But the debt as percentage of GDP is lower now than it was in the 1940's and 1950's, and it's also lower than it was in 1990. What Carter allowed was a situation where growth was almost completely choked out. While the debt as percentage of GDP didn't rise, unemployment and inflation did.

Any economist worth his salt will acknowledge that there are two ways to deal with debt: pay it off and grow over it. The right wing favors the latter, although to a fault I think. But the left wing seems to think that some mystical convergence of efficiency and conservation will overcome lack of growth, and that's never worked anywhere so long as population continues to rise.

The only way to control US population would be control the borders in a much more draconian fashion, and the left won't permit that.

I'll agree that a Carter-like belt-tightening might be a good thing, but couched in the inelegant terms that he tried to foist it on the country, all he achieved was nothing.

---

But it's always good to read a contrary opinion, which really got me thinking. Sorry if all this talk makes you sick, as that's defintely not the intention (unless it makes you mad enough to spit out some truly great, vitriolic songs).

Do you allow that there's any third way between an absolute austerity program and pro-growth policies? For example, were the Bush tax cuts a good thing but far too much, or should they have gone the other way and raised taxes further, for example?