In response to:

Why Did America’s Economy Boom When Reagan and Clinton Reduced the Burden of Spending?

absinthe48 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 7:08 AM
An interesting question is why Bush 43 also implemented spending policies that grew the government at the expense of the private sector. I doubt that Bush 43 is a Marxist ideologue. Was it simply that he was a power-hungry hog rooting about to feed his appetite? Bush 43 was the great disaster of our age, because as a Republican with a Republican Congress he could have set us on to the road of prosperity for decades if he had been a principled conservative rather than an opportunistic grab-and-spend sort of frat-prat.
John435 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 5:32 AM
Bush, like McCain, is a progressive. Despite being republicans in name only, they have a tendency to create a large gov't to take care of society's needs. Progressivism is a CANCER of the constitution.
True Conservative! Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 12:56 PM
Yeah, js, that's why gas prices when Bush left office were around $1.90 a gallon ... so his oil buddies would really prosper compared to the $3.80 a gallon we're paying now! Question: How DO you get to be so stupid? It can't just be natural talent; it has to be carefully nurtured in the leftist indoctrination factories!
jsullivan154 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 9:39 AM
absinthe, Bush accomplished exactly what he set out to do???? Inflate oil for his Texas tea friends and create the bubble as w/pre FDR for the wealth redistribution of his war stocks and friends. The problem is? The war the righties revoke as saving us from the Pre FDR Great Depression Really does nothing but build Debt? Oooopps wrong again w/supply siders failed thinking and excuses of excessiveness..... In the end Bush a delivery of promise to his supporters
Dan107 Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 9:34 AM
So you are going with the Bush43 as the "great disaster of our age" for wasteful spending over the guy who ramped Bush43's policies up to the point where the spending has doubled?
Why did you choose Bush43 for your distinguished honour, Abs?

Triggered by an appearance on Canadian TV, I asked yesterday why we should believe anti-sequester Keynesians. They want us to think that a very modest reduction in the growth of government spending will hurt the economy, yet Canada enjoyed rapid growth in the mid-1990s during a period of substantial budget restraint.

I make a similar point in this debate with Robert Reich, noting that  the burden of government spending was reduced as a share of economic output during the relatively prosperous Reagan years and Clinton years.