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: TimF who wrote (45112)	8/24/2010 9:52:53 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "My statement (which you said was exactly what the analysis said) was that the spending decreased economic growth. The analysis (according to your statement) was that the spending and taxes produced lower growth)." You seem to have gone off into the weeds on some kind of an ideological tangent here..... With respect to ALL THREE of those macro economic analysis that the Bush administration ordered back in the first year or two after it's accession to office --- (as it was plotting to gain support for it's tax and budget changes) --- NONE of those analysis, CBO, GAO, and Trend Macrolytics made ANY SUCH CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS (such as 'taxes good', 'taxes bad', 'spending good/bad' etc.) such as you seem to be striving to pronounce. They were NOT TASKED WITH WRITING ANY TEXTBOOKS. They were not writing any Op-Ed pieces for the local newspaper... they were analyzing a SPECIFIC and CONCRETE set of proposals the administration had put forward. They were tasked with analyzing (over a ten year projection) the expected economic results if Bush's tax and budget policies were put into effect. So they did, and: ...all THREE of the WH economic analysis projections that were commissioned back when Bush was pushing for his tax changes in the early 'nineties) came) to the exact same general conclusion, that the Bush tax and budget choices would result in: 1) higher economic growth in the first half of the decade, 2) but that positive effect dwindled away by the middle of the decade and was thereafter over-balanced by the negative effects of rising deficits and the borrowing that required, 3) and from mid-decade ON economic growth was LOWER then it otherwise would have been had none of those changes been implemented. 4) and, by the end of the decade, at the end of the second term, growth would be strongly lower. And so it came to pass. Exactly as all three econometric analysis had projected.