The research was provided; either refute it or move on. No amount of foot stomping will further your point.This is the scam. People like you claim we need to "invest" in Infrastructure, pass 800B+ Stimuli, and then don't use any of those funds on 'Infrastructure Spending".
The sub-topic was infrastructure spending. You (of course) used CFC as a tangent because you cannot keep up with the discussion at hand. Too bad!Sorry, you don't get to dismiss it as a strawman. I've already refuted the impact of Government financed infrastructure which is just your propagandist way of saying "More Government Spending". It doesn't work. It just adds more to the deficit, creates more debt, devalues the currency, and reduces the purchasing power of our money. Obama's stimulus didn't create a surplus. It didn't create any wealth. It added the deficit. All government Spending does is move money from the left hand to the right hand.
No. Keynes was opposed to deficits during periods of low unemployment. Do try and keep up!Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits.
You have not blown anything out of the water. The research has been presented and yet to be refuted. Mere sourcing of random articles does not suffice.See above. This premise has already been blown out of the water
Infrastructure spending that is in the neighborhood of the cross-country average, as a percentage of GDP. There was a topic (Report: 3.5M jobs ride on infrastructure funding) posted, and all you (Report: 3.5M jobs ride on infrastructure funding) provided was partisan drivel.So what are you proposing then? A massive defense build up from alien invasion like Kruhman advocated? There was real economic necessity that drove that decision. The type of Government Spending you are advocating for now is Government Spending for the sake of Government Spending. Your link only makes my argument stronger. I appreciate that.
You have yet to provide anything that supports causation, let alone statistically significant correlation. Do try again!It isn't though. Government Spending and the economic policies you advocate only dig the hole deeper. make recessions last longer, or cause more recessions. I only need to look at the destruction the economic policies you advocate have caused over the last 4 years alone. 6 trillion added to the deficit. A shrinking Labor Force. High black Unemployment. High youth Unemployment. Wages stagnant and low.
You have yet to refute anything! Government deficits add to economic output. This is simply a matter of fact. It would be beneficial not to confuse crowding out in your next response.See above. Your premise has already been refuted. Government Spending is the PROBLEM. Not the solution. It only creates more debt.
An observation of your activity.Boring dodge. You are once again projecting your own ignorance. Nothing more.
Fighting the Cold War which he won. This is in turn led to the Peace Dividend. Bush Sr and Clinton took advantage of this which created millions upon millions of new jobs. Reagan created 18 million net+ jobs over the course of his Presidency. His deficit to GDP spending was still only 51%, because the Economy grew by more than 1/3 under his leadership. Compare that with Obama, who is now spending at 103% Deficit to GDP in an Economy that just shrunk after 4 years of his leadership. You're just not very good at this whole posting thing are you. Under Clinton the deficit to GDP ratio was 68%. Reagan
You mean debt to GDP; The deficit is at best 11% of GDP. The Reagan recession was an entirely different animal; high unemployment (caused by deliberate monetary policy via Volcker) and high inflation (expectation related). Perhaps it would be a good idea to at least get the terminology straight before making an argument.
Which helped alleviate inflation and inflationary expectations.Reagan cut the top rates from 70% - 28%.
Nonsense, just a simple observation of the facts.You're just parroting Ezra Klein talking points.
Tax rates are lower under Obama than they are under Reagan. Or can you provide relevant data to refute my comment?This is not even worth my time. Obamacare has more than 20 new taxes about to kick in. many affect the poor and middle class. This is on top of oil/food prices skyrocketing. (A hidden tax).
Effective tax rates are currently lower than during any other time in our post WWII history. Fact.The tax cuts Reagan enacted didn't even take effect until later in his Presidency. using tax rates from 1980 is laughably misleading. So it's true. Carter's tax rates, not Reagan's, were higher than what people are taxed now. When discussing these things you need to start at the point where that president's tax policy actually went into effect. I mean you couldn't be more dishonest. I'm almost embarrassed for you. Reagan advocated a capital gains tax rate of 17.5%, and you're going to sit there with propaganda and try and claim taxes were higher under him than obama? It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Taxes under CARTER than obama (right now until obamacare kicks in) sure. I'll give you that.
Another fallacy? I was not aware that my political lean was in any way topic of discussion. Desperateness is beginning to set in i see. Try to stay on topic (a request for the nth time).You're not an objective analyst. You're a far left hack who is pretending to be an objective analyst. I see right through your schtick. Change your political leaning to Socialist. It's really what you are. You are not a Libertarian. You are being dishonest by calling yourself a Libertarian.
Not disputing that.The Economy grew by more than a third under reagan's leadership.
Wealth losses in excess of 100% of GDP can have that lingering effect.Under obama it just shrunk.
Cumulative GDP GROWTH. Again, careful on the terminology in the future.Cumulative GDP compared between the two it's not even close.
Really? I have managed to stay on topic in a continuous manner where as you have been all over the place.You're really getting desperate. That much is obvious.
A liquidity trap has been our reality. Your low-brow article is not a means of refutation.See above. You lied in your previous post
I am not supporter of MMT; hence it is of no consequence to the discussion at hand.Yea ok than Obama and Bernanke should start minting those trillion dollar coins so none of us ever have to pay taxes again
That is kind of the point. Fiscal stimulus is enacted to create short term economic growth.I only need to point to the fact that Obama's Stimulus didn't create a surplus.
Your opinion, given the level of your of understanding simply does not cut it.It created more debt and added to the deficit. Pure waste.
This makes zero sense. A fiscal multiplier means that NO (zero) money that was appropriated was subsequently spent into the real economy. This of course is nonsense.There was no fiscal multiplier associated with it.
An overwhelming majority of the stimulus has been dispersed. Of course you lack the understanding and objectiveness necessary to discuss fiscal stimulus.That's why his administration is no longer releasing reports about his stimulus.