Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
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.
|
One more time. I do not dispute that government fiscal spending can have a short-term stimulative effect on the economy.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I am not the guy saying that my actions saved the economy from the brink of economic disaster to the likes of the Great Depression.
I wish we could keep the talking points consistent. Did the small sized stimulus bill save us, reversing the "slump" or did it not?
Quote:
|
Oh, and Im surprised that you think that a stimulus bill that was almost 1/3 tax cuts was completely ineffectual.
|
I am a supply-sider. Among the things that involves, net tax reductions (in high tax environments) will have a stimulative affect on the economy. In order to have the maximum impact, you would want to see tax cuts for those who not only spend, but for those who invest in future economic growth. Giving the next Bill Gates a tax cut will have a bigger impact than giving the current Bill Gates a tax cut or the current Bill "six-pack" a tax cut, the guy who would spend his money on a new Japanese big screen TV. Don't misunderstand, I would support them all getting tax cuts, but there are differences in the impact targeted tax cuts will have. Our current tax environment for small business, the uncertainty of future tax increases, the phase out of Bush's tax cuts have worked against the tax cuts in Obama's plan.