There is not a word in the OP that is even remotely controversial.
It's pure vanilla.
Any means by which the government borrows money and puts it into the economy is stimulative. If you give more money to the rich it is less stimulative than it should be because they will just hoard most of the money. If you give more money to the poor it is more stimulative because they will spend damn near all of it and hoard very little.
But "less" does not mean "zero"... it means "less."
Why would anybody question this? It's the basis of all liberal economic thought since at least the 1930s. The essential Keynesian insight that government borrowing can stimulate the economy means what it means. That doesn't mean it is wise to borrow to give money to the rich, but even such a foolish course would be more stimulative than zero and thus more stimulative than doing nothing.
That's not an argument for tax cuts for the rich. It is an observation about the relative stimulative effects of government actions.
The government paying to dig holes and fill them back in (as republican liars claimed FDR did) would be stimulative. But it would be better policy, if you were paying all those hole-diggers anyway, to have them do something useful like digging a needed aqueduct.
Take from the rich to give to the poor? I am all about that. Take from the rich and throw it into the ocean? Doesn't make much sense. And reducing the deficit is, at this unusual point in economic time, about as useful to the economy as throwing money into the ocean.
The fact that republicans distort basic economic precepts doesn't undermine the precepts. It only undermines republican credibility.
(I am a socialist, BTW.)
I suppose my statement that there is no downside to the deficit in current economic conditions would strike most voters as controversial, but no economist in the center or left would question it.
= new reply since forum marked as read