Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Originally Posted by GunGeek
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
No, Rush is right. Keynes prescribed, during economic slumps, for governments to spend more in order to stimulate the economy, which requires a flexible currency, i.e., the ability to bring money into existence (i.e., increase the money supply by manipulating interest rates and borrowing). Once the slump has recovered, however, Keynes prescribed contracting the currency and paying off debt. Unfortunately, he didn't account for human nature (as he didn't understand human nature), i.e., politicians will never be willing to contract currency and pay off debt, because 1) they fear "rocking the economic boat," and 2) they don't want to cut back on supplying their constituents with the goodies. So what you get, where the rubber meets the road, with Keynesian economics is perpetual inflation and perpetually increasing spending and debt.
I guess you missed the 90's??
Did they cut back on spending in the 90s?
There were some cuts to curtail the growth of government, but no president (that I'm aware of)has actually shrunk the size of the government, or spent less than he did the previous year. There have been two balanced budgets in my lifetime, one under Kennedy and one under Clinton. But we did actually eliminate the deficit in the 90's and paid down a good deal of debt.

No president or congress will ever actually shrink the size of government.