Environment (engaging climate change); Energy (becoming less dependent on oil imports; becoming less dependent on oil period); Economy (ameliorating the effects of the recession and providing the basis for a sustainable economy, as we see how the exponential debt economy teeters on the verge of absolute and permanent collapse) -

These are now the same issue, and can all be tackled by the same programme: a keynesian new New Deal for energy and farming. Renewables, efficiency-maximizing infrastructure and policy, assistance toward food localization and permaculture.

What will this give us? Sustainable good jobs, a far more robust grid and food distribution system, cleaner air and water, the renaissance of vibrant and beautiful ecosystems, a healthier diet, and eventually a lower cost of living for a higher quality of living.

Most of all, a sense of purpose, a vision around which a true community and society could cohere.

And while I largely agree with you, David, I'm not sure that tax cuts vs. gov't spending are evaluated solely on the basis of economic priming.  (Hell, George W. advocated his tax cuts first because the economy was doing so well and then later because it was doing poorly!)

Amongst the more economically literate though, there is a valid argument that says that (a) in the short-term, government spending stimulates more activity than tax cuts, but (b) in the long-term, economic growth is best served by a smaller government where entrepreneurs can flourish.  The latter case is encouraged with a much broader swathe of tools than just tax policy, but it is at odds with long-term increases in government spending as a % of GDP.

As I said, I don't disagree with your basic point in the short-term - just that one ought not lose sight of long-term economic impacts either, or of the fact that those who argue in favor of tax cuts instead of increased spending are not always doing solely on the basis of short-term economic stimuli.

if your state is under water.

...really brings out the pessimist in me.  Speaker For The Dead, David?

Amongst the more economically literate though, there is a valid argument that says that (a) in the short-term, government spending stimulates more activity than tax cuts, but (b) in the long-term, economic growth is best served by a smaller government where entrepreneurs can flourish.  The latter case is encouraged with a much broader swathe of tools than just tax policy, but it is at odds with long-term increases in government spending as a % of GDP.

As opposed to economically illiterate folks like Warren Buffet, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman and Robert Riech? Really, when giving your opinion you don't need to implicitly call people who disagree people with you names.  The fact is a hell of a lot of this nation's long term economic growth tool place when the taxes were a high percent of GDP.

No need to get so cranky!

Let's review what I said:

There is a valid argument (note: I did not say universal) that long-term economic growth requires small government, even while short term economic growth requires government stimulus.  One may agree or disagree with this perspective, but still acknowledge that it exists.  My point in raising this to David's initial post is that except amongst the most rabid polemicists, I don't think the comparison of deficit spending vs. deficit belt-tightening is based on long-term economic considerations, but rather on short-term stimuli.  This is consistent with David's table that shows one-year changes in GDP.  But the reasonable arguments for small government - which I accept you disagree with, but that doesn't mean they aren't well reasoned - are typically not made based on short-term stimuli, but on the long-term impacts of an economy that is dependent on government investment.  

I didn't say taxes as a high percent of GDP.  I said government spending.  Not the same.  In fact, government spending as a % of GDP has tended to be highest during republican administrations of late - part of why fiscal conservatives are uncomfortable with the party.  Not that that matters, but I doubt you are suggesting that the massive increase in the size of government under Bush is good for long-term (or short term) economic growth.

<block quote>
Not that that matters, but I doubt you are suggesting that the massive increase in the size of government under Bush is good for long-term (or short term) economic growth.
</block quote>
Sure, but it was not the size, but how it was wasted. If we'd put what Bush spent on war and tax cuts into green investment I think we'd be a lot better off than we are today. And the people I cited are saying much the same thing.

As to crankiness, if you say something provocative, you should not complain when people are provoked. You did not say "some economically literate people". You said "the economically literate." I take it that this was clumsy phrasing, and that you did NOT mean to imply that people like Stiglitz and Galbraith who do in fact argue for long term large scale government investment and spending, not just short  term stimulus  are economically illiterate.   Not that you have to agree with them, but that you are not accusing them of economic illiteracy.

Let me state clearly for the record that I never claim that all economically literate people agree on economic causes or effects.  There are economically literate folks on the left and the right and so long as economics remains as much or more art than science, it will ever be thus.  (The old joke about lining up all the worlds economists and never reaching a conclusion has it right!)

My point about economic literacy is not to bash the right or left, but simply to differentiate those who reach reasoned conclusions (no matter how different they may be) from those who are simply polemicists, arguing that tax hikes are always bad or increased gov't spending is always good - or that what's economically good in the short term is identical to that which is economically good in the long-term.