Total military spending is 24% of the federal budget spending, so cutting all defense spending would still leave over 1/3 of our deficit. The idea of borrow now and cut later "when things get better" is just not going to work. According to Obama, "things are better" and have been since 2011. In 2013 Obama proposes cutting about 1% from Defense, yet adding 2.5% to Education, 3.2% to Energy and so forth. The bottom line is that Obama will spend about the same thing as before, expressing increases in annual amounts of millions and decreases in "10 year" (pure BS) amounts as billions.
Federal Budget 2013: How Obama’s budget plan affects each agency - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Obama is a destructive moron.
But hey... Parasite Nation voted for a fundamental change of America to Amerika. Enjoy the decay Komrades.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
Heh. We are NOT a deadbeat nation. We believe strongly in dumping the responsibility for our current bills and spending on future generations. When the debt becomes overwhelming...screw them...we will all be long gone anyway. Besides...we can always blame it on someone else.
$114 billion in actual spending surfaced in 2009 (0.8% of GDP), $235 billion in 2010 (1.6% of GDP), and $145 billion in 2011 (0.96% of GDP).
Never made this argument, so please do not put words in my mouth.the Government is a better investment banker than the private sector
Again, government spending is not likely to crowd out private investment when there are idle resources in the form of both labor and capital.and you have had no response in regards to the Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities associated with massive Government Spending, such as rising commodity prices, which we have been seeing on the rise for 4+ years as millions upon millions of Americans slip deeper into poverty, and a devaluation of our currency in the long term. All that massive Government Spending really is, is a shifting of resources. There is no net gain. That's why the Stimulus was such a train wreck.
In the event a family faces an immense income strain from sustained unemployment, consumption must fall by definition. You cannot pay for goods and services with money you do not have. I am not sure what you are arguing here, but it simply does not make any sense.They use the money for necessities they would have purchased anyways to stay alive had they been employed, which means there is no multiplier effect in regards to welfare spending.
This is a classic example of a strawman; not to mention it is rather inconsistent given the fiscal dissimilarities regarding the respective countries.It's a wash. otherwise Spain and Greece would be the leading Economies in the world and all Obama would have to do to create utopia would be print/borrow a gazillion dollars, mint endless trillion dollar coins, and make everyone unemployed forever.
That is not the intention of unemployment insurance disbursements. They are supposed to consume goods and services with the proceeds which has a stabilizing effect on aggregate demand. Nobody is making the claim (although you are responding as such) that fiscal stabilization policy is a leading engine of economic growth. In reality, it is more of a last resort.The unemployed aren't taking their small unemployment checks and investing that money, in turn creating more opportunities for wealth creation. They don't use that money to hire people, create businesses.
First and foremost, the U.S. economy is of the most productive in the world and productivity continues to grow as fast or faster than output. Secondly, a trade deficit serves as an extension to said productivity as it allows the U.S. to focus on it's comparative advantages (which is critical to being productive!).Our Economy has a Productivity and Trade Problem. Not a Demand and Supply problem. This notion that we need to borrow and spend spend spend is a fantasy. Our Economy needs PRODUCTIVITY AND TRADE which means JOBS. Not endless welfare and entitlement spending.
US trade deficit hits seven-month high as exports stay low — RT
Rather odd you felt the need to bring FDR into this mix. Here is the proper source of the paper you have provided.It's been a proven FACT that FDR's Economic Policies extended the Great Depression. New research shows that there is little if any benefit to massive Government Stimulus Spending
In Search of the Multiplier for Federal Spending in the States During the Great Depression
From the paper you failed to read:
snipIt is difficult to estimate a national multiplier during the 1930s because it is hard to argue that federal spending was not rising in response to the downturn, and finding an instrument for federal spending in a national regression is difficult. Any estimate is likely to be for a balanced-budget multiplier because the deficits were very small relative to the size of the problem. Scholars have repeatedly shown that the New Deal was not a
Which means that further analysis is needed to establish accuracy.The per capita personal income multiplier estimates for per capita federal grants using the IV of region interactions with federal totals vary only slightly when using different estimating equations. The coefficient is 1.11 using level estimation, 1.10 in the first difference specification, and 1.13 in the growth rate specification. Under the moat/swing instrument strategy, the level specification leads to a multiplier estimate of 1.39. We do not report the difference specifications for the moat-swing instrument strategy because the instrument F-statistics are all less than 3, suggesting weak instrument bias. Although each of the estimates is greater than one, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the multiplier is equal to one. Thus, an additional dollar of federal grants may well have increased personal income by no more than the dollar of grant spending with no additional benefit in the private sector.28
However, i do not expect you to have even the slightest understanding of econometrics, so it is rather odd you linked this paper.If we apply the lessons of the New Deal to the federal fiscal stimulus today, it is important to realize that the estimates for the states are not for a national multiplier. Instead, they describe the impact within the state of additional federal funding in the state after all leakages are considered. In both periods interest rates are near the zero bound and unemployment rates are well above long run averages, although the problems of the Depression were far worse. The New Deal results suggest that federal fiscal stimulus during a modern recession would stimulate income in the states roughly dollar-for-dollar but have little impact on private nonfarm employment in the state.
So they were wrong. Not sure how this negates anything i have stated in regards to this subject.Obama's Economic Team predicted we'd be at around 5% Unemployment if we passed his failed stimulus which used every Keynesian fallacy you represent. Didn't happen.
Unemployment Rate Projections - Business Insider
Now you are getting desperate, and have resorted to making wild accusations, personal attacks, and dumping data/research that of which you lack the intellectual capacity to understand much less use as support for your position. But then again, i have come to expect nothing less from rabid partisans. Your irrelevant link dumps are of no interest to me, nor are they adding anything of substance to this discussion.So instead of a population gainfully employed (As you pointed out happened during the Bush years. The irony is palpable) we have trillions more in new debt, and an economy that is barely keeping up with Population Growth (if even that). These are economic statistics that you have admitted to IN THIS THREAD, yet you still laughable are sitting on your house of cards. It doesn't pass the laugh test.
Last edited by Kushinator; 01-15-13 at 10:12 AM.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911