HomeArticlesEconomicsFixing Budget Deficits: Reactionary, Revolutionary, or Integral?


Fixing Budget Deficits: Reactionary, Revolutionary, or Integral? — 3 Comments

  1. I have found very good article by Dr. Gordon.
    I know that when the people of merica react over budget fixation the Governmnet cares and boters and finally strives to meet the people aspirations. For long time, people’s demands cannot be ignored.I saw picture on this page which is telling us that how middle class want change? In fact, and regretably, Pakistani government/s never meet public’s demands and aspiration. Common people’s life has become more misrable and the government is spending money on her preffered projects e.g. BENAZIR INCOME PROGRAM, just to increase her vote bank in the coming elections. Billions and trillions repueees are being spned to facilitate thr fis class.Intrestingly this loan has been taken from WB/IMF.Now, people are reacting and also ready for revolution, if they have sincereguide ( leader), they would definitly have the capibility to overthrow their corrupt, incompetent and incredble governmnets.People have become ( from all walk of life) reactionary after 2nd May 2011, On 2nd May American forces took unilateral action and killed the most wanted criminal al Qaead’s leader Osma Bin Laden. They have lost their trust because governmnet has failed to protect Pakistan’s territorial sovereignity. Now they feel insecure and their feelings are genuine.Thus all classes or gathred to bring prosperity and security.
    Particulary, youth is very antusiastic to bring change.They are ready to die.Thy are frustrated and hopless in a fail state.So, fixation of buget which only brongs prosperity for the prosperous people has become sorce of revolution in Pakistan.

  2. Gordon’s plea for an integral approach to our budget deficit problem id eloquent an sensible.

    I agree with his analysis and his identification of two pathological responses to frustration caused by economic dysfunction, for example what we are experiencing in the United States today.

    My differences with Gordon are largely a matter of nuances: I do not see all Republicans as reactionaries, nor do I see all Democrats as revolutionaries. During most of our history, most Republicans – from Lincoln to Eisenhower and Reagan – have been excellent, moderate, open-minded, and reasonable. Unfortunately, the GOP has now been infiltrated by an extremist element (do I dare utter the words – Tea Party?). Even the venerable Senator McCain called them hobbits recently.

    As far as the Democrats are concerned, it seems to me that their extremist tantrum occurred some time ago, namely during the sixties, when many Democrats became true revolutionaries, seeing traditional democrats such as Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey as sell-outs, and willing to resort to violence.

    I have difficulty seeing especially President Obama as a revolutionary. True, he is a social-democrat. But he certainly seems to be willing to compromise and to accede to many Republican demands. He compromised a great deal in order to reach the recent debt ceiling agreement. History’s true revolutionaries are violence-preaching murderers – Sulla, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao. Thank God there are no such Democrats in the US. I may be wrong, but there is no imminent Hutu-vs-Tutsi type genocidal conflict looming in the US.

    But that said, Gordon’s suggestions are eminently reasonable. Consumption tax is indeed preferable. (I assume that Gordon would approve of the Value Added Tax, then, which Europeans use a lot?)

    For a slightly less “fair and balanced” view, see my recent


  3. Tom is right that not all Republicans are reactionaries and not all Democrats are revolutionaries. Most Americans, on their own, seek to be integral. They seek to be productive and compassionate. They are products of a culture that believes we should work hard, keep the fruits of our own labor, and help others. Most representatives come from that same culture.

    The problem has more to do with the two parties, whose platforms tend to get single-minded and extreme because of the way they are funded. Therefore if you want to get elected as a Democrat, and receive support from unions and the party, you are going to have to endorse redistribution schemes that can be reduced to theft. If you want the Republican endorsement, you’ll be pressured to support the military-industrial complex, ethanol, and no tax raises. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address that citizens ought to be wary of parties, for they will create factions in the name of ostensible goods but ultimately alter the legal system to serve their own interests. His warning was not properly heeded.

    The value-added tax is defined in many ways. If it means taxing the pieces that go into the production of a product, it won’t work because such taxes raise the price of the product and then the production will occur in other countries that do not have such taxes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>