The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Armchair Economists
|Subject: Re: So, how about that||Date: 9/9/2011 9:41 AM|
|Author: Ryan68||Number: 1985 of 2003|
Most or all of it, whatever was lost in the recession. And, there was nothing close to that even attempted.
So, if I'm understanding properly, you're saying the entire ~$800 stimulus should have been spent on infrastructure? Federal government spending and deficits were at post-WWII highs, but it wasn't enough?
I don't even think that was (or is) possible to spend all that on infrastructure. They apparently had problems spending what they did authorize.
I would ask how good is a theory (that's not a knock on Keynes the man, who is dead afterall, but rather the modern day proponents of whatever they think he meant) that can't be tried?
And, Keynes would not have approved of tax cuts in a boom. Tax cuts come during the recession.
Like Bush's in 2001?
And, how much of the Obama deficit spending was on the wars he didn't start?
Krugman: "Should disaster aid, as a matter of sound public finance, be offset by immediate cuts in other spending? No. The time-honored principle, backed by economists right and left, is that temporary bursts of spending--which usually arise when there's a war to fight, but can also arise from other causes, including financial crises and natural disasters--are a good reason to run temporary budget deficits."
So, he had that spending and the stimulus as part of the theory...and it wasn't enough.
Where was Naj when Bush was doubling spending and cutting taxes?
By 2006 (y'know, the year Obama in the Senate was voting against the debt ceiling increase) the deficit was 1.9% of GDP and, iirc, the CBO was projecting a 10-year $1.7 trillion (or $170 billion per year on average) addition to the debt.
2007 saw the deficit recede further to 1.2%.
Contrast this with Obama's most recent budget, which would