Re: "an acknowledgement of special circumstances that affected the nation at the time recession started and were compounded severely on 9/11 and after."
When he posted that, I DID NOT DENY IT.
(Even though I could have. The GAO and the CBO have reported that ALL the war and 9-11 expenses combined account for LESS then 50% of the national debt increase. The private econometrics firm hired by the WH prior to Bush's last State of the Union address, tasked with conducting a 'dynamic' [i.e., 'Laffer curve' style analysis that ALWAYS assumes that tax cuts RAISE growth rates, and SPENDING INCREASES do too] analysis of the Bush team's budget proposals came up with a very similar result: they showed that, war or no war, without *significant* spending cuts then by mid-decade --- where we are now --- the recovery would start to reverse itself, and growth would enter a declining growth phase.)
Even so, I DID NOT argue against the factors that Scott put forth (9-11, war).
In fact, I included them along with some other factors just as soon as he asked me to post some reasons to explain why the present recovery is below average.
I think you are 'seeing' an exchange that never happened... you might want to go back and read my first post:
Message 21973916
This is ALL I SAID (and no one has disagreed with the truth of the post. Not you, not Scott):
"The economy made a miraculous recovery."
Actually, by historical standards, looking at other recoveries after recessions... this recovery is sub-par.
Below the average.
|
