Even if you buy into the false premise of Keynesian economics, at some point you have to stop spending. The fact you guys are STILL calling for more spending proves it doesn't work. If it did, you wouldn't have to keep "stimulating" the economy. You have to be one dense SOB to not see that.
No, the strategy of stimulus, unemployment benefits, higher taxation, etc. You know, all that Obama is trying to (or already has) accomplish. Come on, what would you have him do differently? Don't dodge again. Here's the impact of the deadly sequester.
its obvious to thinking objective people. there is no free lunch... you cant tax the crap out of people and expect to grow you economy. As the presidents own advisor (Christine Romer) stated.... "Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."
You're the one who said, "when a strategy doesn't work, double down" in response to my reply that Obama was not Keynesian enough. I have said before, maybe starting as much as two years ago, that I think the US needs a new WPA type program. It's clear that full employment, even a high LFPR, is not necessary to produce life's necessities for all, and we are running into distributional problems. So create jobs if the old rules (for access to resources) are to be kept, or change the rules if full employment is no longer desired.
So you want more stimulus, this time to fund a WPA (never mind the shovel ready jokes from before) and that's what you'd do more of if you could influence Obama? Is that correct? So my comment about "when a strategy doesn't work, double down" is exactly what you propose. The first stimulus didn't do shit. Recall the unemployment level if we don't do stimulus hilarity missing by a mile. Any WPA would fail miserably as well. Why? Because government can't spend efficiently.
"What I propose"... ole! yourself. The reality, independent of what I think, is that rising taxes (which you mentioned), and the sequestration, are not Keynesian (in these conditions). The government can spend efficiently, it simply requires oversight. but even if it were categorically so, a favorite position of the libs (libertarians), it would not change the fact that inefficient spending can create jobs, jobs that last centuries, and which provide employment for generations of American families.
What question of yours did I dodge? Who cares? YOU said Obama was not Keynesian or socialist enough. I said, Ok, then what would you have him do? You continue to dodge and avoid the question. If you are unable or unwilling to answer it, just say so. Of course inefficient spending can create jobs. You can throw enough money at anything and get an effect. But efficient spending gets the most jobs for the least about of money - hence the word "efficient". Government cannot do that better than the private sector.