Rshermr
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #1,481
Poor ed. Again we see why the kindergardeners know more of economics than he does.There you go, me boy. Proof that deficit, or stimulative, spending works. And that your heroe admitted that it indeed did.
if it was proof and the matter was closed at least one economist would see it that way but none do. In fact you may be the only person on earth who sees it that way. what does that tell us about your IQ?
If deficits were stimulative then Obama's economy would be roaring since his deficts have totaled $5.8 trillion in 4 years while Reagans totaled only $1.86 trillion in 8 years. How slow are you?
Ed thinks he can buy a new car at the same price as during the Reagan administration. Knows NOTHING of inflation, excepts when he wants to suggest that inflation is the dem's fault. Funny.
Reagan tripled the national debt. Now,ed would think that is a knock on Reagan, because he is stupid. But truth is, it was only Reagan spending to get the economy going, and it worked. No one stopped him, though they could have. Because they saw the value and the results of stimulative spending.
So, we have ed, who thinks stimulative spending is a bad thing. So, ed thinks I suggested deficits were stimulative. Which, of course, I did not. Because they are not. Deficits are neither good nor bad, depending on the condition of the economy. They help nothing, and hurt nothing generally. But spending stimulatively did work for reagan, as he and his advisers all knew. The fact that the deficit tripled proves he spent more than the economy brought in. Which any economic team would do if faced with 10.8% unemployment and a deficit growing too fast. And again, faced with extremely high unemployment and a slow economy, reagan did not cut taxes and stop spending as ed said he would, but rather he did just the opposite. BECAUSE SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS HAD FAILED AND MADE THE ECONOMY MUCH WORSE FROM EARLY 1981 THROUGH LATE 1982. Stimulative spending, however, worked as planned.
Last edited: