Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

[Truthmatters]

So the money they earned doing it was no good to the economy?

Strange.

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

The rank ghoulishness of those who claim global warfare to be economically stimulative is astonishing.

ask Bush he created alot

 

[Oddball]

So the money they earned doing it was no good to the economy?

Strange.

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

The rank ghoulishness of those who claim global warfare to be economically stimulative is astonishing.

ask Bush he created alot

None of the Bushies claimed that the wars were economically stimulative, nitwit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So the money they earned doing it was no good to the economy?

Strange.

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

None. But its a good thing most Americans had a big fat pay-check for a job well done from Uncle Sam to get the economy going. Imagine a few hundred thousand GI's back from the war, with money in the bank, ready to buy houses and cars, get married, have kids, go to college, start businesses - you'd think it might lead to the 1950's or something.

But no - its all a lie. The key to reviving the economy is to reduce spending. That way, there will be less demand for goods and services, and companies will have to lay off more workers.

 

[Truthmatters]

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

The rank ghoulishness of those who claim global warfare to be economically stimulative is astonishing.

ask Bush he created alot

None of the Bushies claimed that the wars were economically stimulative, nitwit.

ARE you ******* crazy?

they said it would pay for itsself

 

[Oddball]

So the money they earned doing it was no good to the economy?

Strange.

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

None. But its a good thing most Americans had a big fat pay-check for a job well done from Uncle Sam to get the economy going. Imagine a few hundred thousand GI's back from the war, with money in the bank, ready to buy houses and cars, get married, have kids, go to college, start businesses - you'd think it might lead to the 1950's or something.

But no - its all a lie. The key to reviving the economy is to reduce spending. That way, there will be less demand for goods and services, and companies will have to lay off more workers. Which will lead to recovery, of course.

At the expense of whom?


More broken windows...More unicorns and leprechauns with pots of gold.

 

[Truthmatters]

They told the American people the war in Iraq would cost us nothing

 

[Oddball]

They told the American people the war in Iraq would cost us nothing

That isn't the same as economic stimulus.

Now STFU, while adults converse.

 

[Polk]

There are several studies, notably by Reinhart and Rogoff that indicate when a country's debt to GDP ratio approaches 90% that economic growth is adversely effected. A default usually occurs if insufficient action is not taken to reduce the debt load. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has ever spent their way out of a debt overhang and into prosperity. Spending generally results in a temporary boost, the effects depend on the efficacy of the spending; the problem is that it's temporary. When the extra spending stops, so does the growth.

You're drawing really broad conclusions from Reinhart and Rogoff that their data doesn't really support. They acknowledge that their data set for GDP/debt ratios north of 90% are not very common. Furthermore, the claims of danger are built on the idea that the bond market will demand higher and higher interest rates after crossing the "threshold". Reinhart rejected that idea, pointing to Japan.

No better example exists than right here over the past 3.5 years. Look how much extra spending has occurred since 2008 and TARP. and a tax rebate. We lowered the prime interest rate down to nearly nothing, and what do we have to show for it? 1.9% growth in Q1 2012, many project about 2% for the year.

Versus the likely counter-factual of zero.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIbdnM8Ts88]Bush Dismisses Iraq Recession - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

He said the war helped the economy

 

[Truthmatters]

What good to the economy are scores of thousands dead and even more maimed?

The rank ghoulishness of those who claim global warfare to be economically stimulative is astonishing.

ask Bush he created alot

None of the Bushies claimed that the wars were economically stimulative, nitwit.

Just proved you wrong with tape.
you dont have the class to admitt it though

 

[Oddball]

ask Bush he created alot

None of the Bushies claimed that the wars were economically stimulative, nitwit.

Just proved you wrong with tape.
you dont have the class to admitt it though

So Chimpola said it once (that's me admitting he said it, airhead), to an incredulous lolberal reporter....Incredulous because the person saying so has an (R) by his name.

Wouldn't be the first time that drip was wrong....But then again I'm not committed to Keynesian economic alchemy, no matter who is trying to peddle it to me.

 

[Truthmatters]

gee you take being wrong very hard dont you

 

[Truthmatters]

and you want more by electing the guy who wants to double down on stupid

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

There have never been any meaningful cuts to the size of government in this country.
So your question cannot be answered

 

[Oddball]

and you want more by electing the guy who wants to double down on stupid

I didn't know you were on the ballot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

There have never been any meaningful cuts to the size of government in this country.
So your question cannot be answered

Moreso recently than in many decades:

That may explain much of the slowness in the recovery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the U.S.?

When?

There have never been any meaningful cuts to the size of government in this country.
So your question cannot be answered

Moreso recently than in many decades:

That may explain much of the slowness in the recovery.

We're spending less?

Really?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

cutting government to ignite economic growth - this has worked in the past?

In the u.s.?

When?

1946

Fail.

Government spending as a % of GDP was far higher in 1946 than today.

Did you move the goalposts on me? You asked when a cut in government spending resulted in an economic boost. In 1945 the government spending was over 50% of GDP, it dropped to 35% in 1946, and went down even further after that. Despite this massive cut GDP actually went up during those years.

Simple facts PooP, you should try living in the real world for a while.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

\The Argument is some targeted Tax Cuts, and Loosing of some Regulations can, will, and has spurred on economic Growth.

Yet you can't tell us when it history that's actually happened.

Wanna bet?