Posted on 01/02/2015 3:40:24 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
On the front of today's New York Times business section is a remarkable—or should I say remarkably unremarkable—news article whose entire premise, unchallenged in the course of 1,341 words and input from 10 sources, is that more government spending is a very good thing because it leads to more government jobs and therefore helps the economy. Hooray!
If you think I am being unfair in this characterization, consider the headline: "Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus." Or the headline on the jump page inside: "Rebound in Government Spending Starts to Aid Economy After Years of Cuts." Or the headline on the associated chart: "A Small But Important Lift." Or the blurb: "The public sector is once again adding to prosperity." Before consuming some counter-factual questions, enjoy the celebratory sounds of friction-free assumptions and loosening belts:
NAPLES, Fla. — For a long stretch, government spending cutbacks at all levels were a substantial drag on economic growth. Now, finally, relief is in sight. For the first time since 2011, local, state and federal governments are providing a small but significant increase to prosperity. […]
And so on a recent windswept afternoon, John Lynch, armed with a police radio and a giant net, stood along a fishing pier in Naples, on guard for pelicans that might become entangled in fishing lines.
"That's my job, to try and get them to safety," said Mr. Lynch, a retired banker with a snowy beard whose uniform was a fisherman's cap and shorts. Mr. Lynch is one of the latest additions to the city's payroll. His is the kind of government job this Gulf Coast town never would have even contemplated during the recession. […]
"This new revenue, the increase in the economy, the increase in G.D.P. —everything is looking good," [said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution]. "It's releasing pressure to be fiscally restrained." […]
The Naples Pier outreach assistant job was a minor item in the $32.9 million budget, but an important symbol that times were flush again. […]
The Naples Fire Rescue Department just bought two new emergency vehicles worth $196,000 each. One of the boxy red trucks arrived last month, just in time to be steered gingerly down the route of the city's annual Christmas parade, where palm trees were adorned in white holiday lights and children darted for candy tossed from holiday themed floats.
It is an event so precious to locals that the city kept it going during the downturn, said John F. Sorey III, mayor of Naples.
"We've got to preserve the wow factor," he said, "or all our tourists could go somewhere else."
Credit where it's due: As government-spending euphemisms go, preserving the wow factor is surely in the Top 20...
I have only four questions for the NYT and those who agree with its premise that the more government spends, the more prosperous we are:
1) Why were states not measurably more prosperous after increasing government spending by more than 80 percent in real terms between 2003 and 2007?
2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?
3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?
4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?
No civilization ever taxed (or spent) itself into prosperity.
- Rush Limbaugh
We’ve spent all of the money. And we do it again, and again, and again. The only question left, is WHEN is THE NEXT TIME THAT WE SPEND ALL OF THE MONEY YET AGAIN, will cause a collapse.
WHAT MONEY?
We have already spent all the money and borrowed 18.1 Trillion more and the interest keeps climbing. Did they not teach math in liberal classes.
1+1=2-2=0 borrow 2 and you have -2. Add interest .01 and that equals...-2.01 and so on until the amount your borrowed plus interest is -18.1 Trillion in the hole and climbing.
At this rate there will be Chinese people in your spare bedroom.
Liberals are stupid...government has to TAKE money from the private sector to spend it on the private sector. Net zero return. It’s just reallocation.
A question no liberal will answer:
At what point between 0% and 100% taxation does a person become a slave?
You say slave like its a bad thing.
To a liberal, your slavery is the whole point!
If there was any truth in this article everyone in America would be a billionaire by now!
Only in a Liberal Mind can an expense equal prosperity
I think it's a lot like the laffer curve. If government spends 100%, nobody works, and wealth = 0. If government spends 0%, you get chaos like Somalia and wealth remains close to 0. Somewhere in between those two points is an optimal amount of government spending that helps promote the private sector's creation of wealth.
1) Why were states not measurably more prosperous after increasing government spending by more than 80 percent in real terms between 2003 and 2007?
A lot has to do with where the government spending goes. If government spending is invested in needed infrasturture (roads, airports, communications, power grids, internet, etc.), then government spending can be an investment that generates a real return in terms of the economic growth.
In the 2000's, government spending was probably increasingly due to off-shoring of jobs. That offshoring is a direct effect of lowering the import tariffs, and it has been an increasing drain on our economy since the 60's.
2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?
Less. But again it's trade policy. Obama's spending is largely related to the high unemployment generated by our stupid trade policies.
3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?
The US and Canada unlike Europe didn't have their industries devasted by war. So we had a huge headstart. But that's not to say that the war wasn't a drain on wealth, and ending it, and the associated spending allowed wealth to accumulate.
"4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?"
No, because you can't predict the circumstances. In a war, you might need government spending to be 100% or even higher, because your survival depends on it. But we are spending now to support 100 million americans on food stamps, while we import goods from other countries equal to 16% of our total GNP. I'm for supporting Americans out of work when there are no jobs. But I'm 100% the stupid globalist policies that killed our jobs.
I think it's a lot like the laffer curve. If government spends 100%, nobody works, and wealth = 0. If government spends 0%, you get chaos like Somalia and wealth remains close to 0. Somewhere in between those two points is an optimal amount of government spending that helps promote the private sector's creation of wealth.
1) Why were states not measurably more prosperous after increasing government spending by more than 80 percent in real terms between 2003 and 2007?
A lot has to do with where the government spending goes. If government spending is invested in needed infrasturture (roads, airports, communications, power grids, internet, etc.), then government spending can be an investment that generates a real return in terms of the economic growth.
In the 2000's, government spending was probably increasingly due to off-shoring of jobs. That offshoring is a direct effect of lowering the import tariffs, and it has been an increasing drain on our economy since the 60's.
2) Between the time of Bill Clinton's last submitted budget of $1.8 trillion, and Barack Obama's first submitted budget of $3.6 trillion, did the average American become more or less prosperous?
Less. But again it's trade policy. Obama's spending is largely related to the high unemployment generated by our stupid trade policies.
3) The United States after World War II, Canada in the 1990s, and Australia in the 1980s all became significantly more prosperous—despite ample warnings to the contrary—after cutting, not increasing, government spending. Wha' happen?
The US and Canada unlike Europe didn't have their industries devasted by war. So we had a huge headstart. But that's not to say that the war wasn't a drain on wealth, and ending it, and the associated spending allowed wealth to accumulate.
"4) Is there a ceiling on what percentage of GDP the government should account for, and if so why should there be one, and where should it be?"
No, because you can't predict the circumstances. In a war, you might need government spending to be 100% or even higher, because your survival depends on it. But we are spending now to support 100 million americans on food stamps, while we import goods from other countries equal to 16% of our total GNP. I'm for supporting Americans out of work when there are no jobs. But I'm 100% the stupid globalist policies that killed our jobs.
Plus we should raise the minimum wage to $1000 an hour for everyone and make ourselves rich!
This is one of the consistent non-truths liberals cling to.
To them, money comes from a checkbook, milk and meat come from a store, and the poop they flush down the toilet is gone forever.
They are pure evil, the truth is not in them.
The government, esp the federal government, is one big broken window. (See “Broken Window Fallacy.”)
That concept is WAY beyond the intellectual capacity of almost all leftscum. The ones who do “get it” don’t care because those broken windows give them money and power.
Lovely sentiments. But not from Lincoln.
At this rate there will be Chinese people in your spare bedroom.
But most of the debt is owed to ourselves! Red China holds "only" about $1.27tn of the total debt--about 9.3%. The largest single holder of US government debt is, in fact, the Federal Reserve.
Who then?
My point exactly. Foreign holders of US debt do not even account for 50% of the total.
Intragovernmental holdings represent the raiding of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds.
That leaves ordinary American investors like you or me, and the Fed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.