Occupy Wall Street protest

[hard4janira]

Failures by what metric? By the metric of preventing another great depression the stimulus was a success and yes it was too small. We had enough to avert disaster but not enough to get us out of the recession.

How do you know what would've happenned without QE1 and QE2? How do you know we averted a great depression? I don't think a shorter, sharper depression where assets get re-priced based on market value and incompetently run companies go out of busiensss is worse than the alternative - years and years of high unemployment, poor GDP growth, zombie banks bailed out at taxpayer expense, and keeping toxic assets on the books without re-pricing them or letting the markets find a true bottom so that they can recover. Thanks for nothing. So yes, the response of the Federal reserve and the Federal goverment has set the stage for a far larger looming disaster. It *is* a failure. But you are the one who seems to beleive that doing 'something, anything' is better than doing nothing. Not me. And just because you 'do something' doesn't mean you haven't caused collateral damage in the process.

Furthermore, I could post article after article from hundreds of ecomosits and business leaders who would argue that the stimulus did not succeed. I'm not even going to bother to try since you seem overly obsesed with ONE info-graphic that you've posted numerous times as difinitive proof that the stimulus was a run-away freight train of success. In fact it was so successful that we've come up with a trillian dollar sequal, perhaps just to catch those who fell through the cracks the first time around. I suggest you listen to the economists that Tom Keene talks to on a daily basis. You will be exposed to a broader range of economic opinions regarding what is going on. At least I can acknowledge the various approaches - you have a ONE TRACK KEYNESIAN-KRUGMAN MIND, and any economist who disagrees with you you dismiss as a quack.

And where is this inflation that QE should have caused? You say it's just hiding. Great, maybe we have full employment and a roaring economy. It's all here, just hiding.

Yes exactly. It's hiding in the banks that we've recapitalized, but aren't lending.The effects of inflation have been moderate to this point (but they exist nonetheless). As soon as the economy starts doing what you and Ben Bernanke want it to do - more private lending (even when there is no real demand for it) fueled at the expense of over-leveraged, cash strapped borrowers, then we'll start to see inflation manifesting itself in prices. For the cherry on top, you and Ben bury Americans once and for all as you raise interest rates on them in an attempt to contain inflation.

First of all, you're conflating a flaw of policy with a flaw of politics. The policy will work, but you worry our political system won't be able to deliver it.

We may be talking in circles here, but you can have a recession without having high unemployment so just because you are in a recession doesn't necessarily mean that the federal government needs to run around paving roads. So no, I don't even agree with your 'policy' on the surface. If consumers stop spending (and start saving) and this causes the economy to contract, why does the government need to step and force spending? I don't think that they do. You would argue that deflation is the worst possible thing that can ever happen - but we need deflation so that assets that were so over-blown can properly value themselves. Everyting the government is doing to prevent this from happening is violating the market trying to correct itself, the ramifications of which are going to manifest themselves in other ways down the road.

Yea, how about 1992-2000 when we saw the deficit shrink and didn't even need to raise the debt limit the last few years? I don't know how else you think the debt gets paid down except by first diminishing the deficit which is exactly what happened. There are your "good times." But then as you said politics happened and Bush stole the WH. He acted irresponsibly, exploding the deficit with his tax cuts and wars. Had Gore not been denied, the economy still would have tanked but the deficit would have not erupted as it did.

I admit the deficit shrunk for a few years in the 90's. (That was back when Congress actually passed a budget - the current crop of blow-hards is going on what - 900+ days now without a budget?). Still, they didn't address the debt so history tells me that even in the BEST of times, the most that I can hope for not making the debt any worse than it already is. That is not acceptable. And you don't know what would've happened had Gore won the election (he lost by the way, they recounted in Florida and he lost). I'd guess that 911 would still have happenned, and Gore would have gone to war in the middle east just like 'W' did.

To say that our country deserves to collapse reveals the emotional basis to your argument. Economics is not a morality play. Life isn't fair. You don't get rewarded with a good economy for self-flagellation and austerity, it only weakens you further. If you want to grow your economy but private business won't do it, then grow via the government. It worked spectacularly for America under FDR. This is not about your personal hangups, it's about what the data say and the data say the stimulus worked and we need more of it.

You are wrong, but you will never believe anyting other than your 'New Deal', Keynesian stimulus rubbish. Japan is suffering the consequences of those policies now and we are well on our way. Your policies and tactics are what's cruel. Your inability to see that removing the shackles that you place on the private sector is what grows the private sector, not by printing or borrowing money to put into the private sector at taxpayers expense. That's just so stupid on the very face of it it doesn't even pass the smell test. You couldn't even quantify (if you had to) how much debt it would take to grow the GDP by a certian %. You just look at eachother and shrug and say 'well the only way out is to spend trillions and trillons'. Since you know that that is never going to happen, you can sit back and say 'see I told you, the reason none of this crap worked is beause you didn't spend enough'. Save your breath. We didn't get a new deal from FDR, we got a raw deal. At least his OWN SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY was wise enough to recognize that the stimulus efforst under FDR failed (and he noted as much in his diary).

I'm advocating for the inflation we had in the 1990's, remember how much everyone suffered then? You're the one wishing for default, advocating cruelty on a massive scale, so what do you care what happens to them?

If you are advocating inflation then you are deciding that debtors are winners and savers are losers. It's immoral and wrong for you or government to decide that IMO. It's the federal goverment that is cruel by accumulating all of this debt. Not I. And yes, I would love to see your policies fail. The aftermath of your policies will be brutal, but only then will the American people see how they have been mislead by thier government.

[onmyknees]

Failures by what metric? By the metric of preventing another great depression the stimulus was a success and yes it was too small. We had enough to avert disaster but not enough to get us out of the recession.


And where is this inflation that QE should have caused? You say it's just hiding. Great, maybe we have full employment and a roaring economy. It's all here, just hiding.



First of all, you're conflating a flaw of policy with a flaw of politics. The policy will work, but you worry our political system won't be able to deliver it. Yea, how about 1992-2000 when we saw the deficit shrink and didn't even need to raise the debt limit the last few years? I don't know how else you think the debt gets paid down except by first diminishing the deficit which is exactly what happened. There are your "good times." But then as you said politics happened and Bush stole the WH. He acted irresponsibly, exploding the deficit with his tax cuts and wars. Had Gore not been denied, the economy still would have tanked but the deficit would have not erupted as it did.




To say that our country deserves to collapse reveals the emotional basis to your argument. Economics is not a morality play. Life isn't fair. You don't get rewarded with a good economy for self-flagellation and austerity, it only weakens you further. If you want to grow your economy but private business won't do it, then grow via the government. It worked spectacularly for America under FDR. This is not about your personal hangups, it's about what the data say and the data say the stimulus worked and we need more of it.




I'm advocating for the inflation we had in the 1990's, remember how much everyone suffered then? You're the one wishing for default, advocating cruelty on a massive scale, so what do you care what happens to them?

There he goes with the graphs again....LMAO...I posted a transcript where Doug Elmendorf ( CBO) admitted in a Congressional Hearing that there was no known accounting methods to say with any certainty that this much deficit spending "saved or created" jobs, and for any length of time, but why let the director of the CBO under oath influence your ideology ? What BGC has to explain in light of these facts, and the administration's own assurances that unemployment would level below 8% if we spent this money, is exactly where all these jobs are. Two Thirds of the 800 billion went tax breaks, entitlements, and unemployment insurance....an arguably noble goal, but certainly didn't create any jobs. That left about 275 billion for "loans, grants, and contracts". Out of that, billions went to green energy boondoggles, There were not sufficient reporting mechanisms despite what Crazy Joe Biden and the White House web site like to tell us. Strip out another couple billion for Senator Coburn's list of 300 wasteful follies, ( Including Solyndra and Gun Running) combined with Obama's admission " shovel ready really wasn't shovel ready" , and you begin to see how much of this money was flushed down the sewer, yet guys like Blue Grass Cat, and his butt buddy Paul Krugman stick to their foolishness. Do the math dude....tell me how many jobs were created, then divide that into 275 billion, and you'll see what each job cost the taxpayer. But in the end....you believe what you wanna believe. You're soon to be a very lonely guy !!! lol

[BluegrassCat]

You are wrong, but you will never believe anyting other than your 'New Deal', Keynesian stimulus rubbish. Japan is suffering the consequences of those policies now and we are well on our way. Your policies and tactics are what's cruel. Your inability to see that removing the shackles that you place on the private sector is what grows the private sector, not by printing or borrowing money to put into the private sector at taxpayers expense. That's just so stupid on the very face of it it doesn't even pass the smell test. You couldn't even quantify (if you had to) how much debt it would take to grow the GDP by a certian %. You just look at eachother and shrug and say 'well the only way out is to spend trillions and trillons'. Since you know that that is never going to happen, you can sit back and say 'see I told you, the reason none of this crap worked is beause you didn't spend enough'. Save your breath. We didn't get a new deal from FDR, we got a raw deal. At least his OWN SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY was wise enough to recognize that the stimulus efforst under FDR failed (and he noted as much in his diary).

You've slipped into Orwellian hyperbole at this point. When you advocate grinding poverty, record unemployment and an end to government services and yet you complain about cruelty...it's become laughable.

You want to know the multiplier effect? It was about x2 for the stimulus. Pretty clear evidence for more of it until the economy is out of the ditch.

Right FDR failed. The Great Depression completely wracked the 1940's and 1950's. It was a period of low growth, right? Oh wait it was unprecedented growth for the middle class thanks to large scale fiscal stimulus.

Check your facts. The evidence showed that Gore clearly won. He won the election and the SCOTUS gave it to Bush.

You're trapped in an Ayn Rand bizarro world where contractionary policies are expansionary, pain is good and growth is immoral. A world that won't admit facts or data. You don't like my chart? Point out what's wrong with it, until then I'll keep rubbing your nose in the data. You rely on emotion not facts to back up your assertions. So find my post where I call an economist a quack, oh wait you can't. You keep going on about free markets, well newsflash they don't exist. We (thankfully) have government interference in the market and always will. You assert, without evidence, that allowing the worst case scenario to occur would have been preferable. You accuse me of making assertions that can't be completely proven (nothing can be) and then proceed to make the same assertions for your point of view. That's why we have the CBO to actually give us some evidence so we're not just pursuing ideological goals. I have no ideological attachment to Keynes but I endorse it because the balance of evidence does too. You have an emotional view about morality you want to play out that takes little account of data.

Again, you admit to rooting for the U.S. to fail, and you advocate policies to get your outcome. I want low unemployment and a strong middle class with plenty of class mobility so I advocate policies to get my preferred outcome.

[Ben]

And this is what peeves off some of the protesters:

[fred41]

Check your facts. The evidence showed that Gore clearly won. He won the election and the SCOTUS gave it to Bush.

The facts don't show that at all...

[hard4janira]

You've slipped into Orwellian hyperbole at this point. When you advocate grinding poverty, record unemployment and an end to government services and yet you complain about cruelty...it's become laughable.

Ahem... from one hyperbolist to another, I don't advocate grinding poverty (whatever that means) or record unemploymet. I do advocate scaling back on government services so that expenditures fall in line with revenues. Novel concept huh?

As for your 'grinding poverty', I would ask you one simple question: Just how obese do you think our poor should be? But when you say 'poor', what you really mean a class of citizens whose votes you have purchased with borrowed money. The people who fall into your categorization can change at any time as you conveniently alter your definition of what it means to be poor, adding more people with the stroke of a pen as you decide that incomes of 'X' dollars or below is now considered the new 'poor'. Armed with this new definition you can start your media assault against anybody who disagrees with you about how unfair America is and how the 'poor' are getting left behind.

Whats ironic is that what passes for 'poor' in America is a high standard of living in 85% of the rest of the world. Americas poor people have roofs over their heads, food, access to hospitals, access to education, air-conditioning, subsidized electricity, subsized internet, subsidized cell phone plans... the list goes on and on. Yet you STILL have left-wing nut jobs who would insist that we aren't doing enough to help the indigent - NOT BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, BUT BECAUSE PANDERING TO A CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAINED VOTE FOR HANDOUTS KEEPS THEM IN POWER. Its' the reason why none of these social programs are ever rendered useless because they have served their purpose. They never fulfulll their purpose - they are merely tools put in place by politicians to keep power for themselves.

You want to know the multiplier effect? It was about x2 for the stimulus. Pretty clear evidence for more of it until the economy is out of the ditch.

x2...... compelling.....

Right FDR failed. The Great Depression completely wracked the 1940's and 1950's. It was a period of low growth, right? Oh wait it was unprecedented growth for the middle class thanks to large scale fiscal stimulus.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

Let me try this one more time. NOT-EVERYBODY-THINKS-LIKE-YOU-DO-AND-BLINDLY-ASSUMES-THAT-MASSIVE-GOVERNMENT-INTERVENTION-SOLVES-ALL-OF-THE-WORLDS-PROBLEMS-IN-FACT-SOME-ECONOMISTS-THINK-OTHERWISE

You don't like my chart? Point out what's wrong with it, until then I'll keep rubbing your nose in the data. You rely on emotion not facts to back up your assertions.

onmyknees responded to your silly chart and gave you facts backed up by the CBO. Are those emotions?

You assert, without evidence, that allowing the worst case scenario to occur would have been preferable.

You can't call it a worse case scenario if you don't know what the outcome would have been, and you dont.

You accuse me of making assertions that can't be completely proven (nothing can be) and then proceed to make the same assertions for your point of view.

You're the one who says the stimulus succeeded ummm..... x2.....

I have no ideological attachment to Keynes but I endorse it because the balance of evidence does too. You have an emotional view about morality you want to play out that takes little account of data.

Ok. Except Japan in the 90's. That's evidence that it failed but let's ignore it.

[BluegrassCat]

As for your 'grinding poverty', I would ask you one simple question: Just how obese do you think our poor should be? But when you say 'poor', what you really mean a class of citizens whose votes you have purchased with borrowed money. The people who fall into your categorization can change at any time as you conveniently alter your definition of what it means to be poor, adding more people with the stroke of a pen as you decide that incomes of 'X' dollars or below is now considered the new 'poor'. Armed with this new definition you can start your media assault against anybody who disagrees with you about how unfair America is and how the 'poor' are getting left behind. Whats ironic is that what passes for 'poor' in America is a high standard of living in 85% of the rest of the world

I don't know much about how they define the poverty line but I'm pretty sure they don't change it every year. It's based generally on what it takes someone to afford food and housing and I think most people know it to be a conservative underestimate of what poverty is. Unfortunately the poor don't vote at high numbers or we would see some real progressive change. And what you call "buying votes" is actually just voting for material self-interest. It's a shame more people don't do it. We'd never see a Republican president again. And I'm glad that the poor in our country are better off than in other countries and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd also like to get as many of the poor out of poverty as possible.

x2...... compelling.....

Finally some agreement.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

I'm glad you decided to provide some evidence for a change. It looks like they find some real effects there. Let's see if you can understand this: THIS DOES NOT AT ALL UNDERMINE FISCAL STIMULUS OR KEYNESIAN POLICIES GENERALLY. IT MAKES THE CASE FOR ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SUGGESTS THAT THE FISCAL STIMULUS WAS EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN WE KNEW THANKS TO THIS UNMEASURED COUNTER-WEIGHT ON GROWTH.

onmyknees responded to your silly chart and gave you facts backed up by the CBO. Are those emotions?

Seriously? Bwahahahaha! It wasn't just emotion it was total dishonest bunk! You're smarter than that. Go back and read his "facts" and read my response. So to sum up, your response is no, you can't find anything wrong with the graph. And for good reason,because it's what the data say.

You can't call it a worse case scenario if you don't know what the outcome would have been, and you dont.

Right no one knows for sure but we can make estimates based on the best available evidence. You already acknowledged that the recession would have been sharper and worse had the bailout and stimulus not occurred. And the evidence says that your proposed course of action would have been catastrophic.

And that's where we part ways. You advocate intentionally inflicting catastrophic harm on our economy and I advocate a strategy that the data suggest will help the economy recover.

[hard4janira]

I don't know much about how they define the poverty line but I'm pretty sure they don't change it every year. It's based generally on what it takes someone to afford food and housing and I think most people know it to be a conservative underestimate of what poverty is. Unfortunately the poor don't vote at high numbers or we would see some real progressive change.

I'm sure they have to adjust it all the time due to inflation. And do you honestly believe that poverty isn't politicized? Here is a web site from your progressive friends that instruct teachers how to ignore the federal standard and use other measures to calculate an 'adjusted' federal estimate...

http://www.tolerance.org/activity/ca...g-poverty-line

Isn't it funny how the federal government uses food and energy prices to determine the poverty level but eliminate them when determining the CPI so they can lie about how much inflation they create?

And what you call "buying votes" is actually just voting for material self-interest. It's a shame more people don't do it.

Wow. THIS coming out of your mouth. People doing things for material self-interest. That is what capitalism is all about you clown. Isn't that how corporations work - the same corporations you demonize and insist that the federal goverment regualte into oblivion? But hey, I get it - you are a 'progressive'. The interests of the poor and disenfranchised are all that matter. Hey, I've got an idea, let's put together a political machine that panders to the 'disenfranchised' so that we can obtain power and keep it. Let's never actually help those that we brainswash, let's instead keep them poor and hungry so we can retain power and carry out our socialist agenda.

We'd never see a Republican president again.

I'm with you. It's time for some Libertarian Presidents to restore sanity to Washington.

And I'm glad that the poor in our country are better off than in other countries and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd also like to get as many of the poor out of poverty as possible.

Well history shows that your policies have been a miserable failure. We've accumulated 15 trillion in debt, over 2/3rds of which is for social programs for the middle class and the poor. What has that given us? By your OWN admission, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting bigger and bigger. I'd say your programs have been a complete and utter failure. What good has Social Security been? What good has an 80 billion dollar food stamp program been? What good is Medicare and Medicaid? None of these albatrosses have managed to 'close the gap' between the rich and the poor so they must be failures right? Time to start looking for other solutions rather than borroiwing and spending and placing the tax burdon on a very small minority.

I'm glad you decided to provide some evidence for a change. It looks like they find some real effects there. Let's see if you can understand this: THIS DOES NOT AT ALL UNDERMINE FISCAL STIMULUS OR KEYNESIAN POLICIES GENERALLY. IT MAKES THE CASE FOR ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SUGGESTS THAT THE FISCAL STIMULUS WAS EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN WE KNEW THANKS TO THIS UNMEASURED COUNTER-WEIGHT ON GROWTH.

Nothing in that article at all suggest that the fiscal stimulus by FDR was in any way successful

FDR was America's greatest president based on good intentions -- and most disastrous based on facts. In 1932, when elected, he inherited over 11 million unemployed. And after eight years of "audacious economic experiments," there were still over 11 million unemployed. Only after 11 million were inducted into the military for WWII did the Great Depression end. Facts are stubborn things.

FDR's Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, told his fellow Democrats, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!"

This on Keynesian experiments in Japan:

http://www.progress.org/2009/keynes.htm

Seriously? Bwahahahaha! It wasn't just emotion it was total dishonest bunk! You're smarter than that. Go back and read his "facts" and read my response. So to sum up, your response is no, you can't find anything wrong with the graph. And for good reason,because it's what the data say.

I don't see where you responded to him at all but I will look....

You already acknowledged that the recession would have been sharper and worse had the bailout and stimulus not occurred. And the evidence says that your proposed course of action would have been catastrophic.

No I didn't say that. I said that a shorter, sharper depression may be more favorable than a long, protracted era of slow growth and multiple recessions.

And that's where we part ways. You advocate intentionally inflicting catastrophic harm on our economy and I advocate a strategy that the data suggest will help the economy recover.

But the data does not suggest that your stragety will help recovery. You've deluded yourself into thinking that it must be so. Unemployement remains above 9 percent DESPITE two rounds of quantitative easing and an 840 billion dollar stimulus program. That is a FAILURE, by any reasonable measure. And the growth in GDP is literally a snails pace, and the stage is set for another recession in Q1 of 2012 (a lot of disagreement on this however). Plus, housing prices are STILL going down, 3 YEARS after the bubble burst. You seem adamant that all of this intervening has somehow averted catastrophe, but you can't even begin to quantify what the catastrophe would have been, so instead you pretend that any measure of improvment is somehow related to the quantitave easing and stimulus while simultaneously igonoring the collateral damage creating by doing so.

[Silcc69]

The facts don't show that at all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2000

He won the popular vote not the electoral vote. But why on earth do people say every vote counts when in this case it clearly didn't matter.

[BluegrassCat]

I'm sure they have to adjust it all the time due to inflation. And do you honestly believe that poverty isn't politicized? Here is a web site from your progressive friends that instruct teachers how to ignore the federal standard and use other measures to calculate an 'adjusted' federal estimate...

No obviously it's adjusted for inflation. It would have no meaning if it wasn't. I meant that the formula remains the same year after year, whereas you made it sound like they came up new formulas to suit political needs which is clearly not the case. I think the formula sounds perfectly reasonable and is still a conservative underestimate of true poverty, much like the unemployment rate is an underestimate of true unemployment.

Wow. THIS coming out of your mouth. People doing things for material self-interest. That is what capitalism is all about you clown. Isn't that how corporations work - the same corporations you demonize and insist that the federal goverment regualte into oblivion? But hey, I get it - you are a 'progressive'. The interests of the poor and disenfranchised are all that matter. Hey, I've got an idea, let's put together a political machine that panders to the 'disenfranchised' so that we can obtain power and keep it. Let's never actually help those that we brainswash, let's instead keep them poor and hungry so we can retain power and carry out our socialist agenda.

You didn't make any points here, just ranting and insults.

Well history shows that your policies have been a miserable failure. We've accumulated 15 trillion in debt, over 2/3rds of which is for social programs for the middle class and the poor. What has that given us? By your OWN admission, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting bigger and bigger. I'd say your programs have been a complete and utter failure. What good has Social Security been? What good has an 80 billion dollar food stamp program been? What good is Medicare and Medicaid? None of these albatrosses have managed to 'close the gap' between the rich and the poor so they must be failures right? Time to start looking for other solutions rather than borroiwing and spending and placing the tax burdon on a very small minority.

It seems like you gave up debating and are now repeating talking points. This doesn't even pass the smell test for intellectual honesty. Yes inequality has risen (remember OWS?) but social security, medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc have been arresting the process not accelerating it. This is just basic stuff. But I'm glad that you finally acknowledge the gross levels inequality has reached in this country and the destabilizing effects this has for democracy.

Nothing in that article at all suggest that the fiscal stimulus by FDR was in any way successful

What do you think WWII was if not a giant government fiscal program.

This on Keynesian experiments in Japan

This is from the same author you cited who puts the Japanese mistake not in fiscal stimulus but in a tax hike, which Keynes would oppose while still in a recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/wo...a/30japan.html

No I didn't say that. I said that a shorter, sharper depression may be more favorable than a long, protracted era of slow growth and multiple recessions. But the data does not suggest that your stragety will help recovery. You've deluded yourself into thinking that it must be so. Unemployement remains above 9 percent DESPITE two rounds of quantitative easing and an 840 billion dollar stimulus program. That is a FAILURE, by any reasonable measure. And the growth in GDP is literally a snails pace, and the stage is set for another recession in Q1 of 2012 (a lot of disagreement on this however). Plus, housing prices are STILL going down, 3 YEARS after the bubble burst. You seem adamant that all of this intervening has somehow averted catastrophe, but you can't even begin to quantify what the catastrophe would have been, so instead you pretend that any measure of improvment is somehow related to the quantitave easing and stimulus while simultaneously igonoring the collateral damage creating by doing so.

Right everyone agrees the recession would have been worse but you claim without evidence it would have been shorter.

Ah, but the data DO show that. I know it irks you because you're relying on emotions not evidence but the stimulus averted disaster, saved 2 million jobs, provided a x2 multiplier back to GDP for what we spent and we desperately need more of it as most economists agree. The continued recession is exactly what we should expect when we don't provide a big enough stimulus. And your response is because we can't know for sure it will work, we should do what we do know won't work, namely cutting back and deepening the recession. Again this comes down to different goals, you want to bankrupt the country and I don't. From that point of view you are pursuing the "right" policies to achieve your goal. I just find them repugnant and irresponsible.