• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does governnent spending produce economic growth?

Does governnent spending produce economic growth?


  • Total voters
    46
Roads have to be maintained.

Irrelevant.

I was speaking directly in reference to the lefts insistence that Stimulus to increase aggregate demand is a sustainable and effective means of growing the economy

Its not.
 
In addition to my regular job, I have been trying to develop a business. I have noticed two years in a row now that I experience a great boost in sales after people get income tax refunds. Now I realize that in that case, mostly people are simply getting back their own money. But it makes me wonder, does government spending produce economic growth? If I understand them correctly, some say that this is never true. What do you think?

Since you are specifically asking about growth, can you call it growth if you take it from one place in the economy and give it to another?

Growth and movement are different concepts.
 
The unemployment figures do not lie. Japan's unemployment rate is less than the U.S. If the debt is so bad, then why are the interests rates remaining so low? If it's so bad they should be rising despite central bank efforts.

The thing that Japan did wrong was raising the national sales tax, to placate people like you. The result is the contraction.



Greece is different because they don't have their own currency. Instead they have fallen victim to the euro, something that they have no control over. Not only that, but because of people like you forcing austerity on the people of Greece, there unemployment rate has remained high.

Bull, their economy is on life support and their trapped in a unsustainable debt spiral.

Maybe you should look past your talking points and do a little objective analysis. But then again if you did that you wouldn't be able to call yourself a Liberal anymore.

And you think if Greece had their own currency that the would have been able to pull their way out of their mess ?

Nonsense. They would just be another Argentina or Venezuela who happens to have the highest inflation rate in the world right now.
 
Since you are specifically asking about growth, can you call it growth if you take it from one place in the economy and give it to another?

Growth and movement are different concepts.
It depends. Going back to my Interstate example, you could say that the initial cost was a "movement", but that the finished product fostered overall growth far beyond what would have happened had none been built.
 
True enough, but we haven't reached the debt to GDP ratio that Japan's reached just yet.

I have all the faith in the world that the Democrats if given enough " rope " could and would run up unsustainable levels of debt and they would justify it by saying we needed it to " increase aggregate demand ".

Silly Liberals. Demand doesn't need to be manipulated directly.

"all the faith in the world"
Now, don't ya' know that is exactly what makes the US Dollar work. Faith, the same faith you are talking about. Great stuff. Don't need more backing like gold or silver or anything. Hell mon, faith is adjustable and provides the same backing for $18 Trillion as for 2$. Seems like sumpin' might be slippin' there, eh?
 
Government does not “pump capital into any economy”. Government cannot give what it hasn't taken from someone else. Every dollar that government “pumps” into some part of the economy is a dollar that it took out of some other part of that same economy.

Of course it does and can.

Where do you think money comes from?
 
But where did the military get the money to pay for the arms? Taxes. just tax as little as possible and people will spend the money on stuff they actully want and thus cause the economy grow even more.

I'm all for taxing the worker/consumer class less for exactly the same reason you are.

But not all government spending comes from taxes.
 
Printing more money does not create wealth. Money and wealth are not the same thing. Money is a unit by which wealth is measured and exchanged. All that printing more money does is to devalue that money, so that each unit thereof represents less wealth than it did before.

Of course not (directly). But when more SPENDING is done, more goods and services are produced, and thus more wealth is produced.
 
I'm all for taxing the worker/consumer class less for exactly the same reason you are.

But not all government spending comes from taxes.

True - it could come from printing more money or borrowing and adding to the National Debt.
 
I understand that. It is theft and they redistribute it from the top down. On top of that they manipulate interest rates so people take out loans and capital flows into the market. All of this is false economic growth.

It's not theft. Theft is illegal, paying your bills isn't illegal, as a matter of fact it's the moral thing to do. Taxation is our government bill.

As far as interest rates go, they should be very low so that businesses can afford to borrow to fund expansion, and so that consumers can afford to borrow to create demand.

There is not one single reason that interest rates should be high. Interest is the price of money, money is producible in infinite quantity at virtually no cost. Anything that is available in infinite quantity and which cost virtually nothing to produce, is inexpensive.
 
But it your progressive world, it doesn't happen only then. In the progressive world the govt is spending huge 24/7/365.

It's the same with in the conservative world. Spending rose under Reagan, and under Bush. Right now both houses of congress are controlled by republicans, so we should suspect that their first priority would be to cut spending right? Nope, the first thing they did was to go into committee about the 61st bill to repeal Obamacare - something that they know Obama won't sign.
 
Obama has spent a trillion a year for the past 6-years.

Nope. Congress controls the purse strings, and it has spent around 3.5 trillion a year.

Where is the growth?

GDP is now above our historical average.

Where are the jobs?

The unemployment rate is lower at this point into the Obama administration than it was under Reagan. We are now creating between 250,000 and 425,000 jobs a month.

WTF happened to all that money?
It pooled in the hands of the wealthy, the rest has been deposited with the fed.

The Libs smartest man in the world failed with that mountain of cash. How can it be? ROTFLOL...

Who's that? No one has claimed that Obama is the smartest man in the world. Find me one reference calling him that. I dare you.

Government is a machine designed to waste. The smaller it is... the better.

When Reagan came to office, the highest tax rate was 70%. He closed loopholes, reduced the highest rate to 28% and in doing so built the foundation for decades of economic growth.

Government takes from the people in order to spend. The money is far better off in our hands, than some socialist who wants to engineer society his way.[/QUOTE]
 
It's the same with in the conservative world. Spending rose under Reagan, and under Bush. Right now both houses of congress are controlled by republicans, so we should suspect that their first priority would be to cut spending right? Nope, the first thing they did was to go into committee about the 61st bill to repeal Obamacare - something that they know Obama won't sign.

I'd like to see them cut $1T out of the budget per year.
 
It's the same with in the conservative world. Spending rose under Reagan, and under Bush. Right now both houses of congress are controlled by republicans, so we should suspect that their first priority would be to cut spending right? Nope, the first thing they did was to go into committee about the 61st bill to repeal Obamacare - something that they know Obama won't sign.
Reps abandoned the "fiscal responsibility" thing 30 years ago. The fact that ANYBODY stills falls for it is mind boggling.
 
Huh ? So we should build more highways ?

Just arbitrarily start building roads to no where ?

Not just highways, but infrastructure in general.

Every somewhere is a no where until there is a road to it.
 
Nope. Congress controls the purse strings, and it has spent around 3.5 trillion a year.



GDP is now above our historical average.



The unemployment rate is lower at this point into the Obama administration than it was under Reagan. We are now creating between 250,000 and 425,000 jobs a month.


It pooled in the hands of the wealthy, the rest has been deposited with the fed.



Who's that? No one has claimed that Obama is the smartest man in the world. Find me one reference calling him that. I dare you.
[/QUOTE]

ROTFLOL... a consumer of the BIG LIE...

Yes Congress has control of the purse.

Many have claimed Obama is the smartest guy in the room... ROTFLOL...
 
"all the faith in the world"
Now, don't ya' know that is exactly what makes the US Dollar work. Faith, the same faith you are talking about. Great stuff. Don't need more backing like gold or silver or anything. Hell mon, faith is adjustable and provides the same backing for $18 Trillion as for 2$. Seems like sumpin' might be slippin' there, eh?

I never said we should go back to the Gold Standard.

I'm just saying " stimulus to increase aggregate demand " is another BS false narrative that doesn't produce anything exept debt and financial ruin.
 
Since you are specifically asking about growth, can you call it growth if you take it from one place in the economy and give it to another?

Growth and movement are different concepts.

How does one person starting a business prevent growth?
 
I think you gave a good example wrt spending on infrastructure, etc. I would say in addition to that proper expenditure on education can also boost growth. Furthermore, spending for the sake of spending is ridiculous, so I agree with that.

Where I tend to disagree with you is your point on every dollar that is not taxed or borrowed is money that would have otherwise been put to use. Although technically the Federal Reserve is not a part of the government, it is empowered directly by the government. As such it is an extension of government power. That being the case, the trillions of dollars that the Federal Reserve spent to buy up toxic assets is money can be viewed as an extension of government spending, and is money that came out of nowhere. It was created simply by an entry in a computer, nothing more. It is not money that otherwise would have been put to use.

That said, your post was decent.

The problem with the counter you are offering is that dollars do not have intrinsic value - they are representative stores of value for which demand fluctuates. When you print a dollar, you reduce the value of all other dollars, meaning that creating dollars is simply a tax on current dollar holders.
 
Many have claimed Obama is the smartest guy in the room... ROTFLOL...

Obama is only the smartest guy in the room, when he is in a room full of tea partyers.
 
Last edited:
Reps abandoned the "fiscal responsibility" thing 30 years ago. The fact that ANYBODY stills falls for it is mind boggling.

8 Trillion in the last 6 years not including 5 Trillion that is kept off the books from the bankruptcy of Fannie and Freddie.

Its not 30 years ago, its 2015 and after 8 Trillion in new debt in 6 years, massive spending and " Stimulus " to increase aggregate demand we still have a record 92 Million people who are of working age not employed and ALLOT of new part time low paying jobs.

Disability rates have doubled and food stamp use has increased 40 percent. Poverty rates have increased and the Middle class is shrinking.

It DOESN'T WORK, Japan has followed thw Keynesian Fiscal stimulus plan tpoo the letter and they're screwed.
 
The problem with the counter you are offering is that dollars do not have intrinsic value - they are representative stores of value for which demand fluctuates. When you print a dollar, you reduce the value of all other dollars, meaning that creating dollars is simply a tax on current dollar holders.

Printing more dollars only reduces value if they are chasing more goods than are available. Last time I checked, Walmart had plenty of stuff on it's shelves.
 
Yes. So what?

Also, the government wants to create inflation, so this whole printing money equals inflation argument is moot since the government creates inflation on purpose.
 
ROTFLOL... a consumer of the BIG LIE...

Yes Congress has control of the purse.

Many have claimed Obama is the smartest guy in the room... ROTFLOL...

Obama is only the smartest guy in the room, when he is in a room full of tea partyers.[/QUOTE]


Because Tea Partiers have caused so much financial and economic damage over the last 6 years with all their new legislation and Executive orders.....

Lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom