The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

I just now had the inclination to check but look at this. Spending under Reagan increased, precisely as I said it did.

LIAR. What you claimed ... and I quote ... is this:

There's also the fact that, contrary to your conclusions, government spending in the 1980's as a percentage of GDP went up.

 

[lomiller]

LIAR. If you enlarge that chart you linked, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s&show= , you can see that from 1982 to January 1989 (when Reagan left office), government spending as a percent of GDP went down.

I invite everyone to actually look at the link and decide who the lair is

What the link actually shows is spending as a portion of GDP under Reagan continues to do exactly what it had done since 1950. there is a noticeable deviation in that trend from the early 90's until 2000 though...

 

[mhaze]

My point is that you and BAC are playing a game with numbers. When the numbers make Obama look good you use shadowstats to make him look bad. When the numbers make a Republican look good you use them. You've both affirmed this admirably.

However, spending as a percentage of the GDP increased during the recession. Precisely what part of that aren't you two understanding? This whole thing seems like an obvious case of switching the goal posts to me.

NO. I've suggested using a constant lag, and a standard set of numbers.

And since the goal of Keynesian policy is to increase spending as percent of GDP during a recession, what part of that are you attributing to anything other than government intent?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

LIAR.

Well, someone is upset at having been proven wrong.

And since the goal of Keynesian policy is to increase spending as percent of GDP during a recession, what part of that are you attributing to anything other than government intent?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask me. What I'm stating is that nothing in the response to the '81-82 recession is out of line with Keynesian views. BAC, and yourself, find something special about his response to the point that BAC feels it should've been the model for which we based our response to the current recession. This is unusual because, as I understand it, BAC is opposed to Keynesian economic theories.

 

[mhaze]

The graph shows that if you try to use the numbers from shadowstats to smear obama as creating a worse economy than the standard GDP measure shows, then you also have to admit that throughout almost all of Bush's time in office, US GDP growth was negative.

That does indeed make sense if you blame 911 on Bush...

It's all so very, very simple....

 

[stokes234]

That does indeed make sense if you blame 911 on Bush...

It's all so very, very simple....

So how many percentage points of growth did 9/11 knock off per year for the next 8 years? Does Obama still get to use 9/11 as an excuse, or did it expire when Bush left office?

 

[mhaze]

Offhand I can't see any reason people of different political persuasions couldn't agree on the economic impact of 911....the direct effect being in the first several years of the Bush presidency, plus the 2 wars which certainly would not have happened in the absence of 911.

 

[stokes234]

Offhand I can't see any reason people of different political persuasions couldn't agree on the economic impact of 911....the direct effect being in the first several years of the Bush presidency, plus the 2 wars which certainly would not have happened in the absence of 911.

I never said I couldn't agree that 9/11 had an economic impact, but you're forgetting the matter of scale. If it had a 0.007% effect on growth for one year, that would be an impact, as would a 4% growth reduction for 8 years, but I imagine you can agree that the two are slightly different. If you're not going to argue that the shadowstats numbers show Bush shrank the economy, i'd like to see you quantify the effect of 9/11.

As to the wars, neither have had obvious positive effects that outweigh the negatives, and the second was completely unrelated to 9/11. And I thought the republican party line was that Bush's wars weren't responsible for the deficit? I find it hard to stomach the idea that they are an acceptable excuse for a stretch of low economic growth, but aren't a reason for the current state of affairs.

 

[mhaze]

I never said I couldn't agree that 9/11 had an economic impact, but you're forgetting the matter of scale. ....

No, I'm not forgetting....



...The little matter of scale????

 

[Paulhoff]

Seems someone has forgotten that Obama includes the wars cost into the budget, were as Bush didn't.


Paul

 

[lomiller]

Seems someone has forgotten that Obama includes the wars cost into the budget, were as Bush didn't.


Paul

Well apparently this time he finally remembered that the 2009 deficit was part of the Bush budget. This didn't stop him from trying to present it in such a way people think Obama hasn't decreased the deficit he inherited

 

[mhaze]

Well apparently this time he finally remembered that the 2009 deficit was part of the Bush budget. This didn't stop him from trying to present it in such a way people think Obama hasn't decreased the deficit he inherited

Sadly, years later all you can do is play the "blame Bush" game. Which doesn't really work very well at all. Here is the CBO's analysis of the Obama budget. This is from last year, since now, the Democrats don't even have a budget plan.

But this pretty much shows the problem. To 2020, the "VISION" of Obama is to spend about a trillion a year more than we take in. Each year, every year.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11280/Chapter1.shtml

Well, that won't work. That's why the people voted in a bunch of people that agree with them that it won't work. That's why this thread is here, entitled "Stimulus No WORKY".

Cheers!

 

[lomiller]

The last Bush budget deficit was well over $1 billion and the preceding years Bush had enough off the books spending to increase the deficit by $1 billion per year despite reporting a smaller deficit. Furthermore it was Bush’s bungling of the financial crisis that caused the economic conditions that make it impossible to balance the US budget for a decade or more. It’s absolutely Bush who caused these problems, so why do you not want to assign responsibility where it belongs?

The sensible thing would be to simply roll back the changes like the Bush tax cuts that caused the problems to begin with but current Republicans are working pretty hard to make sure the problems don’t get fixed and with control of the house they can effectively block any solution

 

[mhaze]

....<<total nonsense>>.....current Republicans are working pretty hard to make sure the problems don’t get fixed and with control of the house they can effectively block any solution....<<irrational delusions>>......

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mourning-america_574845.html

President Obama, meanwhile, seems to think our problems would be solved if only we banned ATMs and built solar-powered bullet trains. His “propellerheads”—Geithner, Bernanke, Sperling, et al.—are spinning to the ground. Alert the authorities: Stop these men before they stimulate again.

 

[stokes234]

No, I'm not forgetting....

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422449e280a170587.jpg[/qimg]

...The little matter of scale????

You're going to have to explain to me how that graph quantifies the effect of 9/11 on the growth of the US economy. Because it looks like you're trying to change the subject.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And that chart I supplied in response says a lot about THAT issue.

It says nothing, actually, it's merely a means for you to facilitate your affirmation of the consequent.

You socialists (communists?) never will learn from history. And unless you are stopped, you will wreck this society just like you've wrecked so many, many others before.

The fact remains that you're clueless as to what recovery should look

LOL! Says someone who says a chart, showing what past recoveries should look like, says nothing.

Volcker tightened the monetary supply a second time in the middle of the a recession. The clearly tells me Volcker considered the possibility of ending high inflation more important than a temporary dip in the economy.

Go ahead, prove what you originally claimed … that Volcker deliberately started the recession. Post for us some link from that vast education you've had that has Volcker admitting to that then or later.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
You know absolutely nothing about my education, KF.

I sincerely doubt you have one.

LOL! If true, that makes it all the more remarkable that I'm clearly holding my own against your *vast* *education*. Perhaps that education of yours isn't quite as wonderful as you seem to think? Or perhaps mine is a little better than you think.

This is why I say you might be lacking in education, you still don't understand the difference between lying and being mistaken.

LOL! So I gather you were also *mistaken* when you posted that link claiming that a chart showed the spending as a percentage of GDP going up?

It's extremely childish to assume that every-time someone is wrong they lied.

It's even more childish to make claims that are so easily disposed of and then tell the person who disposed of them you think they are "lacking in education". And it's also childish to continue trying to score points on something that is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion anyway. On spelling, and grammer. I haven't noticed you going around doing that to anyone else, so it makes me wonder if perhaps you've grown desperate in this debate. It's your argument of last resort, perhaps? Hmmmmm?

Except that Reagan didn't decrease spending during the recession, spending increased.

He tried. He brokered a deal with democrats to reduce spending on social programs … and they turned around and broke that deal. And despite that, spending as a percentage of GDP still went down during his term. So he must have cut somewhere … OR the economy did what he predicted it would do and responded positively to his economic policies. Government spending as a percentage of GDP did go down, even though he was increasing military spending to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War. Which, by the way, was a good thing to do and a success (democrats wanted to just give up on fighting the Soviets, as I recall).

Reagan waltzed in and cut welfare programs then increased spending in other areas under the false notion that tax cuts pay for themselves.

No, history proves he was right. Didn't you bother to read that CATO article I linked and quoted above? Tax revenues went up even after the cuts in tax rates because that caused the economy to boom. They did pay for themselves, they just didn't pay for all the spending that was going on, especially in the Cold War.

Except that my source wasn't a measure of debt as a percentage of GDP, it was a measure of spending as a percentage of GDP.

You are right. My mistake. Spending and debt are not the same thing. And in fact, debt as a percentage of GDP did double during Reagan's years. Reagan said the new debt was his "greatest disappointment". But then, Reagan was fighting the Cold War and we weren't going to win that without spending. And once the Cold War was won, that spending could go down … as opposed to the way *entitlement* programs that democrats so love work.

Now if only Bush I and Clinton had taken the Cold War peace dividend and used it to cut the debt ratio instead of shifting it into unsustainable, reckless, and ineffective social programs. Programs that we are now realizing accomplished next to nothing and saddled us and future generations with tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
At least we got something beneficial and tangible for Reagan's spending. The same cannot be said for much of the social program spending of the 80's and 90's pushed by democrats.

Right, the "economic deadwood" doesn't need food, shelter, or clothing.

Nice try at taking something I said in another thread completely out of context. But I do say let most of the them work for it. Everyone in the past did. Instead we are building expectations of entitlement. And let me assure you that both economics and common sense will till you that a nation of Beggars rather than Choosers is not sustainable. It will fail. Eventually even the "entitled" will end up with no food, shelter or clothing. Just ask all those people who experienced the wonders of socialism and communism the last 100 years. That path is a Ponzi scheme and nothing more.

None of this changes the fact that Reagan saw what the democrats were doing and didn't push for spending cuts in any other areas nor even an increase in taxes. Instead he let the debt increase under the belief that his tax cuts were paying for everything.

Well first of all, we've already been over why Reagan didn't increase taxes. He wanted to stimulate economic growth. And it did … because he cut taxes. And even though he cut taxes, total tax revenues went up from what they were prior to his presidency … because the economy boomed.

Second, Reagan actually instituted a lot of spending cuts. Here:

http://www.aei.org/paper/20675

June 09, 2004

… snip …

Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term (see table 1). Sadly, during his second term, President Reagan did not manage to cut nondefense discretionary spending, and it grew by 0.2 percent. But his record is still quite remarkable if compared to other administrations. Every other president since Lyndon Johnson serving a full four-year term did not even do as well as Reagan in his less-impressive second term.

… snip …

Here are*some other interesting facts about President Reagan:

- President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).

- President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.

- During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and*by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.

- Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the department’s budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.

- President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.

I would like the situation to be better but I suspect we're better now than we could've been.

That's because you're a socialist and believe in the myth of free lunches. The fact is that history (that chart you claim says nothing) indicates you are wrong. Numerous examples in history suggest that if the government had pretty much stayed out of it, the economy would now be booming.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if you attributed the economic boom under Clinton to Reagan.

LOL! Do you really think Clinton should get the credit for that boom? Or should the republican Congress under Gingrich get that credit? Afterall, when Bush I left office, inflation was at about 3%. Unemployment was 6%. The Dow was at 3500. And GDP was about 6.5 trillion. And it basically stayed there after Clinton took over … even with democrats controlling Congress. Little changed economically ... there was no boom.

Then Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in January 1995. At that time unemployment was still at 6.25% and the Dow was still only at 3800. Inflation was still at 3% and the GDP was still around 6.6 trillion. Republicans retained control of Congress until the end the 2000. And since Clinton was mired in scandals and investigations, that republican Congress got to write the agenda.

And look what happened? That's when the economic boom under Clinton took place. By December 2000, unemployment stood at 3.75% (down 2.25%) and the Dow was at 10,600 (up 7100). Inflation remained at or below 3% the whole time. GDP grew to almost 10 trillion (up 4 trillion). Republican control of Congress clearly made the difference, not Clinton. Republican policies were responsible for the boom, not Clinton.

And your solution to the problem is? Tax cuts? Which would be...more stimulus?

LOL! You still don't get it, do you? Tax cuts are not the same as the sort of stimulus that Obama and company have been pushing … i.e., increased government spending. They work quite differently on the economy and people's motivations. Past empirical data (including the results during this recession) shows that spending stimulus programs generally raise GDP by less than the increase in government spending. In contrast, there is plenty of empirical support for the assertion that tax rate reductions increase real GDP. Here, you might want to read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/economy/13view.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

And *my* solution is both tax cuts AND spending cuts. Call it the Grover Cleveland solution. Or even better, the Warren Harding solution. Why don't you look up the history of what their economic approach to recession accomplished, KF?

I find it amazing that your ilk is unwilling to call tax cuts in these situations what they really are, stimulus.

Because your "ilk" won't acknowledge that there is false stimulus and then there is real stimulus. Perhaps we just don't want to leave people thinking that the spending stimulus is the same as tax stimulus. Because it's not. Now if you folks start always saying "spending stimulus" when you address the public so they know what isn't working, perhaps we'd be willing to call tax cuts "tax stimulus" so they know what is working.

Didn't Obama cut taxes anyway?

Sure, but his "tax cuts" amounted to only about half of the spending component. And most of what Obama called tax cuts weren't tax cuts at all but tax "credits". Tax credits to low income workers, most of whom actually paid no federal income tax. Tax credits for children to people already on welfare. And a tax credit works like this. Say you don't make enough money to even pay taxes. A tax credit means the government still sends you a check. So for many, a tax credit really isn't a tax cut at all. It's additional welfare spending that the government has to come up via more debt. It's really a delayed increased tax, because someone will eventually have to pay that debt through increased taxes.

You also forget that tax cuts in the form of tax credits don't have any effect if the event that's supposed to allow a reduction in a tax never takes place. The stimulus bill allowed, for example, $2500 in tax credits for college expenses and $8000 in tax credits for first time homes purchased in 2009. But how much of the amount they estimated that would be "credited" actually was "credited"? Remember, there was a recession and the housing market collapsed. Did the housing market come back? No. So, perhaps the government's prediction about first time home buyers didn't come to pass. A prediction that was wrong, just like their predictions about unemployment were wrong. Likewise, the bill offered temporary relief from the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) but how many people had AMT obligations in a year of deep recession? Probably fewer than expected.

Calling tax "credits", tax "cuts", is a cheat in yet another way. A true tax cut means that the government lets people keep more of their own money AND make decisions on spending all their money as they wish. But tax credits like the first home tax credit are actually attempts to influence people to spend their money a certain way in order to get rewarded. It's still the government mucking around with the economy, which often back fires as history has shown. Unintended consequences. In this case, perhaps people then got into homes over their head, which would only add to the mortgage crisis down the road and necessitate government relief to those buyers? Now do you see the dishonesty in touting Obama's tax cuts?

Oh I agree, Reagan cut taxes and injected stimulus into the economy. He even increased spending, including deficit spending, during the worst of the recession. Perfectly in-line with Keynesian views.

Actually, no, but there really is no sense in arguing this further since you obviously learned everything you are ever going to learn in that fine school you are currently attending. For everyone else, I recommend you go read that link I supplied above from the NY Times.

False dilemma, it could also be that, in my haste, I skipped over an entire word. As a matter of fact, that's precisely true. I forgot to add "early" between "the" and "1980's".

LOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn
I would like the situation to be better but I suspect we're better now than we could've been.

Let me remind you that White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8%. What what do you mean things could have been worse? Sorry … the evidence clearly suggests that Obama's policies are what made it worse than it otherwise would have been.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You socialists (communists?) never will learn from history. And unless you are stopped, you will wreck this society just like you've wrecked so many, many others before.

Ahh, we've gone from blowing your favorite strawman out of the water to assuming I'm just a full-fledged communist now. I'd be more phased by your childish insults if it wasn't coming from someone who thinks linking to a graph and providing zero context is a history lesson.

LOL! Says someone who says a chart, showing what past recoveries should look like, says nothing.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand that the word "should" is not a synonym of "have". If you have any evidence that the recovery to the early 80's recession is what all recoveries should look like you certainly haven't presented it. I'll remind you there is a difference between "should" and "ideally" as well.

Go ahead, prove what you originally claimed … that Volcker deliberately started the recession. Post for us some link from that vast education you've had that has Volcker admitting to that then or later.

I'll concede the point that he may not have entered into it deliberately but I stand by the fact that he certainly wouldn't have been ignorant of the likelihood. If you want to tout this as a victory be my guest, it's immaterial to my point anyway.

LOL! If true, that makes it all the more remarkable that I'm clearly holding my own against your *vast* *education*. Perhaps that education of yours isn't quite as wonderful as you seem to think? Or perhaps mine is a little better than you think.

If you call baseless accusations in reference to my political persuasion and ignoring my point in favor of attacking miniscule details "holding your own" then I suppose I should be nervous.

I'd also like to add that I've said nothing about the vastness of my education. I did, however, that you don't conduct your arguments as someone with any sort of formal education. As I said, you sound rather proudly ignorant and react violently to disagreement.

LOL! So I gather you were also *mistaken* when you posted that link claiming that a chart showed the spending as a percentage of GDP going up?

Actually I already explained that I had simply forgotten to add "early" in that sentence. I tend to type fast so it happens on occasion. Whether you believe that or not doesn't matter to me.

It's even more childish to make claims that are so easily disposed of and then tell the person who disposed of them you think they are "lacking in education".

You haven't actually "disposed" of any of my claims. At best you managed to force me into conceding that Volcker may not have deliberately thrust the US into recession but that was at best a tertiary point. And since you haven't proven the opposite is true we can only conclude that it was speculation on my part. Hardly "disposing" of my argument.

And it's also childish to continue trying to score points on something that is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion anyway. On spelling, and grammer. I haven't noticed you going around doing that to anyone else, so it makes me wonder if perhaps you've grown desperate in this debate. It's your argument of last resort, perhaps? Hmmmmm?

What on Earth are you going on about? I made one comment to you that the word "unlogical" isn't actually a word. You responded with such esteemed scholarly sources as freedictionary.com, yahoo answers, and webster-dictionary which even lists "ain't" as a word.

Furthermore, it was the first and last time in this discussion I have corrected spelling or grammar. Where you get the fool notion that this was an "argument of last resort" on my very first comment pertaining to this particular subject (the '81-82 recession) is beyond me.

He tried. He brokered a deal with democrats to reduce spending on social programs … and they turned around and broke that deal.

Good on them, deficit spending and stimulus got the economy out of recession.

And despite that, spending as a percentage of GDP still went down during his term. So he must have cut somewhere … OR the economy did what he predicted it would do and responded positively to his economic policies. Government spending as a percentage of GDP did go down, even though he was increasing military spending to defeat the Soviets in the Cold War.

Is it my turn? Oh yes, it is. LIAR! Something that lomiller pointed out to you that has escaped your grasp is that I'm right whether you believe I forgot "early" or not. Look at the graph again, now look at it with only spending for 1980-1990 brought up. We can see where spending was when Reagan entered office in 1981 and where it was when he left office in 1989.

To make this simpler for you, if we average out spending increases as a percentage of GDP under each president then spending as a percentage of GDP went up under Reagan. It never went back down to the pre-Reagan levels under Carter and by the time he left office spending was on the rise again.

I'll give him credit that spending as a percentage of GDP went down at the federal level. However, spending at the state and local level both increased under Reagan.

No, history proves he was right. Didn't you bother to read that CATO article I linked and quoted above? Tax revenues went up even after the cuts in tax rates because that caused the economy to boom. They did pay for themselves, they just didn't pay for all the spending that was going on, especially in the Cold War.

I did, and I didn't find any notice of tax revenues in your article so maybe you could point it out. I did find examples of what some may consider severe methodological bias, such as arbitrarily cutting off the Clinton-presidency in 1995 thereby allowing them to ignore the economic boom that occurred afterwards.

Anywho, according to these numbers the Cato institute would be dead wrong. Tax revenues clearly dropped under Reagan.

You are right. My mistake. Spending and debt are not the same thing. And in fact, debt as a percentage of GDP did double during Reagan's years. Reagan said the new debt was his "greatest disappointment". But then, Reagan was fighting the Cold War and we weren't going to win that without spending. And once the Cold War was won, that spending could go down … as opposed to the way *entitlement* programs that democrats so love work.

Good for Reagan, let's stop giving him credit for slashing spending and raising the tax revenue through cuts then.

Now if only Bush I and Clinton had taken the Cold War peace dividend and used it to cut the debt ratio instead of shifting it into unsustainable, reckless, and ineffective social programs. Programs that we are now realizing accomplished next to nothing and saddled us and future generations with tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

You mean the debt that Clinton was paying off?

Nice try at taking something I said in another thread completely out of context.

I didn't, your whole rant just kind of proved me right.

Well first of all, we've already been over why Reagan didn't increase taxes. He wanted to stimulate economic growth. And it did … because he cut taxes. And even though he cut taxes, total tax revenues went up from what they were prior to his presidency … because the economy boomed.

Stimulating economic growth through deficit spending outside of a recession is not fiscally responsible. The president could easily stimulate a huge boom in the economy through a $500 trillion dollar spending increase or the absolute elimination of all taxes but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do. I already pointed out that tax revenues went down under Reagan, so why are we crediting him for stimulating the economy when he did so in a completely irresponsible manner?

Second, Reagan actually instituted a lot of spending cuts.

Not enough, apparently.

That's because you're a socialist and believe in the myth of free lunches.

That's not only irrelevant it's wholly inaccurate. As I said before, you've apparently decided that since I'm not the dirty communist sympathizer I you thought I was I must just be a socialist now. You've graduated from slandering me through associating to slandering me directly. It's made even more hilarious in that around my college campus I'm actually known as a conservative, which is a moderate Democrat anywhere else.

The fact is that history (that chart you claim says nothing) indicates you are wrong.

Your chart, again, provides no context and you refuse to take in any number of variable between the recession then and the recession now. You live in a fantasy land where economic downturns occur in a vacuum with only arbitrary numbers affect them.

Numerous examples in history suggest that if the government had pretty much stayed out of it, the economy would now be booming.

I know I'm going to regret this once I see your text-wall, but please name some.

LOL! Do you really think Clinton should get the credit for that boom?

Fortunately I don't care to play any insipid credit games with you.

LOL! You still don't get it, do you? Tax cuts are not the same as the sort of stimulus that Obama and company have been pushing … i.e., increased government spending.

I've never said they're the same, nor proposed that one is superior to the other. I'm merely impressing upon you that your stimulus spending is Keynesian whether you're injecting the money directly or cutting taxes. Your article argues for deficit-funded tax cuts, i.e. cutting taxes and leaving spending.

You are aware that I can cite articles that say pretty much the opposite, right? What precisely do you think that proves?

And *my* solution is both tax cuts AND spending cuts. Call it the Grover Cleveland solution. Or even better, the Warren Harding solution. Why don't you look up the history of what their economic approach to recession accomplished, KF?

What's ironic is that your article argues for deficit-funded tax cuts, contradicting the model you propose.

Because your "ilk" won't acknowledge that there is false stimulus and then there is real stimulus. Perhaps we just don't want to leave people thinking that the spending stimulus is the same as tax stimulus. Because it's not. Now if you folks start always saying "spending stimulus" when you address the public so they know what isn't working, perhaps we'd be willing to call tax cuts "tax stimulus" so they know what is working.

This would be the "spending stimulus" that totally did not occur under Reagan, right?

Actually, no, but there really is no sense in arguing this further since you obviously learned everything you are ever going to learn in that fine school you are currently attending. For everyone else, I recommend you go read that link I supplied above from the NY Times.

Or you could look for the actual scientific study itself.

 

[mhaze]

You're going to have to explain to me how that graph quantifies the effect of 9/11 on the growth of the US economy. Because it looks like you're trying to change the subject.

It's not I that is doing that. You said "Remember the effects of scale".

The graph shows nothing but scale, and the big red ink is OWNED by 0.

 

[lomiller]

Let me remind you that White House economists forecast in January 2009 that, even without a stimulus, unemployment would top out at just 8.8%.

So your argument is that Republican economists are incompetent therefore the it’s all Obama’s fault?