Question Details

[answered] 10 Viviane Moos/Corbis Budget Deficits and the National Deb

Hi - The instructor didn't like my response (below) to the question. ?Can you please help me come up with a sensible and easy to understand simple response to him ?


Between 2007 and 2011 the federal budget deficit grew from $160.7 billion to $1,299.6 billion, and the national debt grew from $8.9 trillion to $14.8 trillion. (Figure 10.1: The ratio of debt to GDP, 1977-2011.)?

In your post, differentiate the budget deficit from the national debt.?How do you think the increases in the budget deficits and the national debt will affect the economy in the future?

Reference: Chapter 10, section 10.1:?Debt and Deficits, and section 10.4:?Do Deficits Matter?

My answer

The text best describes the?situation with deficits:

would?have?to?weigh?the?pleasure?that?citizens?derive?from?spending?programs?against?their?pain?in?paying?taxes (Amacher, R., & Pate, J. 2012)."

This, of course, does not work for politicians trying to stay in office. ?The budget deficit is the situation where gov't expenses for a given period exceeds the revenue it receives. ?This revenue can come from things like taxes. ?This deficits if they accumulate and are added together they become a national debt. ?The accumulation of deficits between 2007 and 2011 form the national debt. ?An?increase in the national debt will lead to an increase in the likelihood for the?government on servicing its current debt. ?This applies not only to the payment of financial capital the government borrowed but also to full payment of the interest?rate of this money borrowed. ?Just like any consumer household, the government goes into debt if it is unable to meet its obligations that it acquired money from to finance its projects.

To avoid this situation/scenario, the federal?reserve sells bonds to the public by increasing the interest rate so as to attract more funds. ?This activity reduces the amount of taxes that are available to the government because most tax revenue will be used to pay for the high interest rates. Any difficulty in borrowing that will be experienced will lead to low number of projects done by the government leading to reduced standards of living in the long run. ?An increase in national debt and national deficit will cause the rate at which mortgage money is lent to the public to increase because mortgage lenders closely monitor the change in the short term loan interest.?

The best way to understand ?this is to compare the government financial picture to that of a household?financial picture. ?The video contained in the link in my reference below is great. ?It illustrates the government as if it were a consumer household. ?Imagine this were your financial situation:

Annual Household Budget
Total Household Debt:$140,000
Household Income:$21,700
Household Spending:$38,200
New Debt:$16,500
Amount Cut:$385

How long would you be able to sustain this? ?Would you be able to sustain this?
In the video, the consumer visits the bank asking for an increase in his household's debt limit in order to go on a vacation to Australia and get a large flat screen TV. ?This is like the government asking congress to increase the budget deficit. ?In the end, the consumer gets the bank to go along with the increase when his kids sign the papers allowing it. ?The analogy is that the burden of the national debt is passed to future generations.

I thought it was insightful and made this easier to understand.


Amacher, R., & Pate, J. (2012).?Principles of Macroeconomics.?San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Instructor Response

Your example concluded, "?This is like the government asking congress to increase the budget deficit. ?In the end, the consumer gets the bank to go along with the increase when his kids sign the papers allowing it. ?The analogy is that the burden of the national debt is passed to future generations.". ?Actually Thomas, all too many fall for this flawed logic. ?The "government" is not an "individual" (in so many ways of course) and should therefore this comparison is a fallacy. ?Also, future generations do not have a "burden" any more than this generation had from the past generations. ?In fact this generation actually benefited from the debts of the past (as the future generations probably will as well).

10 Viviane Moos/Corbis Budget Deficits and the National Debt Learning Outcomes


By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:


? Distinguish between a deficit and a debt and explain their relationship with fiscal policy.


? Explain how the national debt has grown and what efforts have gone into reducing the deficit.


? Describe the difference between the actual deficit, the structural deficit, and the cyclical deficit.


? Understand the pros and cons of running deficits and having a large national debt.


? Explain why it may be difficult to reduce the national debt. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 279 12/4/12 4:46 PM Pre-Test CHAPTER 10 Introduction T he economy took such a hit during the 2007?2009 recession that Senators Kent


Conrad and Judd Gregg (D-North Dakota and R-New Hampshire, respectively)


proposed a bipartisan budget commission in the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009 (?Senators Conrad and Gregg,? 2009). This bill would have


established a task force to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of


the federal government of the United States. There was also talk that if the bill did not


pass, then the commission would be created by presidential order instead. President


Obama put his stamp of approval on the formation of this panel in January of 2010.


?These deficits did not happen overnight and they won?t be solved overnight,? he said.


?The only way to solve our long-term fiscal challenge is to solve it together?Democrats


and Republicans? (Calmes, 2010). Would such a bipartisan budget commission accomplish the goal of slashing the deficit? Would cutting the federal deficit precipitate another


economic downturn or recession? This chapter attempts to address these questions. Pre-Test


1. The national debt is the amount owed to the states by the federal government. a. True b. False


2. In the 1980s, the debt and deficits both grew at a rate greater than growth of


output. a. True b. False


3. The structural deficit is the same as the cyclical deficit. a. True b. False


4. The real deficit is the deficit divided by the GDP. a. True b. False


5. Interest rates are likely to be lower when the deficit is reduced. a. True b. False




1. b. False. The answer can be found in Section 10.1.


2. a. True. The answer can be found in Section 10.2.


3. b. False. The answer can be found in Section 10.3.


4. b. False. The answer can be found in Section 10.4.


5. a. True. The answer can be found in Section 10.5. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 280 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.1? Debt and Deficits CHAPTER 10 10.1? Debt and Deficits C itizens, the media, and even politicians often get confused by the difference between


the national debt, which is a stock concept, and a budget deficit, which is a flow


concept. A deficit is the amount by which the federal government?s expenditures


exceed its revenues in a given year (the fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30). The national debt is the cumulative total of all past budget deficits minus all past


surpluses. It is the amount owed to lenders by the federal government.


Deficits are nothing new. The United States began its history with a national debt. The


Revolutionary War was financed by printing money?before there was a government


with taxing power. One of the major problems facing the first Congress in 1789 was the


retirement of $79 million in national debt, about two thirds of it from the Revolutionary


War. By the second term of President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s, the entire debt had


been repaid (Wright, 2008).


The U.S. government ran budget surpluses for much of the 19th century. However, both


the Union and the Confederacy ran large deficits to finance the Civil War. Except for periods during the Civil War and World War I, federal budget deficits were quite small before


the 1930s. In 1929, just before the Great Depression, the national debt stood at $16.9 billion, or about 16% of gross domestic product (GDP). Comparing the size of the debt to the


size of the economy by using the percentage of GDP is more meaningful than just looking at the absolute value of the debt because the capacity to repay the debt grows as the


economy grows.


Three years into the Great Depression (1932), the federal budget had become unbalanced


by a sharp drop in output, employment, and the price level. Both Herbert Hoover and


Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in that year on a campaign promise to balance the


budget. By 1939, at the outbreak of World War II, the national debt had nearly tripled to


$48.2 billion, or 55% of GDP. World War II brought a large increase in output but an even


larger increase in government borrowing. At the end of the war, the national debt stood at


$260.1 billion, or 122% of GDP. The debt was reduced slightly in the next few years. Then


it began to grow very slowly, much more slowly than GDP. Deficit Growth, 1970?2010


In the 1970s, the debt grew rapidly along with nominal GDP, so the ratio of debt to GDP


was relatively stable. By 1980, the national debt held by the public stood at $908.5 billion,


but had fallen to 34% of GDP. The 1980s saw a rapid rise in both the national debt and


GDP. Between 1980 and 1993, the size of the national debt tripled, from less than $1 trillion


to more than $4 trillion, or 72% of GDP. The estimated 2010 debt held by the public was


$9.3 trillion, or 64% of GDP?the highest ratio since just after World War II.


Table 10.1 shows the budget deficit since 1977. Figure 10.1 plots the national debt relative


to GDP to illustrate the progression of the ratio over time. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 281 12/4/12 4:46 PM CHAPTER 10 Section 10.1? Debt and Deficits Table 10.1: National debt relative to GDP (in billions of dollars)


Year Federal Deficit National Debt Debt/GDP Net 1977 53.7 706.4 35.7% 1978 59.2 776.6 35.0% 1979 40.7 829.5 33.1% 1980 73.8 909.0 33.3% 1981 79.0 994.8 32.5% 1982 128.0 1,137.3 35.2% 1983 207.8 1,371.7 39.8% 1984 185.4 1,564.6 40.6% 1985 212.3 1,817.4 43.8% 1986 221.2 2,120.5 48.1% 1987 149.7 2,346.0 50.4% 1988 155.2 2,601.1 51.9% 1989 152.6 2,867.8 53.1% 1990 221.0 3,206.3 55.9% 1991 269.2 3,598.2 60.6% 1992 290.3 4,001.8 64.1% 1993 255.1 4,351.0 66.0% 1994 203.2 4,643.3 66.5% 1995 164.0 4,920.6 67.0% 1996 107.4 5,181.5 67.1% 1997 21.9 5,369.2 65.3% 1998 69.3 5,478.2 63.2% 1999 125.6 5,605.5 60.8% 2000 236.2 5,628.7 57.3% 2001 128.2 5,769.9 56.4% 2002 157.8 6,198.4 58.7% 2003 377.6 6,760.0 61.5% 2004 412.7 7,354.7 62.9% 2005 318.3 7,905.3 63.6% 2006 248.2 8,451.4 63.9% 2007 160.7 8,950.7 64.5% 2008 458.6 9,986.1 69.6% 2009 1,412.7 11,875.9 85.2% 2010 1,293.5 13,528.8 94.2% 2011 1,299.6 14,764.2 98.7% Source: Council of Economic Advisers. (2012). Economic report of the president. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 282 12/4/12 4:46 PM CHAPTER 10 Section 10.1? Debt and Deficits Figure 10.1: The ratio of debt to GDP, 1945?2011




GDP (%)
























20 2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2001 1999 1997 1995 1993 1991 1989 1987 1985 1983 1981 1979 0 1977 10 Year


After falling pretty steadily until 1981, the ratio of debt to GDP climbed steadily through the 1980s


before falling slightly again in the early 1990s and then increasing again as the 2000s began. The current national debt actually understates the financial obligations of the U.S. government because of other obligations besides debt repayment that could prove costly in


the near future. The federal government has guaranteed not only the safety of deposits in


federally insured banks but also mortgage loans, student loans, and other private-sector


borrowing. Because bank failures have been higher than expected throughout the 2000s,


these guarantees have been a serious drain on the treasury. Fiscal Policy and Deficits


Critics of Keynesian fiscal policy claim that it is at least partly responsible for deficits in the


federal budget and increases in the national debt. These economists might be less opposed


to Keynesian fiscal policy if budget surpluses offset deficits over the long run. During what


might be considered the heyday of Keynesian policy?the period from 1960 to 1980?the


national debt tripled from $290.5 billion to $908.5 billion, even though the debt did decline


as a share of GDP. More recently, the national debt has increased significantly.


During the Great Depression, even before Keynes?s General Theory, there was support for


spending more on social projects during economic downturns and cutting back when the


economy returned to full employment. However, it is politically very difficult to cut back __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 283 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.1? Debt and Deficits CHAPTER 10 spending or increase taxes during the expansionary phase of the business cycle. Thus,


many economists fear that Keynesian policy provides a ready excuse for the long-run


expansion of the relative size of the government sector.


Households and business firms are limited in their ability to spend more than their income


for a great length of time because of the threat of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a remote possibility for a central government. Sometimes local governments?cities, counties, school


districts, and water systems?have been unable to pay the interest and principal on bonds


and have filed for bankruptcy. Stockton, California, made headlines in June 2012 when


it became the largest U.S. city to attempt to file for bankruptcy. The difference between


a national government and a household, firm, or local government is the power to tax a


broad range of people in order to raise funds to pay off debts. For nations, any threat of


bankruptcy comes from abroad. If a national government finances its spending through


foreign loans, then it may be unable to come up with the ?hard currency? (acceptable


foreign currencies) to repay them. This kind of bankruptcy is an important problem for a


number of countries, especially ones that have already gone bankrupt, such as Argentina


in 2001 and Iceland in 2008.


The deficits of the 1970s and 1980s were largely due to political decisions: the expansion


of spending programs and several cuts in taxes. Once spending programs are created,


they acquire clients and supporters. Thus it becomes difficult to reduce or eliminate them.


For example, it is difficult to close military bases because nearby towns will lose income


and population. The uproar over base closings in 1993, 1995, and 2005 showed that there


is great resistance to such spending cuts. Social Security and Medicare, two of the largest


categories of federal spending and previously untouchable, have seen some changes during the Obama administration. On the other hand, voting for higher taxes is also politically unpopular with both parties.


Recent budget deficits did not result primarily from discretionary fiscal policy actions


to fight recessions, but rather from perennial political problems with raising taxes and


cutting spending. The deficits and the debt are mainly the result of political decisions to


spend more than the government takes in. Only a small portion of the current national


debt is due to deficits incurred as a result of deliberate fiscal policy actions. Furthermore,


most Keynesians argue strongly that the benefits of active fiscal policy (increased employment and economic growth) more than offset the costs (budget deficits). The problem is


that many politicians have used Keynesian arguments to avoid making difficult budget


decisions. Keynes may have created a politically acceptable excuse for increasing spending without raising taxes. Key Ideas: Deficit vs. Debt


? A deficit is the amount by which the federal government?s expenditures exceed its revenues in


any given fiscal year (from October 1 to September 30).


? The national debt is the cumulative total of all past budget deficits minus all past surpluses. It is the amount owed to lenders by the federal government. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 284 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.2? The Growth of the National Debt Since 1980 CHAPTER 10 10.2? The Growth of the National Debt Since 1980 B etween 1980 and 1993, budget deficits grew steadily in dollar terms, and the size of


the national debt tripled. Since 2003, the public debt has grown by more than $500


billion each year; as of July 2012, nominal U.S. GDP was $15,880 billion. The most


striking change, however, was in the ratio of debt to GDP, as shown in Table 10.1 and


Figure 10.1. That ratio reached a 10-year low in 1981 at 32.8%, only to shoot up to 72% in


1993 and to almost 100% in 2012! The current intense concern about the deficits and debt is


not based only on the fact that both are large and growing. More serious is the unpleasant


reality that both have risen much more rapidly than total output in recent years. Reagan?s Policies and the Deficit


Most of the growth in deficits in the 1980s was not based on Keynesian theory or justified


as expansionary fiscal policy. There are various ideas as to exactly what Reagan?s advisers


had in mind in 1981 when they proposed a 30% reduction in personal income taxes (and


an even bigger cut in corporate profits taxes). The actual cut in personal income taxes was


25%. Some supply-side economists argued that the increased incentives to work, save,


and invest would actually result in increased tax revenues. Although there may have been


some supply-side effects on tax revenue, they were not enough to offset the original tax


cut. A second group (including David Stockman, Reagan?s first director of the Office of


Management and Budget) argued that the purpose of the tax cut was to cut off the revenue


source that was feeding government spending. Lower revenues would force a reduction


in spending and in the size of government. This expectation was not realized, as the budget kept spending high and simply accommodated lower revenues with a larger deficit.


A third group claimed that the growth of the deficits was due not to the tax cut but to


excessive spending, which they blamed on Congress. It is true that Congress generally


did increase spending, but the budgets they received from the executive branch had large


deficits when they arrived at Congress?s doorstep.


A balanced view of the deficits of the early 1980s would suggest that they were the result


of attempting the impossible?cutting taxes while increasing defense spending and failing to control growth of income transfers, especially Social Security and Medicare. Even


attempts to reduce other categories of spending could not bridge the gap. In addition,


there were two other contributing factors. One was the recession of 1980?1982, and the


other was high interest rates. The 1980?1982 Recession


The United States entered a recession in 1980, with a sharp drop in GDP during the second


quarter. The economy then rebounded, only to see a second sharp decline in output and a


rise in unemployment in 1982. Real output fell by 2.5% in 1982, and unemployment rose


to 9.5% in 1982, remaining at that level during 1983. During the recession, the automatic


stabilizers did their job. Tax revenues fell even further than they would have with the tax


cut alone, and payments for food stamps and unemployment compensation rose. Temporarily, the deficit increased more than it would have under more normal conditions.


However, cyclical increases in the deficit are normally corrected by an ensuing expansion.


Thus, the recession can only absorb a small part of the blame for the high deficits. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 285 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.2? The Growth of the National Debt Since 1980 CHAPTER 10 High Interest Rates


A second factor contributing to the deficit problem was the fact that both nominal interest


rates and real interest rates (nominal rates corrected for inflation) remained high throughout the early 1980s. From 1979 to 1983, the interest rate on a 3-month Treasury bill (a very


short-term, riskless investment) was more than 10%. Although interest rates fell in the


latter part of the 1980s, the T-bill rate was still higher than it had been for most of the preceding 3 decades.


Interest rates were slow to fall even in nominal terms. In real terms, they remained high


until the 1990?1991 recession, when first short-term rates and then longer term rates


finally began to decline. When the government borrows money, it must pay interest. Interest must be paid not only on new debt (the deficit) but on all outstanding debt as well


(the national debt). This large annual commitment of funds to interest payments makes it


much harder for the president and Congress to cut spending. Early 1990s and 2000s Recessions


The 1980s experienced a long peacetime expansion, but in the early 1990s inflation began


to rise and the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates. These increases, combined


with the 1990 oil price shock, the debt accumulation of the 1980s, and growing consumer


pessimism, weakened growth. Together with a weakened economy, the United States


experienced a brief recession from July 1990 through March 1991. The economy quickly


recovered and continued to grow at a steady pace for the next 10 years. This ?golden era?


of the 1990s was the longest period of consistently positive growth in U.S. history. But the


economy was hit hard in early 2000. The dot-com industry sank and there was a severe


fall in business outlays and investments. Most significant, though, were the September


11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. All of this brought to a


head the end of the decade of growth. Fortunately, this recession was brief and shallow.


However, within 10 years the United States saw the worst economic downturn since the


Great Depression. The Great Recession from December 2007 to June 2009 lasted a full 18


months?the longest of any recession since World War II. With the dot-com bubble and


the September 11th attacks beginning the decade, the end of the decade saw a subprime


mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble. In addition to this, a


global financial crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States?s largest financial institutions?Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and


AIG. There was also a crisis in the automobile industry. The U.S. government responded


by passing a previously unheard-of $700 billion bank bailout measure as well as a $787 billion fiscal stimulus package. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was


intended to save and create jobs almost immediately, as well as provide relief for those


most affected by the recession. It also proposed to invest in the country?s infrastructure,


education, health, and green energy. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research


marked June 2009 as the end of the Great Recession, lingering effects such as high unemployment continue to plague the United States well into 2012. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 286 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.2? The Growth of the National Debt Since 1980 CHAPTER 10 Efforts to Reduce the Deficit


The rapid growth of the national debt alarmed some politicians and created pressure for


restricting Congress?s unlimited ability to spend. After many years of talk about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would require a balanced budget


on an annual basis, Congress passed the Gramm?Rudman?Hollings Act in 1985. This act


set a timetable for reducing the deficit from over $200 billion in 1986 to zero in 1990.


Targets were set for each year. Failure to meet the targets would automatically trigger


painful across-the-board cuts in most federal spending programs. However, the president


and Congress were required to meet the targets only in the projected budget (based on


assumptions about economic conditions), not the actual budget.


The size of the deficits did decrease for several years, partly as a result of spending cuts


and partly due to gradual increases in tax revenues from economic growth. Part of the


deficit reduction consisted of accounting tricks, sales of assets, and increased revenues in


the Social Security trust fund. On the other hand, the unexpectedly high cost of the savings and loan bailout offset some of the other forces working to reduce the deficit.


As deficits began to rise again, President Bush reached an agreement with Congress in


1990 to reduce the deficit with a combination of tax increases and caps on spending.


However, the 1990?1991 recession and the huge cost of the savings and loan bailout


sharply increased deficits in 1989 and afterwards. By 1992, the deficit had become a serious concern in the eyes of most voters and was a central issue in the election campaign.


The outcome of that election campaign was the deficit reduction program of the Clinton


administration, a combination of tax increases and spending cuts designed to reduce the


deficit by $500 billion over a 5-year period.


The budget efforts of the 1990s departed from the Gramm?Rudman?Hollings Act of 1985.


The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was passed by Congress to enforce the deficit reduction accomplished by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and also to revise


the budget control process of the federal government. These measures had the federal


budget reporting its first surplus since 1969. In 1999, that surplus nearly doubled, and


then again in 2000.


However, the early 2000s saw a dramatic increase in government spending because of


the dot-com bubble burst, the September 11th attacks, and the increase in government


spending due to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. These events, coupled with


a $1.35 trillion tax cut, forced the budget to return to a deficit basis. In fiscal year 2000,


the budget had a $236 billion surplus; by fiscal year 2004, it was a $413 billion deficit. By


2007, the deficit had been reduced to less than half of what it was in 2004. Unfortunately,


the economy began to enter a particularly severe recession in late 2007 and early 2008. The


credit crisis, the bankruptcy and federal takeovers of several major mortgage providers,


and a global economic downturn led to the Great Recession of 2007?2009. In an effort to


fix these economic woes, the U.S. federal government passed a series of costly economic


stimulus and bailout packages, dramatically increasing the deficit spending to nearly


unrivaled amounts. In 2009, a growing number of people became increasingly concerned


about the massive government spending. Dubbed the ?Tea Party movement,? one such


group protested in support of reducing government spending, cutting taxes, and reducing


the federal budget deficit and national debt (Wallsten & Yadron, 2010). __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 287 12/4/12 4:46 PM Section 10.2? The Growth of the National Debt Since 1980 CHAPTER 10 In 2011, the United States faced a financial crisis when Treasury Secretary Timothy


Geithner notified Congress that the country would soon reach the debt ceiling previously


set at $14.294 trillion. What followed was a long and arduous debate between Democrats, Republicans, and the new


Tea Party politicians as to whether


the debt ceiling should be raised


and what would happen to the


U.S. economy without such an


increase. The U.S. debt-ceiling


crisis finally ended on July 31,


2011, when President Obama and


Speaker of the House John Boehner


reached an agreement. Signed into


law on August 2, 2011, the Budget


Control Act of 2011 immediately


increased the debt limit by $400


billion. The bill also specified $917


billion in spending cuts over 10


years, among other proposals to


Associated Press


further reduce government spending (Mascaro & Hennessey, 2011).


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, is


followed by reporters wanting comments as he heads back


to his Capitol Hill office after a vote on the continuing debt


crisis in July 2011. Words such as ?unprecedented? were


used to describe the debates. Three days after the signing of the


bill, the credit-rating agency Standard and Poor?s downgraded the


United States?s credit rating for


the first time to AA (from AAA).


Global markets reacted strongly, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling more than


5% in one day (Winslow, 2011). Although it was probably important to have a serious


discussion about the budget deficit and size of the national debt, the distasteful exchanges


and long, drawn-out process may have done more harm than good. Key Ideas: The Ever Expanding National Debt


? Public concern about federal budget deficits and debt has grown as both have risen much


more rapidly than total output in recent years.


? The United States reached its debt ceiling in 2011 and passed the Budget Control Act of 2011


to immediately increase the debt limit by $400 billion. __ama80496_10_c10_279-302.indd 288 12/4/12 4:47 PM Section 10.3? Should the Budget Be Balanced? CHAPTER 10 10.3? Should the Budget Be Balanced? T he debate over balancing the budget arises from the conflicting needs for appropriate fiscal policy and some degree of budgetary c...


Solution details:

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15 (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question






Sep 18, 2020





We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.


Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.


Order Now