[taligent]

Sorry but what a load of rubbish.

It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending. All it does is hamper growth which results in less tax income.

I have no idea why the US debt is being touted about as being the number one priority when surely increasing growth rates and reducing unemployment are key.

[gaius]

You're referring to Keynes - who also said, in the good years, pay down your debt. You can't borrow your way out of debt (well, I suppose you could if you have a negative interest rate). All you can do is debase your currency. Which the US has been able to do to date, but the instant OPEC decides to trade in EUR instead, they're toast.

[protomyth]

"It has been clearly demonstrated time and time again that in periods of depression you DO NOT dramatically cut government spending."

That is the Keynesian point of view, but it has counter examples. The difference between three points in history 1920, 1929, and 1945-46 show a different story. Herbert Hoover was a Keynesian and made the increase spending decision in 1929 as opposed to the tactic that worked while he was Sec of Commerce under Harding. Harding didn't pull the spending panic despite Hoover's recommendation. 1945-47 is even more interesting in that Congress didn't let Truman continue the massive WWII spending into civilian government programs. Taxes and spending were cut drastically which finally led to a booming economy and an end to the shortages and rationing. So, I would say the case for the Keynesians is not as clear cut. The 19th century also has some good examples.

gains pretty much explained why debt is bad.

[greedo]

Because the odds of the US growing its way out of a staggering burden of debt are roughly the same as winning the lottery.

[abalashov]

The problem is that when times are good, nobody wants to cut government spending, dramatically or otherwise.

[twoodfin]

Newt and Bill did it in '95-'98.