Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1039967" data-attributes="member: 2189">But in the last 10 years many people ran their household finances in the same way (spending more than taking in and financing the difference) and we decried that and it&#039;s outcome.&nbsp; So why then does it become OK when gov&#039;t does it?And to be honest, I find your defense being useful in full support of what Roadrunner&#039;s point was.this was in reply to my point <a href="http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f13/biden-tology-184707/index2.html#post1039706" target="_blank">here</a> and Road&#039;s earlier point <a href="http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f13/biden-tology-184707/index2.html#post1039675" target="_blank">here</a>.If you are going to defend a reduction in spending as a % of total spending then why is a % reduction in deficit not defended as being fiscally responsible?&nbsp; This is where both parties pick and choose positive outcomes while ignoring the facts on the ground that it all gets worse.&nbsp; I&#039;m also surprised (or maybe not) the defense by so many that in the case of the Reagan era that to achieve the control of stagflation and unemployment that this would require a direct intervention in the marketplace by gov&#039;t with a central planning model built to derive a specific outcome.&nbsp; How do you achieve a smaller limited state by increasing gov&#039;t interventions regardless of outcomes?&nbsp; How are these economic planning models any different from the 10 year plans we use to hear of coming out of the old Soviet Union?&nbsp; Could it be no different and we just call them budgets?&nbsp;&nbsp; Hmmmm!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1039967, member: 2189"] But in the last 10 years many people ran their household finances in the same way (spending more than taking in and financing the difference) and we decried that and it's outcome. So why then does it become OK when gov't does it? And to be honest, I find your defense being useful in full support of what Roadrunner's point was. this was in reply to my point [URL="http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f13/biden-tology-184707/index2.html#post1039706"][COLOR=#ff0000]here[/COLOR][/URL] and Road's earlier point [URL="http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f13/biden-tology-184707/index2.html#post1039675"][COLOR=#ff0000]here[/COLOR][/URL]. If you are going to defend a reduction in spending as a % of total spending then why is a % reduction in deficit not defended as being fiscally responsible? This is where both parties pick and choose positive outcomes while ignoring the facts on the ground that it all gets worse. I'm also surprised (or maybe not) the defense by so many that in the case of the Reagan era that to achieve the control of stagflation and unemployment that this would require a direct intervention in the marketplace by gov't with a central planning model built to derive a specific outcome. How do you achieve a smaller limited state by increasing gov't interventions regardless of outcomes? How are these economic planning models any different from the 10 year plans we use to hear of coming out of the old Soviet Union? Could it be no different and we just call them budgets? Hmmmm! [/QUOTE]

Verification