It's only fair to let my critics use this space to point out why I'm so horribly, revealingly wrong. This letter comes from a conservative activist who takes issue with my dead-ender Keynes defenses.
It’s actually kind of funny that you are citing a study from, of all people, Mark Zandi to make the case that cutting spending leads to less jobs.
More recently, The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a study that has been cited by the DCCC to attack Cut, Cap and Balance (here: ) It also says that the spending cuts in CCB would equal a cut of 0.7 percent of GDP – which by their logic equates to, again, 700,000 jobs lost.
So to sum up two recent predictions by the Keynesian model:
1) $61 billion in cuts leads to 700,000 jobs lost.
2) $111 billion in cuts, statutory spending caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment (Cut, Cap, and Balance) would also lead to 700,000 jobs lost.
So in actuality, the Zandi study you cite does an excellent job of illuminating the failures of the Keynesian model.
Why Democrats Have the Right to Be Angry With Clinton Her email scandal was easy to predict and avoid.
More Than Twenty Years After the Story in Show Me a Hero, Yonkers’ Affordable-Housing Fight Isn’t Over
What Happened at Slate This Week? International affairs writer Joshua Keating on what to read to understand the apparently permanent slowdown of the Chinese economy.
Of Flying Squirrels and Yard Goats Meet the branding geniuses behind some of minor league baseball’s craziest logos and mascots.