[SeekAndFind]

As I see it, Congress only has the following options:

1. Increase Spending, Increase Taxes

2. Increase Spending, Lower Taxes

3. Decrease Spending, Increase Taxes

4. Decrease Spending, Lower Taxes

Democrats REALLY want #1, but can't do it with this current Congress.

Republicans REALLY want #4 but can't do it with this Senate and President.

That leaves us with $2 or #3. I think the end result would be a compromise -- #3.

But I am willing to bet the END RESULT will be #1 anyway.

Reagan and Papa Bush both agreed to packages similar to #3. The end result was they both got taken for a ride. SPENDING NEVER DECREASED and all we had left was Papa Bush breaking his "Read my lips" pledge.

[muir_redwoods]

There’s another, very scary option. Massive borrowing followed by massive inflation producing vastly cheaper dollars to repay the loans. Prices soar, savings and some/most investments are destroyed and huge numbers of people become even more dependent upon government; a democrats dream.

[DuncanWaring]

It’s not possible to extract significantly more tax revenue from the US economy.

Cutting spending will actually decrease tax revenue.

But, cutting spending significantly is absolutely necessary, lest we replay the Weimar Republic.

There is no way out of this that does not involve much unpleasantness.

The best we can hope for at this point is a decade of economic agony.

[KarlInOhio]

The always popular suckers' deal with the Democrats. Do what they want now in order to do what we want later. Raise taxes now and cut spending... later. Grant amnesty now and guard the border... later. Let the Democrats steal an election now and investigate the election process ... later.

Later just never seems to arrive.

[MortMan]

I find it interesting that the answer for a government and for an individual, when given by the same liberal person, are exact opposites.

They say people should live within their means, but not the government.

Economic illiteracy must be a prerequisite for liberals.

[econjack]

It's pretty simple, actually. The gov't expenditures multiplier is equal to b / (1 - b) where b is the marginal propensity to consume. To simplify, if people spend 90% of their income, the gov't multiplier is 9. The private sector's multiplier is 1 / (1 - b), or 10. Therefore, every dollar you tax away from the private sector and spend in the public sector has a smaller growth impact on the economy. Likewise, every dollar in tax cuts actually stimulates the economy more than if that income is taxed away from the consumer. The result is: The economy grows faster with lower taxes and less gov't spending.

The MSM and the general public don't understand the multiplier effect, nor do they grasp the concepts behind the Laffer Curve. If they did, the public would be screaming for reduced spending and tax cuts. Both will actually growth the system faster.

[all the best]

What we need is to cut GOVERNMENT.

[Skepolitic]

Easy: CUT SPENDING ... NOW.

[Dead Corpse]

Federal spending is propping up a lot of industry segments right now. Pull the tax payer funding and they'll crash.

This is not a bad thing. Those corrections are LONG overdue.

We'll be stronger and the currency worth something again if we cut the size and scope of the FedGov. And we need to do it drastically and NOW.