Also... your using the $1.40 multiplier without actually any basis or knowledge on the rest of the theory... or the guy who discovered it.
Robert J. Barro estimated that government spending has a short-term multiplier of around 0.4-0.6, meaning for every $1.00 of government spending, overall GDP increases by $0.40-$0.60 GDP. In addition, the spending must be repaid in the future most likely with tax increases which he assumes to have a multiplier of -1.1. This results in a further decrease in GDP and concludes that government spending actually has more cost than benefit.
So government increases spending, making a $.40 for ever buck it puts in. ($1.40, because where it took away $1 dollar. There is now 1.40)
And raises taxes... costing $1.10 in growth for every buck it takes out. (so really, costing $2.10)
Taking the whole thing into picture, using the study you were citing. For every dollar taken in taxes. The economy shrinks by 70 cents.
The multiplier didn't take into account paying for the spending.
So I wouldn't keep using that number if I were you. It actually hurts your arugement. People who make an arguement for more spending based on that number are generally people who "Can't see the otherside of the arguement" and are misquoting statistics to try and make there position look good.
Or people who haven't done there due diligence in research.
