PDA

View Full Version : The spending surge that didn't happen



Cigar
01-23-2013, 07:55 AM
Republican policymakers have an extremely narrow policy agenda: cut spending. Every speech, every press release, every op-ed, and every interview features identical talking points about the "explosion of out-of-control government spending" in the Obama era, which GOP officials are desperate to address.


There's the rhetoric and then there's the reality.


https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=W019RCQ027SBEA&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1959-07-01&coed=2012-07-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Quarterly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2013-01-23&revision_date=2013-01-23
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=W019RCQ027SBEA

Matt Yglesias flagged (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/22/myth_of_a_spending_surge.html) this chart showing the trajectory of total government spending at the federal level, and I added a nice, big arrow to point to the Obama-era spending (the gray areas reflect recessions). Matt explained, "[T]aken as a whole, consolidated government spending -- federal, state, and local -- simply hasn't surged. You can take the beginning of the recession or the beginning of the Obama administration or whatever you like as your starting point and it still hasn't happened."


That is not, incidentally, good news. After the Great Recession, the nation needed significant public investment to create jobs and boost economic growth. With interest rates at ridiculously low levels, the responsible thing to do was borrow like crazy and spend a lot more. Additional investments would mean lower unemployment and a faster, more robust recovery.
But policy prescriptions and Keynesian economics notwithstanding, the facts are the facts: every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong.


What's more, Bloomberg News published a fascinating item (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/obama-channels-eisenhower-with-anemic-government-spending-growth.html) today providing some useful historical context: "Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president."
Robert Reischauer, a former director of the CBO, told Bloomberg that other than the Recovery Act, which was temporary stimulus spending, discretionary spending over the last few years "has been quite modest and is scheduled to go to levels we haven't experienced in modern times."


The conservative case has it backwards. The right wants to focus on debt reduction when we should be focused on jobs, and the right believes out-of-control spending is soaring when it's actually stalled.

zelmo1234
01-23-2013, 08:13 AM
And yet the fact show that under President Obama we ahve accumlated 1/3 of the total national debt

230+ years = 2/3's of the national debt?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

4 years = 1/3 of the national debt. But the President in chage of the cuntry during those 4 years, did not increase spending?

It must be that new math!

Cigar
01-23-2013, 08:15 AM
And yet the fact show that under President Obama we ahve accumlated 1/3 of the total national debt

230+ years = 2/3's of the national debt?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

4 years = 1/3 of the national debt. But the President in chage of the cuntry during those 4 years, did not increase spending?

It must be that new math!

It must be Amnesia :tongue:

zelmo1234
01-23-2013, 08:34 AM
It must be Amnesia :tongue:

Well at least you are admitting that you are in Denial!

nic34
01-23-2013, 10:13 AM
cuntry?

Peter1469
01-23-2013, 11:18 AM
Republican policymakers have an extremely narrow policy agenda: cut spending. Every speech, every press release, every op-ed, and every interview features identical talking points about the "explosion of out-of-control government spending" in the Obama era, which GOP officials are desperate to address.


There's the rhetoric and then there's the reality.



https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=W019RCQ027SBEA

Matt Yglesias flagged (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/22/myth_of_a_spending_surge.html) this chart showing the trajectory of total government spending at the federal level, and I added a nice, big arrow to point to the Obama-era spending (the gray areas reflect recessions). Matt explained, "[T]aken as a whole, consolidated government spending -- federal, state, and local -- simply hasn't surged. You can take the beginning of the recession or the beginning of the Obama administration or whatever you like as your starting point and it still hasn't happened."


That is not, incidentally, good news. After the Great Recession, the nation needed significant public investment to create jobs and boost economic growth. With interest rates at ridiculously low levels, the responsible thing to do was borrow like crazy and spend a lot more. Additional investments would mean lower unemployment and a faster, more robust recovery.
But policy prescriptions and Keynesian economics notwithstanding, the facts are the facts: every time Republicans whine incessantly about President Obama spending like there's no tomorrow, they're simply wrong.


What's more, Bloomberg News published a fascinating item (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/obama-channels-eisenhower-with-anemic-government-spending-growth.html) today providing some useful historical context: "Federal outlays over the past three years grew at their slowest pace since 1953-56, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president."
Robert Reischauer, a former director of the CBO, told Bloomberg that other than the Recovery Act, which was temporary stimulus spending, discretionary spending over the last few years "has been quite modest and is scheduled to go to levels we haven't experienced in modern times."


The conservative case has it backwards. The right wants to focus on debt reduction when we should be focused on jobs, and the right believes out-of-control spending is soaring when it's actually stalled.

But revenue is at ~2.6 on that chart. Everything above that is over spending, year after year. We can't afford it, even if you claim it isn't growing.

That is an example of base line budgeting. The surge mentioned is above current spending. Not above zero. Not above revenues taken in. Do that in your business and you will go to jail.

nic34
01-23-2013, 11:34 AM
But revenue is at ~2.6 on that chart. Everything above that is over spending, year after year. We can't afford it, even if you claim it isn't growing

Then let's return to the Reagan era top marginal tax rates.


Do that in your business and you will go to jail.

The US is not to run like a business, it is run for the "benefit" of its citizens and not for profit.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

respectfulguest
01-23-2013, 11:47 AM
The US Government not being run as if it were the personal business of each and every elected politician is a huge reason why we are in the financial debacle that we are in, imo..

Cigar
01-23-2013, 11:51 AM
The US Government not being run as if it were the personal business of each and every elected politician is a huge reason why we are in the financial debacle that we are in, imo..



Like buying Wars off The Books ... that can get expensive ... I wonder if certain Senators have questions that need answers?

hanger4
01-23-2013, 12:01 PM
Like buying Wars off The Books ... that can get expensive ... I wonder if certain Senators have questions that need answers?

What utter nonsense, the wars were financed by continuing resolutions just like Obama has financed his entire four year fiscal policy.

respectfulguest
01-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Like buying Wars off The Books ... that can get expensive ... I wonder if certain Senators have questions that need answers?

my Post was not intended to be partisan, if your referring to Iraq & Afghanistan, Congressional approval was sought and given unlike the Libyan conflict.

nic34
01-23-2013, 12:10 PM
my Post was not intended to be partisan, if your referring to Iraq & Afghanistan, Congressional approval was sought and given unlike the Libyan conflict.


...well you're in partisan waters, now...

So let me get this straight... the CR was to pay for a war that was supposed to be paid for with Iraqi oil as was expected by Chainy, Rummy and the gang that couldn't shoot straight <---___---___---?

respectfulguest
01-23-2013, 01:43 PM
...well you're in partisan waters, now...

So let me get this straight... the CR was to pay for a war that was supposed to be paid for with Iraqi oil as was expected by Chainy, Rummy and the gang that couldn't shoot straight <---___---___---?

no partisanship, just the events as they occurred, Congressional approval was sought and granted for Iraq and Afghanistan, it was not for Libya..

as for expectations of "Chainy, Rummy and the gang" please have at it you seem to know the personal motivations of these folks way better than I.

Peter1469
01-23-2013, 04:06 PM
Then let's return to the Reagan era top marginal tax rates.



The US is not to run like a business, it is run for the "benefit" of its citizens and not for profit.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We can go to Reagan's tax rates (with the deductions) so long as we return to his spending. That would be great. That would limit government spending to $808K.

Destroying the USD by overspending doesn't seem to fit your quoted goal.

zelmo1234
01-23-2013, 09:33 PM
Then let's return to the Reagan era top marginal tax rates.



The US is not to run like a business, it is run for the "benefit" of its citizens and not for profit.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

DEAL Reagan Tax rates, Reagan Spending levels

Next lets take them one by one! Justice are we being Just to the youth by burdening them with over 50K in debt

Domestic Tranquility! I don't think I have to explain!

Provide for the comon defense, At tleat the governemnt does have a good military and they are constitutionally allowed to spend mony on it.

Promote Gerneal Welfare, (not provide) Regulations and taxation policies that cause business to more over seas Welfare systems that doom people to poverty Not doing a very good job of promoting