Is Limbaugh’s analysis of his stimulus plan embarrassing?

ObamaBot THX-1138 asks the question: He claims ‘tax cuts’ is supply side economics, when in fact tax cuts and spending increases have been THE DEFINITION of Keynesian anti-recession policy since at least Samuelson’s first text book in the 50′s.

Supply siders think that tax cut will induce supply response, which has never been shown to occur.

Limbaugh’s plan is nearly as ‘Keynesian’ as Obama’s, only he so grossly uniformed he does not know it.

Answer:Rush like the many Republicans STILL want Bushonmics: tax cuts and cutting corporal taxes.

IT NEVER WORKS!!!

2001 tax cuts: “the weakest employment growth in decades.”:

2003 tax cuts: resulting in job creation that was “well below historical averages.”

only 2.6 million more jobs than in June 2003 created rather than the HYPED 5.5 million new jobs:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/11/job_subsidy.html

The average annual employment growth was 2.5 percent after 1993 and just 0.6 percent after 2001.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html

Mark Zandi, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign and the chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, has argued for months that the “fiscal bang for the buck” of tax cuts is significantly inferior to spending increases. According to Zandi’s research, a corporate tax cut delivers $0.30 in real GDP growth for every $1 invested. In comparison, infrastructure spending delivers $1.59 in GDP for every $1 spent. Zandi isn’t alone in this belief: the Congressional Budget Office “deemed last year that corporate tax cuts are ‘not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.’”

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/gops-successful-media-message-this-stimulus-needs-to-be-more-ineffective.php(Elections)

Similar Posts:

Share

Leave a Reply