PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending



Cigar
02-15-2013, 07:46 AM
Mention anything about the US's huge debt, deficit (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7), and debt-ceiling problem, and fans of both political teams will immediately begin shouting at each other.


Republicans howl that the whole problem is the fault of President Obama, who exploded federal government spending the moment he took office.


Democrats, meanwhile, blame massive increase in federal government spending during the Bush years and the triumphant assertions by Republicans during those years that "deficits don't matter."


So, what's the truth?


They're both right. (And wrong. And, on the Republican side, hypocritical.)


Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.




Don't believe it?
Let's go to the chart. --->



http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4e1af71bcadcbba41d1e0000-619-373/federal-government-spending-2000-2011.jpg

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGEXPND):

As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.


From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.


In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.


So, who's responsible for the explosion in federal spending?


Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt#ixzz2KyGx102J





Naturally the Republicans will do what they always do ... deny the facts and the facts will simply go away. :grin:

zelmo1234
02-15-2013, 07:54 AM
Nobody is denying the facts that Bush was a big spender.

But when it comes to hypocracy would you be willing to acknowledge this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84

And would you be wililing to acknowledge that while the percentage of increase by Obama is smaller, the dollars are larger.

Also would you be willing to acknowledge that Obama has no interest in reducing spending, and if he really did, he would in fact have been able to cut the deficite, but he is not really interested in that?

Cigar
02-15-2013, 08:01 AM
This particular Thread is specifically about, "The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending"; not about anyone's vague statement about hypocrisy.

JackRuby
02-15-2013, 08:05 AM
This is what happens when people think a Democrat or Republican actually has answers then votes for them. Like pouring gas on a fire.

Jacl

zelmo1234
02-15-2013, 08:10 AM
This particular Thread is specifically about, "The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending"; not about anyone's vague statement about hypocrisy.

I was responding directly to your accusation in the origional thread. I will be happy to remove it if you will remove it from yours, You introduced the topic. And I did address the spending Bush spent a higher percentage, Obama spent more dollars. Do you pay your bills with percentages or dollars, I use dollars at my house.

zelmo1234
02-15-2013, 08:11 AM
This is what happens when people think a Democrat or Republican actually has answers then votes for them. Like pouring gas on a fire.

Jacl

So What is the answer, in your 102 years, you should have some advice for us!

JackRuby
02-15-2013, 08:14 AM
So What is the answer, in your 102 years, you should have some advice for us!

My answer is that the masses get organized. Not worthless pockets like Occupy or the Tea Party who are really nothing more than the left and right on steroids. Flush the worthless "clubs" down the toilet like the shit it is and organized as Americans against these moneyhungry putzes. That's the summary without the meat on the bones.

Jack

zelmo1234
02-15-2013, 08:18 AM
I can agree sith that Jack but the pain of governemnt opression has not gotten to that point yet. We are getting closer, and when the poop hits the fan, and all of the free stuff stops, we will be at the point that Americans have had enough, then we get to sort out either a limited government or some form of communism?

That will be the next challange, agter we spend ouselves inot oblibvian

Chris
02-15-2013, 08:34 AM
This is a duplicate topic already posted by you, cigar, here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11054-The-Truth-About-Who-s-Responsible-For-Our-Massive-Budget-Deficit.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 08:40 AM
I personally chose to make it two distinct topics, because that's the way I wanted to address it.

You're free to do what you chose.

JackRuby
02-15-2013, 08:42 AM
I can agree sith that Jack but the pain of governemnt opression has not gotten to that point yet. We are getting closer, and when the poop hits the fan, and all of the free stuff stops, we will be at the point that Americans have had enough, then we get to sort out either a limited government or some form of communism?

That will be the next challange, agter we spend ouselves inot oblibvian


Oh, you mean the welfare mama getting 81 bucks a week? Who gives a shit about that? I'm talking about zillionaires buying our politicians to do their bidding for them. That's where the real corruption is. I'm talking about the whole ball of wax here.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 08:44 AM
Oh, you mean the welfare mama getting 81 bucks a week? Who gives a shit about that? I'm talking about zillionaires buying our politicians to do their bidding for them. That's where the real corruption is. I'm talking about the whole ball of wax here.

They can only see they're own colon ... when their head is up their ass

Chris
02-15-2013, 09:02 AM
I personally chose to make it two distinct topics, because that's the way I wanted to address it.

You're free to do what you chose.

How is the same point two points? Explain the difference.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 09:14 AM
Nobody claims that Bush was not a big spender. He caused me to leave the GOP.

But Obama's fix to the problem, was to increase spending. And he is doing it again with all of his schemes he mentioned in the SOTU address. You know, the schemes that he claimed would not increase the deficit. That statement was what your mother, and mine, you call a lie.

Chris
02-15-2013, 09:51 AM
Oh, you mean the welfare mama getting 81 bucks a week? Who gives a shit about that? I'm talking about zillionaires buying our politicians to do their bidding for them. That's where the real corruption is. I'm talking about the whole ball of wax here.

It's the same corruption, jack, the same socialist redistribution, complaining only about the conservative socialism behind corporate welfare is as myopic as complaining only about the liberal socialism behind social welfare.

nic34
02-15-2013, 11:22 AM
Buying stuff stimulates the economy - it creates demand - which increases the need for more stuff - which means some people have to get hired to grow or build or manufacture, and supply more things to sell - which means more jobs and more paychecks - and pretty much everybody doing much, much better.

It’s called economics 101.

Unemployment benefits - food stamps - and other forms of government spending that end up in peoples' pockets have been proven time and time again to help the economy - Chief Economist at Moody’s - Mark Zandi

The right Government Spending IS Stimulus

$1.00 spent on infrastructure (jobs) = $1.59 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on unemployment = $1.64 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on food stamps = $1.73 economic stimulus

The wrong Tax Cuts are NOT Stimulus

$1.00 of corporate tax cuts = 30c economic stimulus
$1.00 of capital gains tax cuts = 37c economic stimulus
$1.00 of Bush tax cuts = 29c economic stimulus



George Bush: This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 11:31 AM
Nobody claims that Bush was not a big spender. He caused me to leave the GOP.

But Obama's fix to the problem, was to increase spending. And he is doing it again with all of his schemes he mentioned in the SOTU address. You know, the schemes that he claimed would not increase the deficit. That statement was what your mother, and mine, you call a lie.

Which proposals are you calling schemes?

Cigar
02-15-2013, 11:32 AM
Buying stuff stimulates the economy - it creates demand - which increases the need for more stuff - which means some people have to get hired to grow or build or manufacture, and supply more things to sell - which means more jobs and more paychecks - and pretty much everybody doing much, much better.

It’s called economics 101.

Unemployment benefits - food stamps - and other forms of government spending that end up in peoples' pockets have been proven time and time again to help the economy - Chief Economist at Moody’s - Mark Zandi

The right Government Spending IS Stimulus

$1.00 spent on infrastructure (jobs) = $1.59 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on unemployment = $1.64 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on food stamps = $1.73 economic stimulus

The wrong Tax Cuts are NOT Stimulus

$1.00 of corporate tax cuts = 30c economic stimulus
$1.00 of capital gains tax cuts = 37c economic stimulus
$1.00 of Bush tax cuts = 29c economic stimulus


George Bush: This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base.



For some strange reason, Republicans keep preaching Tax Cut equals Job Creation ... :rollseyes:

Chris
02-15-2013, 12:05 PM
Buying stuff stimulates the economy - it creates demand - which increases the need for more stuff - which means some people have to get hired to grow or build or manufacture, and supply more things to sell - which means more jobs and more paychecks - and pretty much everybody doing much, much better.

It’s called economics 101.

Unemployment benefits - food stamps - and other forms of government spending that end up in peoples' pockets have been proven time and time again to help the economy - Chief Economist at Moody’s - Mark Zandi

The right Government Spending IS Stimulus

$1.00 spent on infrastructure (jobs) = $1.59 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on unemployment = $1.64 economic stimulus
$1.00 spent on food stamps = $1.73 economic stimulus

The wrong Tax Cuts are NOT Stimulus

$1.00 of corporate tax cuts = 30c economic stimulus
$1.00 of capital gains tax cuts = 37c economic stimulus
$1.00 of Bush tax cuts = 29c economic stimulus



George Bush: This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base.


It could, but what it actually tends to do is raise prices. As Hayek argued with Keynes long ago, there's two sets of producers, those that produce for consumers and those that produce for producers. Spending only stimulates the first and causes an equilibrium balanced by higher prices from the second, passed on to consumers.

No one has ever shown that there has ever been a multipler effect.


Nic, you're comparing demand-side and supply-side stimuli. Trickle up vs trickle down. Neither work.


One thing might work would be cutting income taxes so the consumer can decide for himself how to spend his or her own money. After all, they're the ones know better what their wants are, better than central planners.

Chris
02-15-2013, 12:07 PM
For some strange reason, Republicans keep preaching Tax Cut equals Job Creation ... :rollseyes:

And for some strange reason Democrats keep preaching stimuli equals job creation. They're both wrong.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 12:28 PM
Which proposals are you calling schemes?

Practically every new program he tossed out while calling them free. Pre-school for all as an example.

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 12:29 PM
It could, but what it actually tends to do is raise prices. As Hayek argued with Keynes long ago, there's two sets of producers, those that produce for consumers and those that produce for producers. Spending only stimulates the first and causes an equilibrium balanced by higher prices from the second, passed on to consumers.

No one has ever shown that there has ever been a multipler effect.


Nic, you're comparing demand-side and supply-side stimuli. Trickle up vs trickle down. Neither work.


One thing might work would be cutting income taxes so the consumer can decide for himself how to spend his or her own money. After all, they're the ones know better what their wants are, better than central planners.

Right, those multipliers are incorrect.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 01:01 PM
Practically every new program he tossed out while calling them free. Pre-school for all as an example.


There isn't a creatable intellectual on planet earth, who doesn't agree that early child development is the biggest bang for the buck.

It sure is far better than paying the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime.

It's the reason why most on the forum who are parents teach their own children as early as possible.

Mister D
02-15-2013, 01:03 PM
There isn't a creatable intellectual on planet earth, who doesn't agree that early child development is the biggest bang for the buck.

It sure is far better than paying the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime.

It's the reason why most on the forum who are parents teach their own children as early as possible.

We invest generously in education and yet we still pay the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime particularly in communities of color. We get little return on our investment.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 01:12 PM
We invest generously in education and yet we still pay the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime particularly in communities of color. We get little return on our investment.

So more Guns don't make you feel safe?

Strange ...

nic34
02-15-2013, 01:40 PM
No one has ever shown that there has ever been a multipler effect.

Be sure to remind Mark Zandi of that and of your economists' skills...


One thing might work would be cutting income taxes so the consumer can decide for himself how to spend his or her own money. After all, they're the ones know better what their wants are, better than central planners.

Income taxes are at a historic low, Obama also kept in place the Bush middle class tax cuts.

The idea that we can cut our way to balance has been shown to be disasterous in nearly all examples. The only way to prosperity is to put people to work again. And that is what government is supposed to do. It should be providing a level playing field for private business to compete and the courts to enforce our laws that helps them compete. It employs people to build and maintain an infrastructure (I like clean water and safe food) for over 300 million citizens.

Private companies are not in business to provide jobs. GE doesn't make refrigerators as a public service. They are in business to maximize profits plain and simple.

Those are facts about "government" ... starting with WE the PEOPLE...

Mister D
02-15-2013, 01:42 PM
So more Guns don't make you feel safe?

Strange ...

The truth hurts, huh?

We invest generously in education and yet we still pay the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime particularly in communities of color. We get little return on our investment.

Chris
02-15-2013, 01:51 PM
There isn't a creatable intellectual on planet earth, who doesn't agree that early child development is the biggest bang for the buck.

It sure is far better than paying the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime.

It's the reason why most on the forum who are parents teach their own children as early as possible.

Problem is those "creatable intellectual" people haven't a clue how to educate anyone or figure out how to pay for it. All the good intentions in the world won't solve these problems, especially by leaping to government solutions problems to do it..

Chris
02-15-2013, 01:51 PM
Right, those multipliers are incorrect.

Seems to be many an armchair economist who haven't a clue what that means.

Chris
02-15-2013, 01:54 PM
Be sure to remind Mark Zandi of that and of your economists' skills...



Income taxes are at a historic low, Obama also kept in place the Bush middle class tax cuts.

The idea that we can cut our way to balance has been shown to be disasterous in nearly all examples. The only way to prosperity is to put people to work again. And that is what government is supposed to do. It should be providing a level playing field for private business to compete and the courts to enforce our laws that helps them compete. It employs people to build and maintain an infrastructure (I like clean water and safe food) for over 300 million citizens.

Private companies are not in business to provide jobs. GE doesn't make refrigerators as a public service. They are in business to maximize profits plain and simple.

Those are facts about "government" ... starting with WE the PEOPLE...

Mark Zandi?


The idea that we can cut our way to balance has been shown to be disasterous in nearly all examples.

Examples please.


The only way to prosperity is to put people to work again.

Examples of where that has worked please.


Private companies are not in business to provide jobs.

No one argued they are.


Those are facts about "government" ... starting with WE the PEOPLE...

You've stated vague opinions, I hope to see some facts.


What about those multipliers?

Cigar
02-15-2013, 01:57 PM
Problem is those "creatable intellectual" people haven't a clue how to educate anyone or figure out how to pay for it. All the good intentions in the world won't solve these problems, especially by leaping to government solutions problems to do it..

... yea I can see.

nic34
02-15-2013, 02:05 PM
I gave a source. It's up to you to investigate them.

Here's some links, easily found using google:

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html

http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Paying-the-Price-Ending-the-Great-Recession-and-Beginning-a-New-American-Century/9780137047987.page
(http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Paying-the-Price-Ending-the-Great-Recession-and-Beginning-a-New-American-Century/9780137047987.page)

Chris
02-15-2013, 02:07 PM
Be sure to remind Mark Zandi of that and of your economists' skills...



Income taxes are at a historic low, Obama also kept in place the Bush middle class tax cuts.

The idea that we can cut our way to balance has been shown to be disasterous in nearly all examples. The only way to prosperity is to put people to work again. And that is what government is supposed to do. It should be providing a level playing field for private business to compete and the courts to enforce our laws that helps them compete. It employs people to build and maintain an infrastructure (I like clean water and safe food) for over 300 million citizens.

Private companies are not in business to provide jobs. GE doesn't make refrigerators as a public service. They are in business to maximize profits plain and simple.

Those are facts about "government" ... starting with WE the PEOPLE...

Your source is where, nic?

Sure, I can look up Zandi, but I have no idea what you mean to say by him. Present an argument: Mark Zandi claims _______________________ .

Chris
02-15-2013, 02:09 PM
I gave a source. It's up to you to investigate them.

Here's some links, easily found using google:

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html

http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Paying-the-Price-Ending-the-Great-Recession-and-Beginning-a-New-American-Century/9780137047987.page
(http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Paying-the-Price-Ending-the-Great-Recession-and-Beginning-a-New-American-Century/9780137047987.page)

These are references to references, nic. What exactly does he say relevant to this topic? Point us to that.

Cigar
02-15-2013, 02:12 PM
These are references to references, nic. What exactly does he say relevant to this topic? Point us to that.

Nag Nag Nag ... you're always asking for something ... :grin:

Chris
02-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Nag Nag Nag ... you're always asking for something ... :grin:

Sorry, just not interested in bios and docs I can't access.

nic34
02-15-2013, 02:22 PM
You aren't looking... I can't help with that.... horse to water and all....

Peter1469
02-15-2013, 02:49 PM
There isn't a creatable intellectual on planet earth, who doesn't agree that early child development is the biggest bang for the buck.

It sure is far better than paying the price for illiteracy, delinquency and crime.

It's the reason why most on the forum who are parents teach their own children as early as possible.

Actually there are. Many teachers find little difference between whether a child went to pre school or not, but rather saw that the degree of parental involvement in the child's education was the key.

Chris
02-15-2013, 02:58 PM
You aren't looking... I can't help with that.... horse to water and all....

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/ -- blurb on who Zandi is.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/pocketfull_of_m.html -- blurb about some testimony

http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/product/Paying-the-Price-Ending-the-Great-Recession-and-Beginning-a-New-American-Century/9780137047987.page -- blurb about a book he wrote.


Nothing of substance on the topic, nic. You raised his name, put some substance behind it rather than playing cat and mouse.

Chris
02-15-2013, 04:01 PM
Here's all I'm looking for, nic. Link and argument, clear and succinct:

See Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html). Ramney has studied the various claims for multiplier effects and finds (a) that the claims are all over the place, from .5 to 2.0 (1.0 breaks even, less is loss, more gain), based on the same data, and (b) that data is not factual results but CBO projections, iow, there is no data to support claims of a multiplier effect.

So what's this Zandi say? Might be interesting.

KC
02-15-2013, 04:08 PM
Here's all I'm looking for, nic. Link and argument, clear and succinct:

See Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html). Ramney has studied the various claims for multiplier effects and finds (a) that the claims are all over the place, from .5 to 2.0 (1.0 breaks even, less is loss, more gain), based on the same data, and (b) that data is not factual results but CBO projections, iow, there is no data to support claims of a multiplier effect.

So what's this Zandi say? Might be interesting.

That was a good podcast.

Chris
02-15-2013, 04:21 PM
That was a good podcast.

Garett Jones on Stimulus (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/09/garett_jones_on_1.html) takes a similar look at the topic--as you probably know :-).

KC
02-15-2013, 04:26 PM
Garett Jones on Stimulus (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/09/garett_jones_on_1.html) takes a similar look at the topic--as you probably know :-).

That's the one where Jones talks about his finding from a study on the ground where they asked employers who received funds whether it led them to hire more employees, isn't it?

EconTalk's become my favorite Podcast.

Chris
02-15-2013, 04:35 PM
That's the one where Jones talks about his finding from a study on the ground where they asked employers who received funds whether it led them to hire more employees, isn't it?

EconTalk's become my favorite Podcast.

Yep and yep.

There's another one you might like: The Invisible Hand: Management, Economics and Strategy for the Thinking Person (http://www.facebook.com/TheInvisibleHandPodcast) by Chris Gondek. What you want to do is find the original series, it was great, same format as EconTalk, really in depth but easy to follow. The new version covers more business topic than economics, so I stopped listening.

KC
02-15-2013, 04:42 PM
I'll check it out! I have way too many podcasts, but when I have to exercise or do chores around the house it's far more interesting than listening to music.

nic34
02-15-2013, 05:01 PM
I see you have all the time in the world to get into the weeds about this, I don't. And frankly, I don't post here to give you what you want.

Suffice it to say that I trust my experts and you trust yours, but I'm going to give you that neither is more valid than the other, even as you try from on high to diminish my point of view.

Just let me leave you with a piece from Christina Romer, Professor of Economics at the University of Ca, who... as a matter of fact... references Valerie Ramey as well as Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody’s that you so blithly dismiss.

The one thing that has disillusioned me is the discussion of fiscal policy. Policymakers and far too many economists seem to be arguing from ideology rather than evidence. As I have described this evening, the evidence is stronger than it has ever been that fiscal policy matters—that fiscal stimulus helps the economy add jobs, and that reducing the budget deficit lowers growth at least in the near term. And yet, this evidence does not seem to be getting through to the legislative process.
That is unacceptable. We are never going to solve our problems if we can’t agree at least on the facts. Evidence-based policymaking is essential if we are ever going to triumph over this recession and deal with our long-run budget problems.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdf

Chris
02-15-2013, 05:11 PM
I see you have all the time in the world to get into the weeds about this, I don't. And frankly, I don't post here to give you what you want.

Suffice it to say that I trust my experts and you trust yours, but I'm going to give you that neither is more valid than the other, even as you try from on high to diminish my point of view.

Just let me leave you with a piece from Christina Romer, Professor of Economics at the University of Ca, who... as a matter of fact... references Valerie Ramey as well as Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody’s that you so blithly dismiss.

The one thing that has disillusioned me is the discussion of fiscal policy. Policymakers and far too many economists seem to be arguing from ideology rather than evidence. As I have described this evening, the evidence is stronger than it has ever been that fiscal policy matters—that fiscal stimulus helps the economy add jobs, and that reducing the budget deficit lowers growth at least in the near term. And yet, this evidence does not seem to be getting through to the legislative process.
That is unacceptable. We are never going to solve our problems if we can’t agree at least on the facts. Evidence-based policymaking is essential if we are ever going to triumph over this recession and deal with our long-run budget problems.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdf


I'm going to give you that neither is more valid than the other

Well, that could either depend on data, for which there is none, or apodictic truth.


Christina Romer, Professor of Economics at the University of Ca, who... as a matter of fact... references Valerie Ramey

Ramney spent a good deal of time examining Romer's claims in her research. Romer's claims are based not on evidence but projections by the CBO. So her "too many economists seem to be arguing from ideology rather than evidence" fits her well.

In short, she repeats what Ramney, Jones, Roberts and others say, don't base policy on ideology, base it on evidence. There is no evidence of a stimulus multiplier effect.


Dr. Mark Zandi of Moody’s that you so blithly dismiss

No one has dismissed him, nic, you have presented nothing he's said to dismiss, blithely or otherwise. Honestly, nic, I'm not merely gaming you, I'm asking because I'm interested in what he might have to say about multiplier effects.