President Obama said during Tuesday comments on the federal budget that his goal was to fix the economy — not balance revenues with expenditures.
“My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance,” he said to ABC News. “My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue.”
I've always thought that "a balanced buget for the sake of balance" is a worthy goal in and of itself. Furthermore, such an astonishing display of fiscal responsibility might so move the private sector that the economy would flourish and Obama would get that "more revenue" he seeks.
Comments
Part of the problam is that politicians don't understand movey is fictional. We don't need a balanced budget. There is no reason for the federal government to have taxes at all, except to encourage/discourage certain behavior.
But we need to gain control over our money supply. Tell banks that they have ten years, that after that, they can only lend the money they have. (That is, a 100% reserve requirement.) We need to stop selling treasury bonds to finance the national debt; we simply print the money we need.
New money needs to be issued all the time, anyway. In order to prevent a recession, new money has to equal investment in capital goods. The problem is thay we don't control the money supply, the banksters do.
What would you do if you paid no federal taxes? You'd either spend it - which keeps our factories at full employment - or else you'd save it, which gives the banks money to lend.
Wild expansions of the money supply would be disasterous - but that's just another reason to take it out of the hands of the banksters. Depressions occur when there isn't enough money to nuy all we can produce. Is there any benefit to factories sitting idle? Not that I can see. If there's a surplus of gimjaws, some of the gimjaw factories will retool to make gadgets, but that happens anyway.