Every $1.00  of Government spending on infrastructrure = $1.59 economic stimulus. Every $1.00 spent on unemploymnet benefits = $1.64 economic stimulus. As for food stamps, each $1.00 spent on food stamps = $1.73 economic stimulus. Yet all these programs are what republicans and there mouth pieces at fox news rail on as extention of the nanny state and government waste.

          So what about there great idea of tax cuts for the rich and corporations. So for every $1.00 of corporate tax cuts = only 30 Cents economic stimulus. Every $1.00 givin to billionaire hedge fund manager or capital gains tax cuts = only 37 Cents economic stimulus. Every $1.00 spent on the Bush tax cuts = only 29 cents economic stimulus. These are the facts. Info From Moody's Analytics Mark Zandi. So why does these tax breaks not work? It is because supply side economics does not work.

Feel free to sign this petition. Simple, easy and 2 seconds of your time. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcivic.moveon.org%2Fstandwithwarren%2F%3Frc%3Dhomepage.topbar&h=IAQCggqGYAQDMqrVHCNj0xHOpAO55OmhMzuLqhCmN7tDGJw

I want a low flat tax with no loop holes that everyone has to pay no matter how rich or poor. And I don't want bloated government or "stimulus" bull crap. The government should be as small as possible and stay out of our lives. All we need government for is law and order, defense, and public safety.

We don't need half of the government agencies we have. We need to stop spending tax payer's money on art grants and scholarships. We also don't need to keep taking care of 3rd and 4th generation welfare slackers. If you can't find a job and you're not disabled then I say we put you to work doing the same stuff inmates do in work release. No free handouts. I'm also tired of my tax dollars going to parents that can't take care of their kids and keep having more kids just to get more money. If you can't take care of your kids, guess what, they go to foster care until you can. The US government really needs to stop paying farmers NOT to grow certain crops and pays them to grow others.

For some reason the US government thinks you just throw money are problems instead of letting the free market fix itself for free. And now congress thinks it knows better then I do how to spend my money.

How can spending money on unemployment benefits increase economic stimulus? Wouldn't it encourage people to stay at home rather than get a job? I never understood this.

I'd point out that Zandi uses Old school Keynesian models based on Klein... which considering stagflation exists... I'm not sure i'd base anything on old school Keynesian models unless I was just looking to make a political point.

In general a lot of economists would disagree and would have plenty of economic models and numbers that disagreed.

After all most economists dumped Keynesianism for Monetarism after Stagflation started, due to Stagflation being impossible according to oldschool Keynesian models.

Government spending DOES increase GDP though.  Which is probably where those numbers come from.  Of course, the reason it does increase GDP is because government spending counts in GDP.  Of course, nobody talks about when the stimulus stops and everything drops right back down.  Like well, what's happening right now.  Real growth is replaced with temporary growth that crumbles away with the spending behind it.

You can find different economic models that will find all sorts of things, in general, all economic models tend to show is the inherent bias of the person making them.


Aside from which, weren't you the guy who argued that higher taxes on the rich would cause less money to be in overseas banks, even though money in overseas banks isn't taxed? Just saying, you probably want to get your economics basis down before your just believing blindly what a random economist tells you.

posted on face book

While I am glad that you are trying to actually use numbers, rather than have no backing, you act as if Economics is 100% factual, and not simply based on theories.

When it really comes down to things, we do not know the impacts a majority of things have on our economy. One side will say it does this, the other side will say it does the exact opposite thing.

The economics behind things is just another huge political fight, because each side thinks things have different effects.

....Because MoveOn.Org is the most intelligent, thought out PAC in the universe, right?

Sorry, I'd rather take my economics from a guy wearing a sandwich board than MoveOn.

Also, the correct way to rig a poll is to

A) Word the replies in a stupid way so yours sounds right. (Like you did)

B) Offer more options that disagree with your position so it looks like your position holds more support. (You did the opposite of this.)

Generally too you might want to provide a source article... otherwise it looks like you know the article is flawed and therefore just want to present what you want to present.

These economic multipliers are 100% BS because they consider the positive multiplier effect from increasing the spending of the government while completely ignoring the negative multiplier effect of the spending lost from taxation; or the recurring negative multiplier from spending lost paying the debts of prior spending.

Effectively, government spending (in particular government social spending) is effectively the same as taking water from one bucket and spreading it across multiple buckets using a leaky ladle