Laffer explains the sad truth regarding "stimulus"

dogtowner

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
17,849
Location
Wandering around
less is more

and conversely, more is less

and best of all is none



By ARTHUR B. LAFFER

Policy makers in Washington and other capitals around the world are debating whether to implement another round of stimulus spending to combat high unemployment and sputtering growth rates. But before they leap, they should take a good hard look at how that worked the first time around.
It worked miserably, as indicated by the table nearby, which shows increases in government spending from 2007 to 2009 and subsequent changes in GDP growth rates. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, those with the largest spending spurts from 2007 to 2009 saw the least growth in GDP rates before and after the stimulus.
The four nations—Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic and Finland—with the biggest stimulus programs had the steepest declines in growth. The United States was no different, with greater spending (up 7.3%) followed by far lower growth rates (down 8.4%).
 
Werbung:
Interesting. The spending increases and growth rate decreases seem very closely related. That actually comes out to a double decline in the net value, income, growth or whatever they are affecting.
 
Wasn't the Stimulus--started by Bush--hijacked to become a payoff to Government Unions?
That's where the money went.
 
Wasn't the Stimulus--started by Bush--hijacked to become a payoff to Government Unions?
That's where the money went.

Under Bush, I vaguely remember people who earned under a certain amount got a credit for around $300 against their taxes they paid. Then there was about 450 billion for TARP. I read where all of TARP has been paid back. Obama's reinvestment act was for almost 800 billion, that went to his pets, and I'm pretty sure there was a second one after that for around 400/500 billion.
 
Under Bush, I vaguely remember people who earned under a certain amount got a credit for around $300 against their taxes they paid. Then there was about 450 billion for TARP. I read where all of TARP has been paid back. Obama's reinvestment act was for almost 800 billion, that went to his pets, and I'm pretty sure there was a second one after that for around 400/500 billion.

and TARP was to buy troubled assets, not give out to Obama contributors on Wall Street. and instead of being retired, they are looking for other ways to squander it.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top