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 add $9.5 trillion over 10 years, and in 2021 (Year 10), the deficit would be 4.9% of GDP. Per CBO...and per memory...so double-check if you wish...
Buffett thinks spending should be 20-21% of GDP, revenue 18-19%, with deficits of around 2%. Well, that's 2006 and 2007 in a nutshell.
Bush was and is blamed for the economic meltdown. I'm sure if things had ended well, Bush would have taken credit. So, of course, he deserves some of the blame.
I just apply that same principal to Obama. If things were going well (and at one point weren't we adding 200k+ jobs a month during Obama's term?) today, he'd be taking credit. It isn't going well. He deserves some of the blame.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|