--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > As a continuous policy it stinks, but to jumpstart a failing economy
> > it has worked in the past.
>
> Only for a sufficiently vague definition of worked. Getting money into
> the hands of people who will spend it on consumption has historically
> worked the best at stimulating GDP growth. Trickle down does not grow
> the GDP as fast as more progressive measures. The reason I am not
> backing my claims with data is that it has already been done on this
> list. Check the archives if you are interested.
So what you are saying is that there is a way that works better?
> > Get a graph of the economy for the last 24 years and see where it's
> > good and were it isn't and then talk about who's polices seem to work
> > and who's don't.
>
> Done that, AS I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THIS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED. And
> we went back much longer than 24 years too. Check the archives.
Ok I'll spell it out. If you go back 24 yeas you will se that the Clinton
years were the best. Ragan mediocre with the wealthy doing better than anyone
else. The Bushes years stinking rotton. Whatever Clinton was doing seemed to
work really well. Although what Ragan did worked better than what the Bushs
did. If you would believe that it is dependent on the president, which, if
you look at the graphs they match almost perfectly offset a few months into
each presidency.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
