In response to:

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

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.