yea I'd agree with that.
Congress is really terrible.
Printable View
If there was one thing that was pounded into our heads over and over in later Political and Government Econ classes, it was that the government budget has SIGNIFICANTLY less of an effect on the economy than most people think. Just food for thought on this one.
A phrase like that needs qualification, though right? I mean, sure, increased government spending in 1996 wouldn't have made much of a difference, and would've crowded out private investment at a time when private investment was booming. But since 2008 the states and locals have practiced austerity-lite and I don't think there is any doubt that has slowed recovery (it wasn't uncommon to see, say, 75k private jobs created - which is terrible, but more than zero - offset by 50k government jobs lost). These days, private investment is anemic and interest rates are low.
I imagine every broad statement would need qualification.
It's less than most people think, perhaps not less than people in this thread think.
That needs more detail too though. For the last couple years, the private sector was scared to invest because of the uncertainty about Obamacare. Now that the SCOTUS decision came down, some of the uncertainty is gone, but business are having to scramble offset higher costs. So here's a case where a macro decision to spend by the feds has caused reduced spending in the private sector.
In what way? How do you make a plan when a major data point is missing?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...satisfied-now/
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/...6/28/id/443914
http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headli...162808396.html
Let me know if you need more. There's this new thing called Google that can help you find them.