Where do "cut the spending" GOPs envision the cutting?

[elucidator]

You answered a lot of questions, Sam. Not so much the ones I asked, but the one’s you would prefer. Plus, a few off-handed swipes at the character and intellect of those who disagree with you.

For instances:

…His ideology blinds him to his opponent’s arguments and causes him to make sweeping claims that are increasingly disconnected from his own specialty…

Indeed, this is a problem amongst many people who are not you.

…Is that mainstream enough for you?..

But, of course. However, my question wasn’t whether a particular economist is held in esteem, but the relative bulk of that esteem. If all of the academic economists were to vote for the candidate most closely aligned with their views, which might prevail?

…He’s even contributed to the development of Keynesian theory…

Gasp! I am, of course, stunned. May I take that as underlining the relative acceptance of Keynesian theory?

…Unlike Krugman, Taylor is capable of revisiting his own assumption…

So, he changed his mind? Is this some sort of proof that he is more likely to be correct, having been wrong in the first instance? If I change my view from evolutionary to Creationist, is this an example of splendid open-mindedness and flexibility, or that I am stupid?

…but you were simply looking for a ‘gotcha’ you could throw out in this thread to catch me proposing the ideas of some fringe economist, then never mind. Go off and figure out how to try again…

Got me again. Like so many people who are not you, I am not as strictly honest in my argumentative techniques.

Followed by a posting from 150 (count 'em! One hundred fifty!) economists centering on the “debt ceiling” debacle. I don’t know many of those names, though I recognize some of the most widely respected, utterly non-partisan institutions they enhance. Hoover Institute. Cato. American Enterprise. Competitive Enterprise Institute. Robert Genetski of classicalprinciples.com, of course. Center for Financial Stability.

Does it strike you, as it does me, that your list has a distinct ideological bent? And, of course, one hundred and fifty! Is that an impressive number? Does that represent a distinct majority of American academic economists? Or, rather, did a definite majority of such economists not lend their names to this?

…To remind you, this is exactly opposite to what Krugman is recommending…

To which the previous, and overarching question applies: so?

…I say this because you have a habit of waving Krugman’s Nobel prize as if it is a talisman that automatically wards off all criticism of Krugman’s ideas…

Well, now, if that “waving” of a Nobel Prize is dishonest, why have you done it so often in your own posting? Tsk, I say. No, no, tsk tsk!

…Finally, I’ll point out that Krugman’s Nobel was for work in trade theory, not macroeconomics…

Actually, you pointed that out in your very first paragraph. Either you had forgotten, or were at pains to make sure I didn’t.

But this is the money quote, where you actually address the question:

…Are my own beliefs more closely affiliated with the mainstream than Krugman’s? Probably not…

Thank you. No further questions, the witness may step down. There will be no need for the comfy chair.