Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am confused. What was the point of the government stimulus spending?
I have agreed, with the qualification that the improvement is short-term. In the long-term the net impact will be zero, assuming no wasteful government spending.
I am confused by this also. According to Obama what was the cause of the "slump", or the economy being on the "brink"? Was it government? Was it Wall St.? Was it governments lack of oversight of Wall St.? Depending on the answer, doesn't that tell us what the solution should be? In the first year what has he actually done in this regard? I would say - nothing!
You have got to be kidding!
My interests are tied to the American economy, when America does well I do well. I have a low tolerance for empty words. I don't have a government job, no big corporate job, no union job, not tenured, no trust fund, no vast holdings of real assets, no sugar momma and I have never won a state lottery. I need the economy to improve, and I need it to happen sooner rather than later. What we need is for Washington to simply nurture an environment for economic success. They need to get out of the way.
In order for the government to spend a $1 or to use a resource it has to take $1 or take a resource. How is that possibly not true?
|
The point of government spending is and was to stave off a depression. Not to promote full employment forever and ever.
Even the AEI admits that, without the stimulus, the GDP would have dropped 1% instead of increasing their estimation of 3%. When even the people who oppose the stimulus claim that is has boosted GDP by 4%, you know the stimulus has had an effect.
Because here's the thing, the idea that a modest to small sized stimulus bill would reverse the slump in the court of less than a year all by itself is simply politicking by people trying to score a few political points, because no one ever claimed that it would.
Oh, and Im surprised that you think that a stimulus bill that was almost 1/3 tax cuts was completely ineffectual.