An Obama Spending Spree? Hardly

[Mav88]

Obama tacked on ~410B in extra spending on top of Bush. It was already half way into 2009 when he did it http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1105.

He could have easily waited until FY2010 for much of it since it was only 6 months away and TARP and other spending had already been enacted, none of it was truly essential. However it was probably political calculation that motivated this. How can anybody determine what 'would have been Bush' and what truly belongs to Obama in the omnibus bill is hard to imagine since these things change a lot over the process. One thing is clear, this was a very large increase in discretionary spending, and if it doesn't belong to the guy who signs it then whose is it? To not include Obama in part of FY2009 is dishonest, the dishonesty being leaving that out of the "% increase" charts

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I understand your argument, your arguing that spending increases have a stimulative effect, thus the cost is not the same as it originally seems.... something i agree with, to some extent....... except that the longer the money takes to move around, the less the stimulative effect is, this is the problem with government, and keynesian economics...

So what is the best way to stimulate the economy? Get the money into the hands of the consumer as quickly as possible and let it work its way through the private sector.... so the best way to get the money into the hands of the consumer is to either stroke a cheque to each citizen (which left wingers would never do) or cut taxes on the lower class leaving them with an extra amount to spend each month which will work its way through the free market.....

I'm not sure why lefties would necessarily oppose the cutting a check route where righties would not. That has to be the epitome of the downside of the welfare state. It would of course, so long as it's not saved or used merely to pay debt, generate consumer spending, and so the economy. But it's a short-term solution, there's no investment aspect, it's like a shot of sugar. I think a balanced approach is better, which includes some spending on infrastructure projects and R&D. I'd definitely support "make work" spending along the lines of the old WPA.

It's a disappointment to me how much of the stimulus (for your benefit--small as it was, lol) did not make it to the consumer level but has instead made the capital class more capital-ready, more cash ready, for when the economy improves. Cart before the horse imo. Just another reminder of the infestation of the One Percenters in government.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mav88:

Isn't that just the rub? If this type of spending were paid back then economic policy would be really simple, just print and spend. This has been tried countless times using the same logic. Integrated over all gov't spending, it never works.

Well, Max and I are arguing, I'm pretty sure, with the assumption that we're talking about fixes during a recession. Keynes never said government should always be spending to create demand, he thought it should be done when demand was sagging excessively.

 

[Mav88]

Well, Max and I are arguing, I'm pretty sure, with the assumption that we're talking about fixes during a recession. Keynes never said government should always be spending to create demand, he thought it should be done when demand was sagging excessively.

Right, so there should never be recessions if it worked. Gov't response is simple, watch GDP, print and spend as appropriate.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mav88:

Obama tacked on ~410B in extra spending on top of Bush. It was already half way into 2009 when he did it http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1105.

He could have easily waited until FY2010 for much of it since it was only 6 months away and TARP and other spending had already been enacted, none of it was truly essential. However it was probably political calculation that motivated this. How can anybody determine what 'would have been Bush' and what truly belongs to Obama in the omnibus bill is hard to imagine since these things change a lot over the process. One thing is clear, this was a very large increase in discretionary spending, and if it doesn't belong to the guy who signs it then whose is it? To not include Obama in part of FY2009 is dishonest, the dishonesty being leaving that out of the "% increase" charts

Alright then, let's say that you're correct on every point. When you've tallied everyone's discretionary spending, particularly the rate of discretionary spending growth (what started all this), do you think Obama's discretionary spending qualifies as a "spree"? To me, a spree means it has to be well in excess, per unit time, by comparison. And of course the context has to be considered. GDP is rising, inflation such as it is continues its upward pressure. Is Obama's discretionary spending, in the context of similar recessions in the past, and as a percent of the economy's size, really a "spree"?

 

[Mav88]

I do not care about rates of change, I was only talking about being honest when others talk about it. What matters are the absolute values. A spree? semantics, I was only trying to put the chart into perspective.

When a president adds to medicaid out of discretionary spending and calls it economic stimulus (thereby making it in effect mandatory later) and we already have entitlements choking us off, then I think we have a problem. I could go along with the extra spending IF I felt it was being used in a constructive manner. Surely it matters what is being done with the cash.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

Ahh, here's lucrum again, constantly looking to diminish arguments by "analyzing" the man making them. (And going to the trouble to look up the man's last post, LOL.)

You mean like this? Ricter: "I am not a trader"

Maybe I should stop doing that.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mav88:

I do not care about rates of change, I was only talking about being honest when others talk about it. What matters are the absolute values.

I don't think that's fair. If spending, but more especially the deficit, was being reduced over Period X, that's also a rate of change! Absolute values may be interesting, but not cause for concern in and of themselves--the US economy is measured in the trillions, but who's alarmed by that?

... I could go along with the extra spending IF I felt it was being used in a constructive manner. Surely it matters what is being done with the cash.

You're absolutely (no pun) correct. : )

 

[Max E.]

The reason why the left would never go that route is because they would want to steer the money into programs which solely help the poor. The left wouldnt go for the idea of giving everyone an equal check for the same reason they wouldnt support a flat tax, they want a disproportionate amount of money from the government to go specifically to the lower class..... by the time the government figured out where the money should go, they would have pissed away the amount that should go to actual tax payers, and the people at the bottom get the same.....

You live in Alberta? Think of What Ralph Klein did with the budget surplus, where he cut every single person in the province a cheque..... you really think if a leftie was in charge that would have ended up the same way? The left operates under an ideology, whereby they think that they need to determine who should get what.....

Quote from Ricter:

I'm not sure why lefties would necessarily oppose the cutting a check route where righties would not. \

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

nothing kicks in until 2014,

Not true, some provisions kick in which only costs fraction of the money.

Quote from Max E. Pad:
and in 2014, its only half the spending of the subsequent years....2012, and 2013 cost nothing cause nothing kicks in until then......if the net cost from 2014-2022(8 years) is 1.25 trillion what do you think the net cost will be on an actual 10 year basis its simple fucking math.... it will easily cost 1.5 trillion for 10 years at that point...... take 1.2 divide it by 8 and you have 1.5 per year..... now times that by 10 and you have 150 billion per year..... You get it?

Exactly. In 2014, most provisions start kicking in which is where the costs start showing up. Shifting the budget window away from years where only handful of provisions were active explains the difference in CBO numbers

And all you have to do is to look at the yearly costs, they rise in accordance with healthcare inflation. There is simply no big jump there to say that suddenly Obamacare costs way more than originally forecasted.