Inasmuch as we're arguing about whether Dean is out on the left edge of American politics, you've
just made my point quite nicely.
You can call a trillion dollar tax hike ``repealing a tax cut'' if it pleases you semantically, but you
can't call it fiscally conservative. Words have meanings, and to be `conservative' fiscally is to
believe that low taxes spur economic growth. Dean's program, based on raising taxes `to spur growth', is
thus nothing of the sort.
For the rest of your post, you defend a range of left wing positions, from racial preferences in university
admissions to increased regulation accross the board. You may support these positions (Dean certainly does),
but doing so hardly can be claimed to make either you or Dean `conservative' in any way.
Your net of blame just gets wider and wider -- now Bush is not only to blame for
a recession which started in May of 2000, the local mismanagement by your city and
state officials is his fault too -- a position which hardly helps your credibility.
At which point you go on to present a view of the war in Iraq which is well to the left
of the American mainstream -- which hardly helps your claim that the candidate you support
is not on the left end of American politics.
Thanks for helping me make my point. See ya in November.:-)
Inasmuch as we're arguing about whether Dean is left or right here, I'd say you're certainly helping
prove my point here -- assuming we credit you with believing what you write here, you are a prime
example of a Dean supporter whose views are well to the left of the American mainstream.
As for your views themselves, well, we shall certainly have seen if you're correct well before next
year's election. Would you like to place a friendly bet on the outcome next November?:-)
Far from `forgetting' that jobless rates were getting worse until six months ago, I'm the one
who originally linked those statistics into this thread. Remember, this country was in a recession
since May of 2000, with the attacks of September 11 prolonging the slump. Now, the economy is
booming, and job creation (yes, creation, not just reduction in jobless claims -- go back and read
the BLS page again) is occurring at record rates.
And far from crediting Bush from the recovery which began this year, you would tar him with the
recession which began eight months before he took office. I'd say this (even more than your reliance
on obviously partisan data sources) is enough for those reading this thread to judge your credibility.
I'm also fascinated by your insistence on pulling the word `socialism' into the debate. Why don't you
tell us, then: Do you think socialism works? Do you think it is the solution the US should pursue? Do
you think Dean will bring the US closer to socialism, if elected?
Um, hello? Not only is that map linked repeatedly from the two pages I linked above, it is the basis for
the more detailed maps there. Had you read the text attached to Mr. Delong's map, you would have
seen that he's making the exact same point I am -- that even the `blue states' had huge numbers of Republican votes.
In fact, Mr. Delong links to exactly the map I just linked as more evidence of his point.
So, thanks for making my case for me, but you might want to read your own sources before linking them!:-)
Asserting something doesn't make it so -- we've already seen how your claims about Sweden held
up to the actual economic numbers. Your other claims, about quality of life, have much more
to do with the fact that Sweden is a small, mostly rural country with low population density.
To pretend that such numbers can be meaningfully compared to a large, diverse, and cosmopolitan
nation like the US is about as useful as pretending that being governor of a small rural state
whose entire state population, in addition to being extremely homogeneous, is less than the population of many cities other states
says anything about one's qualifications for the presidency.:-P
On the contrary -- I'm saying that the combination of the recession which began in 2000
and the attacks of 9/11, there has obviously been job loss. On Bush's watch, however,
we have pulled out of said recession and are now creating jobs at a rate which has not been
seen since 1Q1993.
That's what I call a good economic program -- and one which will win by a landslide next November.:-)
Okay, you're quoting a report from the House Democratic Caucus, and you're surprised
that it's critical of Bush? And a minute ago, you weren't even sure when Bush was
elected. As for why 2000 is more instructive, look elsewhere in this thread -- the
recession which this nation is only now recovering from began in May of 2000.
Sorry, but go look at the numbers, linked repeatedly in this thread. The seasonally adjusted
employment numbers have improved from 6.4% unemployment to 5.9% unemployment in the last 6 months.
In addition, while there was some gain after Bush's first tax cut, 9/11 came along within a few
months after the first Bush tax cut, and did further economic damage (on top of the recession which
began in May of 2000). Bush's second tax cut, this spring, was followed by two quarters of the best
growth seen in 20 years, and the best improvement in employment figures seen in a decade.
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen -- `js7a' tells us that an article about Sweden
which uses only figures released by the Swedish government themselves is `right wing
propaganda', and offers what, exactly, as counter evidence? Wait for it...
that's right: A Reuter's report quoting ``Save the Children'', a left-wing NGO, and
Joshua Micah Marshall, a democratic party blogger.
Nice `unbiased' sources there, `js7a' -- but then lack of bias is clearly not what you're
interested in, since you go on to keep repeating last summer's talking point that this is
a `jobless recovery' even as joblessness has dropped from 6.4% to 5.9% in just six months
(a rate of improvement not seen since '93), and tells us that the OMB's figures are overly
optimistic, even though they predict a lower rate of improvement in both growth
and employment than that which Bush's economic plan has already produced for two
quarters now.
Well, there you go -- if returning tax levels to year-2000 levels, when they were much higher than today,
is not `raising taxes', then you can argue that Dean does not want to `raise taxes'.
And if getting out of Iraq and trusting the UN to do a good job there is not `abandoning Iraq', then you
can argue that Dean does not want to `abandon Iraq'.
But if all that sounds like spin to you, you know why Dean hasn't a snowball's chance of being the next
President.:-)
I've already addressed your other post there, but before you hang your hat on `khasim' as an authoritative
source, you might want to read
this post.:-)
Well and good except for a minor point -- unemployment claims follow the trend of the economy, they don't
occur at the same time. Thus, the drops in employment in the early months of Bush's presidency occurred
as part of the recession which began in 2000.
Similarly, the massive drop in unemployment over the last six months trails Bush's tax cuts by about the same amount
of time.
In a second we'll look at your misreading of OMB figures (such as describing a nearly 10% decrease in unemployment as a `jobless recovery', showing
that you're still reading from last summer's talking points), but first I'd like to point out how fascinated I am that you think Sweden, of
all places, is the example we should be emulating.
Why fascinated? Well, see, last year the government of Sweden admitted that Sweden's economy is in such bad shape that were Sweden to become
the 51st state of the US, it would not only be the poorest state of the union, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic
group in the US, below blacks, hispanics, or even American Indians. You can read all about it
here.
So you're already off on a pretty bad foot, calling for economic changes which would be a massive step down for all levels of American society.
Now on to your claims:
Well, let's have a look at the OMB's own projections (table 4) [whitehouse.gov]. There we see that the GDP growth in real dollars is
expected to rise to, and then hold steady at, 4.9% to 5.0% (and the unemployment rate is expected to fall from 5.9% to 5.1%, ha ha.)
Yet such changes in unemployment and growth are actually a slowerrate of change than that seen over the last six months (.8% in a year vs..5% in six months for unemployment, and 5.0% vs. 7% for growth), and thus not unrealistic at all.
Even with these rosy assumptions, the deficit still only gets down to $213 billion, much larger than 2002 levels, and then starts rising
again! [whitehouse.gov] Perhaps this is because those huge deficits cause the projected net interest to rise from $171 billion to $260
billion.
Yet this amounts to halving the deficit in three years, all while not hampering the ongoing economic recovery.
But have a look back at the bottom of table 4: even though the interest on the national debt increases $89 billion, or about 50%, the
interest on 10-year Treasury bills only rises from 4.7% to 5.3%, or an increase of only 13%!
But you're double counting here, since you already counted that $89 billion just two paragraphs earlier!:-)
Look again, U.S. unemployment apparently gave back several months' gains if November's new claims numbers are to be believed. But even if
the rate holds at October levels, you and your trickle-down ilk have engineered and amazingly jobless recovery. Congradulations and good
luck with those 3 million newly jobless next November.
Again, as pointed out above, you're not reading very carefully --
in the last six months alone, joblessness has dropped from 6.4% to
5.9%, and there are no reasons to believe this drop won't continue
apace.
The reason is that your money isn't worth a thing if everyone is too sick to transact with it because of lack of health care, or too stupid
to obtain the goods and services you want because of lack of education, or too afraid to go to the market because of lack of law
enforcement, or it's too worthless because of inflation because of unsound fiscal policy. You can not economically ignore your environment,
of which you are an integral part. Or: no man is an island.
An amazing claim really -- ``it's for your own good if the government takes your money away, because you're too stupid and unhealthy to
spend it the right way.'' Especially since this presupposes that the government does a good job of education (even though government
schools spend three times as much per pupil as private schools, even in the same neighborhoods, and yet do a much worse job), or of
healthcare (Canada, for example, averages three times as long a waiting time for surgical procedures than the US).
And then you tell us we should be more like Sweden -- when the Swedes themselves are sick of their failing economy and want to be more
like us.
You won't get any argument from me that Dean has redefined himself several times,
as the mood took him. During his earlier years as governor of Vermont, during
the Gingrich-revolution/Clinton-`triangulation' era, he was indeed more conservative
than he is today, winning an `A' rating from the national rifle association (which
he has kept, to his credit), and passing a moderate tax cut (though he has also
attempted to claim credit for a larger tax cut passed by his predecessor which
took effect on his watch, oddly enough).
In later years, however, and in particular around the time of the 2000 election, he
began to take a much more traditionally `liberal' tack, including:
More to the point, on the campaign trail, Dean has laid out a vision of his presidency which runs far to the left
even of his positions as governor. And what evidence do you bring in response? A claim that this is irrelevant
since he ``doesn't really mean it''.
You are a bit confused (actually more than a bit) if you describe calling for massive tax hikes and huge
new government programs ``fiscally conservative''.
You are likewise confused if you see calls for racial discrimination in college admissions (called `affirmative
action'), huge increases in regulation, and the use of the FCC to break up news stations Dean disagrees with as
`libertarian' positions.
So Dean is a social liberal and a fiscal liberal. The former is damaging in its own way, but it is the latter which would be
downright disastrous for an economy only just pulling out of a recession which started in May of 2000.
It's quite interesting to see your choice of 1999 as a year of comparison, since May 2000 saw the start of a recession
which this country has only recently pulled out of. But perhaps it is your position that Bush is to blame for a
recession which began in May of 2000, and which the country has recovered from only due to his tax cuts?
What Bush can take credit for is how unemployment numbers have changed in response to his economic programs --
and those numbers, which you can view here have dropped
at a faster rate over the last six months than they have over any six month period since 1993.
Which is all very well, except that Bush's `spending' numbers are wholly non-exceptional
unless you include the tax cut under the `spending' column.
As for short term deficit spending causing inflation and instability, it is certainly the case that Keynes believed this
to be true. Like most of his ideas, it lost a lot of credibility when his claim that
simultaneous inflation and stagnation were impossible fell apart (hard) in the seventies,
and is not taken very seriously by most economists today.
In addition, the claim that tax cuts lead to larger deficits is only true if cuts in the tax rate
necessarily result in less tax revenue. Since economics is not, in real life, a zero-sum game,
this is simply not the case when tax cuts lead to economic growth, as Bush's have in spades.
There we have it, ladies and gentlement, a new gold standard for spin:
Dean doesn't want a "massive tax hike" he is just going to repeal Bush's tax cut.
Care to explain why you see any difference between these two things? Taxes are lower now than they
were in 2000. Dean wants to return them to 2000 levels. This is a tax hike, and a very large one, which
hits the middle class hardest of all, any way you slice it.
His massive new government medical bureaucracy is listed to cost 88 billion--that's cheaper than the war in Iraq.
Umm, no. Dean's massive new government medical bureaucracy (I'm glad that you admit that that's what it is) would
cost $88 billion per year. The reconstruction of Iraq cost $87 billion once, and the entire war up
to that point cost $20 billion once.
Which means that if pigs fly and Dean is elected and passes his health plan, it will have cost three times as much
as the war in Iraq by the end of the his first term -- and will be a gift which keeps on giving (or rather, taking)
for many years to come.
You're a little confused -- Social Security and to a lesser extent Medicare are paid for by payroll taxes, not income taxes, so to the
extent that income tax cuts create more investment and thus more jobs (as Bush's tax cuts have done at
a rate not seen since the eighties), they increase, not decrease, the money available for Social
Security.
As for what I plan to retire on, like seventy percent of Americans, I have investments of my own,
which, like almost any form of investment you could care to name, massively outperform Social Security
over both the long and short term. Given the option to spend my payrol tax on my own choice of retirement
account, instead of the long-term and short-term loser which is the Social Security system (even if it
remains solvent), I would do so in an instant.
As for spending in general, you are confusing tax rate with tax revenue. In actual fact, when
the economy grows due to tax cuts, the amount of tax revenue available to spend tends to go up, since
you are taxing a much larger economy at a somewhat lower rate.
So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis
of your argument, but if the same figures are revised based on the fact that the economy is not, in fact,
remaining static, they become `just statistics' and aren't relevant any more? That's pretty funny.
That is, after all, a more or less outright admission that you pick which statistics to believe based on
whether they agree with what you want to hear! That this is so is confirmed by your repeating claims about jobless
numbers which haven't been true for months now.
And as for your weird insistance on counting tax cuts as `spending', this clearly can only hold if you believe
that this money is rightly the government's to decide what to do with. Is that your position? Because I
would argue that when I work all day for money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family, that money is mine, and if the government wants to take it away, it
better have a better reason than your new-found obsession with `statistics'.
And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone
else as well if they are left to the individual to spend and invest instead of grabbed and hauled off to Washington in
ever increasing amounts, as you (and Dean) would do.
Take a look at economic growth, which has been better in the last two quarters than any period in the last twenty years.
Take a look at deficit projections which are based on this growth, rather than on an assumption that the economy stays bad, and
watch the deficit disappear over the long term.
But, more to the point, I'd rather watch you try to explain why the government taking away less of my hard earned money counts,
in your view, as `spending' on their part.
Slashdot Mirror
Inasmuch as we're arguing about whether Dean is out on the left edge of American politics, you've just made my point quite nicely.
You can call a trillion dollar tax hike ``repealing a tax cut'' if it pleases you semantically, but you can't call it fiscally conservative. Words have meanings, and to be `conservative' fiscally is to believe that low taxes spur economic growth. Dean's program, based on raising taxes `to spur growth', is thus nothing of the sort.
For the rest of your post, you defend a range of left wing positions, from racial preferences in university admissions to increased regulation accross the board. You may support these positions (Dean certainly does), but doing so hardly can be claimed to make either you or Dean `conservative' in any way.
Your net of blame just gets wider and wider -- now Bush is not only to blame for a recession which started in May of 2000, the local mismanagement by your city and state officials is his fault too -- a position which hardly helps your credibility.
At which point you go on to present a view of the war in Iraq which is well to the left of the American mainstream -- which hardly helps your claim that the candidate you support is not on the left end of American politics.
Thanks for helping me make my point. See ya in November. :-)
Inasmuch as we're arguing about whether Dean is left or right here, I'd say you're certainly helping prove my point here -- assuming we credit you with believing what you write here, you are a prime example of a Dean supporter whose views are well to the left of the American mainstream.
As for your views themselves, well, we shall certainly have seen if you're correct well before next year's election. Would you like to place a friendly bet on the outcome next November? :-)
I'll give you a hint: I'm betting Bush landslide.
Far from `forgetting' that jobless rates were getting worse until six months ago, I'm the one who originally linked those statistics into this thread. Remember, this country was in a recession since May of 2000, with the attacks of September 11 prolonging the slump. Now, the economy is booming, and job creation (yes, creation, not just reduction in jobless claims -- go back and read the BLS page again) is occurring at record rates.
And far from crediting Bush from the recovery which began this year, you would tar him with the recession which began eight months before he took office. I'd say this (even more than your reliance on obviously partisan data sources) is enough for those reading this thread to judge your credibility.
I'm also fascinated by your insistence on pulling the word `socialism' into the debate. Why don't you tell us, then: Do you think socialism works? Do you think it is the solution the US should pursue? Do you think Dean will bring the US closer to socialism, if elected?
Well?
Um, hello? Not only is that map linked repeatedly from the two pages I linked above, it is the basis for the more detailed maps there. Had you read the text attached to Mr. Delong's map, you would have seen that he's making the exact same point I am -- that even the `blue states' had huge numbers of Republican votes.
In fact, Mr. Delong links to exactly the map I just linked as more evidence of his point.
So, thanks for making my case for me, but you might want to read your own sources before linking them! :-)
Asserting something doesn't make it so -- we've already seen how your claims about Sweden held up to the actual economic numbers. Your other claims, about quality of life, have much more to do with the fact that Sweden is a small, mostly rural country with low population density.
To pretend that such numbers can be meaningfully compared to a large, diverse, and cosmopolitan nation like the US is about as useful as pretending that being governor of a small rural state whose entire state population, in addition to being extremely homogeneous, is less than the population of many cities other states says anything about one's qualifications for the presidency. :-P
On the contrary -- I'm saying that the combination of the recession which began in 2000 and the attacks of 9/11, there has obviously been job loss. On Bush's watch, however, we have pulled out of said recession and are now creating jobs at a rate which has not been seen since 1Q1993.
That's what I call a good economic program -- and one which will win by a landslide next November. :-)
Okay, you're quoting a report from the House Democratic Caucus, and you're surprised that it's critical of Bush? And a minute ago, you weren't even sure when Bush was elected. As for why 2000 is more instructive, look elsewhere in this thread -- the recession which this nation is only now recovering from began in May of 2000.
Sorry, but go look at the numbers, linked repeatedly in this thread. The seasonally adjusted employment numbers have improved from 6.4% unemployment to 5.9% unemployment in the last 6 months.
In addition, while there was some gain after Bush's first tax cut, 9/11 came along within a few months after the first Bush tax cut, and did further economic damage (on top of the recession which began in May of 2000). Bush's second tax cut, this spring, was followed by two quarters of the best growth seen in 20 years, and the best improvement in employment figures seen in a decade.
There we have it, ladies and gentlemen -- `js7a' tells us that an article about Sweden which uses only figures released by the Swedish government themselves is `right wing propaganda', and offers what, exactly, as counter evidence? Wait for it... that's right: A Reuter's report quoting ``Save the Children'', a left-wing NGO, and Joshua Micah Marshall, a democratic party blogger.
Nice `unbiased' sources there, `js7a' -- but then lack of bias is clearly not what you're interested in, since you go on to keep repeating last summer's talking point that this is a `jobless recovery' even as joblessness has dropped from 6.4% to 5.9% in just six months (a rate of improvement not seen since '93), and tells us that the OMB's figures are overly optimistic, even though they predict a lower rate of improvement in both growth and employment than that which Bush's economic plan has already produced for two quarters now.
Well, there you go -- if returning tax levels to year-2000 levels, when they were much higher than today, is not `raising taxes', then you can argue that Dean does not want to `raise taxes'.
And if getting out of Iraq and trusting the UN to do a good job there is not `abandoning Iraq', then you can argue that Dean does not want to `abandon Iraq'.
But if all that sounds like spin to you, you know why Dean hasn't a snowball's chance of being the next President. :-)
I've already addressed your other post there, but before you hang your hat on `khasim' as an authoritative source, you might want to read this post. :-)
Heheh.
Hehehehe.
Nice try, but Bush, of course, was elected in November of 2000, and took office in January of 2001.
`A' for effort, though. :-)
Well and good except for a minor point -- unemployment claims follow the trend of the economy, they don't occur at the same time. Thus, the drops in employment in the early months of Bush's presidency occurred as part of the recession which began in 2000.
Similarly, the massive drop in unemployment over the last six months trails Bush's tax cuts by about the same amount of time.
In a second we'll look at your misreading of OMB figures (such as describing a nearly 10% decrease in unemployment as a `jobless recovery', showing that you're still reading from last summer's talking points), but first I'd like to point out how fascinated I am that you think Sweden, of all places, is the example we should be emulating.
Why fascinated? Well, see, last year the government of Sweden admitted that Sweden's economy is in such bad shape that were Sweden to become the 51st state of the US, it would not only be the poorest state of the union, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic group in the US, below blacks, hispanics, or even American Indians. You can read all about it here.
So you're already off on a pretty bad foot, calling for economic changes which would be a massive step down for all levels of American society.
Now on to your claims:
Yet such changes in unemployment and growth are actually a slowerrate of change than that seen over the last six months (.8% in a year vs.And then you tell us we should be more like Sweden -- when the Swedes themselves are sick of their failing economy and want to be more like us.
You won't get any argument from me that Dean has redefined himself several times, as the mood took him. During his earlier years as governor of Vermont, during the Gingrich-revolution/Clinton-`triangulation' era, he was indeed more conservative than he is today, winning an `A' rating from the national rifle association (which he has kept, to his credit), and passing a moderate tax cut (though he has also attempted to claim credit for a larger tax cut passed by his predecessor which took effect on his watch, oddly enough).
In later years, however, and in particular around the time of the 2000 election, he began to take a much more traditionally `liberal' tack, including:
More to the point, on the campaign trail, Dean has laid out a vision of his presidency which runs far to the left even of his positions as governor. And what evidence do you bring in response? A claim that this is irrelevant since he ``doesn't really mean it''.
I guess I'm not too convinced...
You are a bit confused (actually more than a bit) if you describe calling for massive tax hikes and huge new government programs ``fiscally conservative''.
You are likewise confused if you see calls for racial discrimination in college admissions (called `affirmative action'), huge increases in regulation, and the use of the FCC to break up news stations Dean disagrees with as `libertarian' positions.
So Dean is a social liberal and a fiscal liberal. The former is damaging in its own way, but it is the latter which would be downright disastrous for an economy only just pulling out of a recession which started in May of 2000.
It's quite interesting to see your choice of 1999 as a year of comparison, since May 2000 saw the start of a recession which this country has only recently pulled out of. But perhaps it is your position that Bush is to blame for a recession which began in May of 2000, and which the country has recovered from only due to his tax cuts?
What Bush can take credit for is how unemployment numbers have changed in response to his economic programs -- and those numbers, which you can view here have dropped at a faster rate over the last six months than they have over any six month period since 1993.
Which is all very well, except that Bush's `spending' numbers are wholly non-exceptional unless you include the tax cut under the `spending' column.
As for short term deficit spending causing inflation and instability, it is certainly the case that Keynes believed this to be true. Like most of his ideas, it lost a lot of credibility when his claim that simultaneous inflation and stagnation were impossible fell apart (hard) in the seventies, and is not taken very seriously by most economists today.
In addition, the claim that tax cuts lead to larger deficits is only true if cuts in the tax rate necessarily result in less tax revenue. Since economics is not, in real life, a zero-sum game, this is simply not the case when tax cuts lead to economic growth, as Bush's have in spades.
Heh. I can't say that's less convincing than the other responses to my post, but it isn't more convincing either.
There we have it, ladies and gentlement, a new gold standard for spin:
Care to explain why you see any difference between these two things? Taxes are lower now than they were in 2000. Dean wants to return them to 2000 levels. This is a tax hike, and a very large one, which hits the middle class hardest of all, any way you slice it.
Umm, no. Dean's massive new government medical bureaucracy (I'm glad that you admit that that's what it is) would cost $88 billion per year. The reconstruction of Iraq cost $87 billion once, and the entire war up to that point cost $20 billion once.Which means that if pigs fly and Dean is elected and passes his health plan, it will have cost three times as much as the war in Iraq by the end of the his first term -- and will be a gift which keeps on giving (or rather, taking) for many years to come.
Nice try though...
You're a little confused -- Social Security and to a lesser extent Medicare are paid for by payroll taxes, not income taxes, so to the extent that income tax cuts create more investment and thus more jobs (as Bush's tax cuts have done at a rate not seen since the eighties), they increase, not decrease, the money available for Social Security.
As for what I plan to retire on, like seventy percent of Americans, I have investments of my own, which, like almost any form of investment you could care to name, massively outperform Social Security over both the long and short term. Given the option to spend my payrol tax on my own choice of retirement account, instead of the long-term and short-term loser which is the Social Security system (even if it remains solvent), I would do so in an instant.
As for spending in general, you are confusing tax rate with tax revenue. In actual fact, when the economy grows due to tax cuts, the amount of tax revenue available to spend tends to go up, since you are taxing a much larger economy at a somewhat lower rate.
So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis of your argument, but if the same figures are revised based on the fact that the economy is not, in fact, remaining static, they become `just statistics' and aren't relevant any more? That's pretty funny.
That is, after all, a more or less outright admission that you pick which statistics to believe based on whether they agree with what you want to hear! That this is so is confirmed by your repeating claims about jobless numbers which haven't been true for months now.
And as for your weird insistance on counting tax cuts as `spending', this clearly can only hold if you believe that this money is rightly the government's to decide what to do with. Is that your position? Because I would argue that when I work all day for money to feed, house, and clothe myself and my family, that money is mine, and if the government wants to take it away, it better have a better reason than your new-found obsession with `statistics'.
And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone else as well if they are left to the individual to spend and invest instead of grabbed and hauled off to Washington in ever increasing amounts, as you (and Dean) would do.
Take a look at economic growth, which has been better in the last two quarters than any period in the last twenty years.
Take a look at deficit projections which are based on this growth, rather than on an assumption that the economy stays bad, and watch the deficit disappear over the long term.
But, more to the point, I'd rather watch you try to explain why the government taking away less of my hard earned money counts, in your view, as `spending' on their part.
Which would mean something if even the blue areas on the map weren't almost all red when you zoom in.
Even more to the point, here's the same map indexed by population. :-)