this botched affair not been voluntarily released in the same kind of time frame as the OBL one?

    President Obama stated he gave an order to do all that was possible to help those in trouble at Benghazi. Where is a copy of that order, and why wasn’t it followed? Also, why hasn’t there been more info on Al Queda reconstituting itself, rather than being “on it’s heels and running” as was said by the president during his quest for reelection? Were we all being conned?

    The GOP has been frustrated because the MSM totally fell down on it’s job in order to seemingly protect their president of choice from having to honestly answer hard questions, dealing with 4 deaths. Consequently, the public has been both misinformed and uninformed, and have been deliberately left out of the loop as to having an unbiased view of the Benghazi tragedy.

    Much like the F & F debacle, the public seems to only get involved and excited when the MSM feeds them the news they want them to hear. When such news is ignored, then the incident is automatically sterilized as to any errors and misteps taken, and shelved as ‘over and done with it.’

    Raising taxes on the 1%, in the upper income bracket, has been estimated to be 60 billion dollars a year. I’ve also heard other projections to be nearer 90 billion, which fits into your trillion dollars quote, over a 10 year period. But, when you break that down to the 3 billion a day we pay on low interest loans, it doesn’t go very far in addressing the overall looming debt that is daily growing, with no structural attention being given to address lowering it.

    Furthermore, it doesn’t take into consideration the unintended consequences of lower revenues coming in from raising taxes, which usually happens. Just look at the chaos France is dealing with regarding their enormous financial tax hit on the wealthy? Why don’t you think that the same thing wouldn’t happen here? Google has already become a ‘good’ capitalist, according to Eric, Schmidt, by parking almost 10 billion in Bermuda, cutting their income tax in half. And, as I posted another time, Warren Buffet is fighting tooth and nail not to pay the billion his company owes in back taxes dating back to 2002. However, both of these moguls support taxing the so-called rich — usually, though it’s the ‘rich,’ who don’t have the means or lawyers available to shuffle assets elsewhere, who ends up shouldering the burden of these socially engineered class warfare policies.

Leave a Comment