In response to:

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

cchuba Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 2:08 PM
If you count military spending, all of which goes to U.S. companies who hire U.S. citizens that then spend money in the U.S., Ronald Reagan increased U.S. gov't spending over $500B in 2005 dollars. This is well over $50B per year, this makes Ronald Reagan look like Mr. Keyne's. I sure wish Mitchell would address how he can justify stripping out military spending in his tirade against gov't spending being stimulative. I am not saying that I disagree with his conclusion, only his methodology. This is a real whopper of an omission.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Mar 07, 2013 7:26 PM
MORON spew once again using FALSE numbers.
cchuba Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 11:28 AM
Wow, colonial girl, that is quite an intellectually powerful argument. Please note, I said 2005 dollars which means that they are inflation adjusted. Also, please do not deny that there was a huge military build up under Reagan and also read Mitchell's article where it is he who makes the distinction of 'domestic' spending and then while chiding GWB clarifies that he is excluding military spending.

I don't know if this website will let me post links, but the website is us government spending dot com.

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.