Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (45086)	8/20/2010 2:29:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

That is EXACTLY what the economic analysis PREDICTED would happen at the BEGINNING of the decade, and they were proved correct. Not exactly. I said "the higher spending did decrease growth by the end of the decade" The statment from or about the projections that you made says "That the Bush tax and budget choices resulted in... ...and from mid-decade ON economic growth was LOWER then it otherwise would have been had none of those changes been implemented." The two statements are compatible. They can both be true. In fact if my statement is true, the statement you made or quoted is also true (but not necessarily the other way around). But they aren't the same thing. I'm saying the spending eventually resulted in lower growth, the statement you made or quoted says that that "the tax and budget choices" resulted in lower growth. Increasing spending is a budget choice, so you could use them interchangeably (even if the later term is less specific). But "spending increases", is not the same as "spending increases and tax cuts" A != A+B (unless B is zero, which isn't relevant here). The two statements are different, so no it is not exactly what you said "the economic analysis PREDICTED would happen at the BEGINNING of the decade".