Bartlett is a republican who worked under Reagan (Dom. Policy Advisor) and under Bush (Treasurer). He is qualified to talk about these things, IMO. He talks about the deficit also, I think its interesting. Apparently its not all Obama's fault!! WHO WOULDA KNOWN!?!!?! Anyway, what he says on the deficit is interesting, especially coming from someone who leans to the right. He believes that there is a time for tax cuts, but that time certainly isn't right now in this crisis. Something I totally agree with him on. Why the Economy needs Spending not Tax Cuts... http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
Some protesters might find this fact hard to believe. I haven't seen anybody specifically calling for a tax rebate but I can see how politicians would like these. It's something tangible that politicians can point to when voters ask "what have you done for me lately?"
We don't. Very good ;-) We can always play by this administration's rules and bookkeeping practices. Pick a number out of thin air and call it "jobs saved." Also, "never let a good crisis go to waste" - better pass my legislation or bad things will happen. Yes indeed, the Bush administration didn't let a good crisis go to waste, either. Mushroom cloud.
How do you purpose the government encourage spending by the people? 30% efficiency does not seem good to me.
The economy is 70% consumer spending. Encouraging any other kind of spending is 70% inefficient, no? Clinton and Bush both encouraged the spending through economic bubbles. Borrow lots of money against your house when it's worth 300% of its real value. Or against your mutual fund.
i'm confused, what is the solution you are suggesting here? the borrowing against your house as a good thing or a bad thing?
So in the case of no supporting evidence, you give the benefit of the doubt to growing the government and increasing government spending?
Not at all. But I do think that massive govt. spending that didn't put the $trillions of stimulus spending into the hands of consumers wasn't a very wise use of the money.
I do not see any growing of government. I do give the benefit of doubt for government spending based on the spending during WWII and towards the end of the great depression. Perhaps these are inaccurate or no longer relevant sources. Or perhaps the problem is that the money was given to the states, and the local governments did not use the money efficiently? I don't know but it seemed like 30% of the money being used is not very efficient. I am under the impression that tax cuts typically benefit the rich and do little for the middle class. Perhaps some kind of "here is $5,000 that everyone gets regardless of tax bracket, and by the way you have to spend this on something (no savings allowed!)."
