Government Spending. Does It Really Work as a “Stimulator”?

Listening to obAMATEUR, his fellow looters, the moochers and the mindless drones, you would think that the Stimulus and the rest of the over $5 TRILLION in spending by our so-called “leader” would have had a huge effect on the economy.  They would be touting this into the next term.

Sadly, for the looters, this is not the case.  Private spending is needed for the economy to produce the fruit we have seen from successful administrations like Reagan’s.

We have a study now published in the National Journal of Economic Research from University of California at San Diego economist Valerie Ramey.  Ramey puts the proggies lies about the success of their spending schemes to rest.

According to Ramey: “An increase in government spending never leads to a significant rise in private spending.  In fact, in most cases it leads to a significant fall.”

“A significant fall”…… say it again…..  “A significant fall……”  One true measure of the proggy belief have been the headlines concerning the economy and job growth – “an UNEXPECTED FALL in economic grown” or “an UNEXPECTED RISE in unemployment claims”, etc etc.

We already know that obAMATEUR believes that the United States is great and successful because of “government investment” code for “spending”.  Ramey also finds that government spending increases government employment .. but not private employment.

That’s it liberals keep charging on your “Bank of China” credit card and kick the can down the road to our children and grand-children.  ObAMATEUR used those words as senator when criticizing President Bush.  But those words are no longer part of his rhetoric (or any other proggy’s for that matter) while he is the one in charge.  Come November, those words will make another appearance when the proggies no longer control the White House.

UPDATE:

The budget proposed by the obAMATEUR 2012 will result in a DEFICIT of $26 trillion dollars by 2022.   If you were to spend $1,000 per minute, it would take you about 49,000 YEARS to spend $26 trillion dollars.  The obAMATEUR will do it in ONLY 10 years! What an accomplishment! – any you proggy drones whine I cannot compliment your pResident.

That’s the debt your children and grandchildren are going to have to pay.  Here is another compliment – He sure spends other people’s money very rapidly.

We can’t afford another four years of this bozo and his fellow looters.  BTW,  I am sure this budget will be UNANIMOUSLY defeated like his others.  But he will blame only the non-proggies and his loyal drones will regurgitate the dumbed down talking point.

88 thoughts on “Government Spending. Does It Really Work as a “Stimulator”?

  1. Cluster April 26, 2012 / 12:54 pm

    “An increase in government spending never leads to a significant rise in private spending. In fact, in most cases it leads to a significant fall.”

    You would think this would be econ 101 for most people. The government doesn’t have money to spend without first taking it from the private sector, hence, less money for the private sector to spend. And let’s be honest about government spending – most of the funds spent wind up in special interest and bureucrats pockets. Very little of those funds actually reach those people, or projects that it was intended for.

    • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 1:44 pm

      Econ 101

      GDP = C+I+X+G where G is government spending. The multiplier effect 1/MPS will lead to private sector spending. See the government money actually buys things in the private sector, like planes and computers. The people making the planes buy things and so on and so on. This is Econ 101.

      The government can spend money which doesn’t come from the private sector. It is call deficit spending. It can lead to a crowding out effect of course.

      MOST of the funds wind up in the hands of people in the military or health care industry or wherever defense and medicare purchase. There is actually a little thing called the budget where pointed head people like Clueless can go find these things out.

      “And let’s be honest about government spending – most of the funds spent wind up in special interest and bureucrats pockets. ” – This is an outright lie.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 1:59 pm

        Stool,

        You seem a little upset, anything wrong? Tell me, where did the bulk of the 2009 stimulus go? It certainly didn’t go to the shovel ready jobs – remember that?

        Deficit spending? Are you seriously still advocating that? Or do you think it might finally be time to be fiscally responsible?

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 2:10 pm

        Great math lesson ‘dolf; didn’t you forget the whole “private consumption” part of that equation? Yeah, I know you Keynesians would rather focus on government spending and draw the erroneous connection to “private sector spending” (which isn’t even part of the equation). Good luck with that.

        “MOST of the funds wind up in the hands of people in the military or health care industry or wherever defense and medicare purchase.” REALLY? Government spending on government entities results in MOST of the funds going to Government entities? THAT’s your contention? After the circular firing squad spends funds they don’t have on themselves (which they don’t need) they draw off the administrative costs as a cost of doing the business they designed and call that a “multiplier”. Which is effectively around 0.5!

        When my daughter told me she saved $5.00 by buying her shoes on sale, I ordered her back to the store to buy more; we need the money!

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 2:16 pm

        Don’t you find it ironic that ‘dolf would lecture us on “Econ 101” which he believes is a fount of misinformation?

        Isn’t that a bit like you and I extolling the merits of Keynes?

      • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 3:45 pm

        @Clueless

        I’m in a great mood. You have already handicapped your previous all encompassing comment about all government spending by now focusing on a small portion known as the stimulus. It’s good to see your turn down the hyperbole.

        Your point is that an increase in government spending never leads to an increase in public spending. That is factually wrong. The long run consequences of government deficits are another matter.

        I have always preached fiscal restraint, so no I am not advocating deficit spending. On the other hand, Saint Ronald Reagan and President Bush were never believed in fiscal restraints. Newt Gingrich didn’t either. Clinton and Newt balanced the budget via a peace dividend, a tech bubble and taxes on artificial gains in the stock market when it got a whole bunch of pension money

        @Count

        C is private consumption in the equation. I am not a Keynesian and as you correctly pointed out I believe the entire academic field is the equivalent to astrology. OTOH, my daughter is a junior in high school and taking the AP exam in a few weeks in macroeconomics and I have been helping her study this form of astrology for the past month. It’s scary that so many people believe the whole spiel.

        Despite my best efforts she has decided she likes the Chicago school of economic thought. She is even thinking of applying to U Chicago itself. I’m hoping for Caltech or a conservatory.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 4:05 pm

        “C is private consumption in the equation.”

        *sigh* Yes, I know, that’s why I mentioned that you had neglected that part of the equation while emphasizing the government spending part. Although they are both part of the GDP equation, I don’t believe the Commutative law is applicable; GDP – I – X – G = C as a theoretical absolute.

        Your daughter either disproves the theory thazt bad teachers adversely affect good students, or she (like my daughter) assumes everything her father tells her is a load o’crap so better to find her own way.

        Good for her.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 4:07 pm

        Stool,

        You are laughably naive in terms of government spending so it’s pointless to have any further conversation with you on that subject. But I will point out one other area – how much of the DOE (education) budget goes to educating a child vs how much of winds up in union pockets? Take your time.

        Secondly, yesterday you also said something completely stupid and that was that the corporate bankruptcies that were owned in whole or in part by Bain, were an expense to taxpayers. Which led me to think that you have no understanding of bankruptcies. The people left on the hook from those BK’s were not the taxpayers, but the creditors who could have filed lawsuits if they felt something was amiss, but they were the ones that absorbed the brunt of the financial losses.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 4:15 pm

        Or better yet stool, let’s talk about the GSA – how efficient we’re those dollars spent? How about the Dept of Energy? How many jobs were created with solyndra? And where did the $500 million go? Do you think any of that ended up in the pockets of those who contributed to Obama?

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 4:21 pm

        Cluster,
        As much as I hate to admit it, ‘dolf is correct that GS cost taxpayers; the company pensions were insolvent so U.S Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation had to pick up those charges.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 4:39 pm

        Forgot about the pension aspect of it – but again, does the pension guaranty fund have any recourse? I would think if the BK was illegitimate there should be some litigation.

        What isn’t mentioned by stool is the number of success’s Bain had and the amount of taxes that were received from those ventures.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 4:47 pm

        Of course, Bain was successful in many -many endeavors and GS would have gone under in 1993 had Bain not stepped in. Bain made GS successful again but it only lasted another decade until time-tide-and economy finally caught up with her.

        ‘dolf and his Huffington friends conveniently ignore the fact that Bain wanted GS to be successful, not fail. But, that doesn’t fit the meme that Bain was a Corporate Raider and not a venture capital company.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 4:48 pm

        Your point is that an increase in government spending never leads to an increase in public spending. – stool

        No, I never said that stool. I am just pointing out that the correlation you draw between the two is incorrect.

      • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 5:04 pm

        @Count

        With respect to the daughter, she learned graphical integrity from Tufte’s book ‘Visual Display of Quantitative Information’ when I home schooled her. I ridiculed economics and in particular the Phillips curve which is visually disproved on pg. 48. In her econ 101 class they teach Keynesian theory and low and behold they brought up the same old Phillips curve. Her conclusion was that step 1 of any economic theory is to think Keynesian is bs.

        @Clueless

        “how much of the DOE (education) budget goes to educating a child …”

        Again, you don’t understand much so I’ll enlighten you. I’m more opposed to the DOE than just about anyone on this blog. The majority of the $$ goes to grants to have professors in colleges of education come up with ‘innovative’ methods for students to learn which require no mental effort on their part. See, people like YOU think there are tricks or short cuts to understanding difficult concepts. People like YOU look for simple, cliched or clever answers to hard problems. When some Professor of Education comes along and says students can learn X in 15 minutes per day using their method Y which isn’t in place because those darn lazy union teachers YOU believe them. X might be calculus, no matter somehow it has to be easy.

        That is where all the DOE money goes. To non-unionized professors of education. By DEFINITION if there things were going smoothly in education, there would be less need of so many educators. That is why in Europe the college of educations are minimal and the schools are much better. Nothing to do with DOE going to unions.

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 5:24 pm

        When some Professor of Education comes along and says students can learn X in 15 minutes per day using their method Y which isn’t in place because those darn lazy union teachers YOU believe them. – stool

        Again stool you really have to stop making asinine assumptions. But knowing that you are a stickler and watch dog for wasting tax payer money, and seem to believe that Bain really soaked it to the tax payer, how do you feel about the GM bailout. Obama directly put the tax payer on the hook for that, GM still owes tax payers a hundred million, and most of that money was used to prop up the unions at the expense of bond holders. I can’t imagine you being supportive of that, yet I read into your posts often that you seem ok with Obama winning another term.

        Seems contradictory to me

      • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 7:09 pm

        “how do you feel about the GM bailout.” – Clueless

        I understand the rationale for it. Company X is in a tough situation, they employ a large number of employees … and the government is going to help them through a rough patch. Nevertheless, I am against it because it allows the CEO’s to do a poor job knowing they can always save their behinds with taxpayer money. Obviously, the worst is the banking industry and companies like Bain Capital.

        Now, Ronald Reagan was the most protectionist president in modern history. When the CEO’s of steel companies, auto companies, … did a poor job seeing the benefits of quality control Reagan raised tariffs and quotas to protect the companies. He said it was for the workers, I think it was to protect less than stellar B-school grads.

        Newton and many in the GOP have completely distorted the agriculture market, encouraging ethanol and the like. That costs the consumers both in taxes and at the grocery store.

        My theory of economics would basically say that the economy isn’t a zero sum game (though not an unlimited one either) but is improved through technology and/or cutting back on wasting resources.

        There isn’t a magic way to make money faster than technological and/or efficient progress allows other than cheating people.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 7:31 pm

        “There isn’t a magic way to make money faster than technological and/or efficient progress allows other than cheating people.”

        Andrew Carnagie would disagree with that statement.

      • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 10:49 pm

        Carnegie made his fortune in the steel industry, controlling the most extensive integrated iron and steel operations ever owned by an individual in the United States.

        One of his two great innovations was in the cheap and EFFICIENT mass production of steel by adopting and adapting the Bessemer process for steel making.

      • Mark Edward Noonan April 26, 2012 / 11:50 pm

        Bardolf,

        But in deficit spending the money is being borrowed – and money borrowed by the government is money which can’t be lent to private enterprises trying to start up or expand. And if the government just decides to print money, then all the money in the private economy becomes worth less and thus there is less money in the private economy even as the number of dollars increases. It simply can’t be done – government cannot spend a dime without it coming out of the private economy. The government HAS NO WEALTH TO SPEND. Period.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 12:39 am

        Mark

        The money being borrowed might be from the Chinese who would not lend to companies.

        When money is worth less then debtors can pay back debts with cheaper dollars. Theoretically the government could print 20 trillion and pay back it’s debt tomorrow. That would destroy the economy of course so it isn’t done.

        The problem with Keynsian economics isn’t that it is inconsistent with itself. The problem is that it is not consistent with reality.

        Neither is the school of cutting taxes will boost the economy. If I am given money but see all the good investment possibilities overseas that is where I am putting my money.

      • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 10:51 am

        ‘dolf,
        once again, *sigh* I know who AC is, read The Empire of Business by Andrew Carnegie. then re-read what you wrote “There isn’t a magic way to make money faster than technological and/or efficient progress allows other than cheating people.”

      • Mark Edward Noonan April 28, 2012 / 12:35 am

        Bardolf,

        And that, my friend, is why I’m a Distributist – neither the Big Government socialist nor the Big Corporation capitalist model actually works…only a Distributist model, built as it is upon Subsidiarity, can work. I’ve been yammering on (even during my hiatus) about the need to make, mine and grow things…because that is the only sort of activity which creates wealth. its not so much that our taxes are high (though in some cases they are too high) but a matter of the whole tax and regulatory system (at the federal, State and local level) is biased against making, mining and growing things. You want to start a college and you’ll have bags of money; you want to start a bank and you’ll have two bags of money; you want to start a government program and the down payment will be three bags of money…but if you want to start a factory, a mine or a farm and you’ll first have to go through regulatory hoops and then, if you do get it started, you’ll be taxed at every turn. This is what needs to change…and until it does change, the best we’ll do is stave off disaster, for a while.

  2. bozo April 26, 2012 / 1:09 pm

    From the study: “the specification using the Fisher-Peters measure of defense news for the 1958 to 2008 period implies that a sustained increase in government spending has a robust positive effect on private employment.”

    So, when you say something is bad for “the economy,” whose economy do you mean, exactly? What metric are you employing? If it’s bad for gazillionaire profits but creates robust positive private employment growth, well, is that bad?

    Yes. Yes it is. Somehow. Someone get back to me on that, ‘k?

    • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 1:56 pm

      Increases in government spending do reduce unemployment. For all but one specification, though, it appears that all of the employment increase is from an increase in government employment, not private employment. The only exception is in the specification using the Fisher-Peters measure of defense news* for the 1958 to 2008 period.
      This specification implies that a sustained increase in government spending has a robust positive effect on private employment. On balance, though, the results suggest that direct hiring of workers by the government may be more effective than relying on multiplier effects of government purchases.

      “*the Fisher-Peters’ variable might be capturing news about exports as well as news about future U.S. government spending. Because an increase in export demand would be expected to increase private sector employment, some of the increase might be due to this factor.

      The government can employ lots of human flotsam like Bozo to dig holes and then fill them in; this does nothing for t general employment, and has only a detrimental effect on the economy in general.

  3. GMB April 26, 2012 / 1:56 pm

    “MOST of the funds wind up in the hands of people in the military or health care industry or wherever defense and medicare purchase.”

    Provide for the common defense” Any Idea where those words come from Bardolf? As for health care you are right. Time for any and all government spending on that to end.

    “The government can spend money which doesn’t come from the private sector. It is call deficit spending. It can lead to a crowding out effect of course.”

    And may you enlighten us on who has to pay that money back. The government or the taxpayer?
    Sometimes Bardolf I wonder about you. 😛

    • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 7:13 pm

      GMB

      When you got paid by the military you spent it in the private sector. That was my point.

      As for deficit spending, future taxpayers who have hopefully had the advantage of a better economy brought about by deficit spending. If you take out a loan to send your children to private schools, they or you would pay it back with money enabled by the investment in the better schools.

      I don’t buy the theory mind you. That is econ 101 as taught most everywhere.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 7:29 pm

        ‘dolf,
        “paid by the military [..] spent it in the private sector” means the government should give money to citizens and the economy will improve? Is this the Pelosi School of Economics? If unemployment insurance payments are “good for the economy” then the most productive enterprise zone in America would be Detroit.

        All deficit spending “comes from the private sector” since government can’t generate real revenue any other way.

        And here endith the lesson.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        Actually Count,

        IIRC, one of the best “stimulus” packages I heard of was to just give each taxpayer a set sum of money ($500,000) with the requirements that you buy, or pay off, a house, purchase a new car, and pay off your debt. If anything was left over you were free to do with it whatever you wanted. Would have cost a tenth of the actual stimulus and for those that followed the requirements would have reestablished a solid middle class while spurring small business start-ups.

  4. Cluster April 26, 2012 / 2:02 pm

    Considering barstool’ and bozo’ completely brain dead comments, and factoring in our $16 trillion in government spending debt, our economy should be as stron as it ever has been. Right stool and bozo?

    If government spending results in lower unemployment and private sector growth, than $16 trillion in government spending should of done wonders. Maybe one of you could tell us why it hasn’t worked. Care to venture a respons?

    • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 2:21 pm

      Cluster,

      I’ll save them the trouble;
      1) It is working!
      2) It would have been much worse had he not spent the $16 Trillion
      3) If you think these results are bad think how much better it would have been had he spent as much as he wanted!

      wait … that last part isn’t what I meant to say. I mean, if a lot of money was pumped down a political rat-hole with nothing but votes for Obama to show for it, think what a lot more money down a political rat-hole can accomplish!

      • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        According the the logic of bozo and stool, Greece should have the worlds strongest economy.

        I guess this is what happens when we allow ivory tower morons to control our economy. They just don’t quite understand why what they read in their Keynesian bibles doesn’t translate well when actually applied.

    • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 7:19 pm

      The government can waste money and invest in the future just like Clueless and Count do with their own earnings.

      16 trillion includes 3 trillion wasted on Iraq, Afghanistan etc. It includes alternative energy boondoggles like ethanol which have cost an untold factor more than Solyandra.

      It also includes the highway system so Clueless can get to where he needs to and make money for his family. I would consider that a worthwhile capital investment.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 7:43 pm

        Wouldn’t it be nice if the government could only risk money that they “earned”?

      • tiredoflibbs April 26, 2012 / 10:06 pm

        That would be very difficult, count, since the government does not earn any money at all. It must confiscate it.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 12:01 am

        The Highway system was a DoD project and instead of Iraq, etc. I leveraged my money against the US National Debt which is making a nice return.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 12:51 am

        While I don’t like to pay taxes, I do realize the GOVERNMENT is made up of democratically elected neighbors. The bureaucrats are not Martians.

        They do represent those with money, but that is true just about everywhere.

        I don’t understand TIrediflibbs mentality that some thugs are stealing her money. She can always barter her way around if she doesn’t like civilization as clueless would say.

        @db

        Another puzzling mentality is that the military or DoD is not part of the government. That is just bizarre. Of course it used to be called the department of war, so maybe the misunderstanding is semantics.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 1:25 am

        Not confusing. I was just stating the the original highway system was under the control of the DoD (like Germany)–a government agency. IIRC the entire highway system took 54 pages from start to finish whereas we have 27,000+ words here in NC just on the “Selling” of farm grown cabbage. Hell, wasn’t it GE that send a 57,000 page IRS return that said GE owed nothing as a company?

        If you are a lawyer–you will see no problem but I am still a man of a handshake and deal with very few problems.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:39 pm

        To be a bit more precise–it was authorized by Congress as “The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System or the Interstate) is a network of limited-access roads including freeways, highways, and expressways forming part of the National Highway System of the United States of America.”

  5. GMB April 26, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    Government Spending. Does It Really Work as a “Stimulator”?

    By that logic the United States Postal Service should be rolling in spare cash right?

    Nevermind.

    $11 billion just got appropriated by the Senate to bail them out again. Would somebody please tell us all how much the USPS contribibuted in taxes last year? The year before that? Ever? Would somebody please tell us where that has to come from?

    • bardolf April 26, 2012 / 7:14 pm

      USPS in in the constitution just like defense.

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 7:45 pm

        USPS waste and incompetence is not in the Constitution.

      • GMB April 26, 2012 / 8:22 pm

        Agreed, the authority to provide for a post office is in the constitution. However when you call on a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine, we do as we are lawfully ordered. We don’t cry to congress because our hefty pensions are being threatened.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 12:11 am

        Sorry Count,

        The United States Postal Service (also known as USPS, the Post Office or U.S. Mail) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. The USPS traces its roots to 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, where Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first postmaster general.
        from ask.com but there are many more references.

        On the other side of the coin is there nowhere stated we need a bloated government agency that loses money every year. I still can not believe that the USPS was not allowed to the the US Census which would have saved both a ton of money, make the USPS look profitable, etc. Guess it is against some government standard to actually show efficiency–claim it all you want but don’t dare show it.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 12:58 am

        @GMB

        The USPS is shrinking. How come there are pay grades in the military which limit the range of salaries? The military has the VA as a 24/7 lobbyist for soldiers. That is a goooood thing IMO.

        @db

        The USPS is not allowed to set the prices of it’s services without approval from congress. They must do accounting things with pensions no private company is forced into doing. It is not and was never intended to be a business.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 1:14 am

        Bardolf,

        We agree and I would include an extension of your statement that was never intended to be a business. to include a statement like but should be run in the manner of a private business short of causing harm to the general public.>/i>

      • GMB April 27, 2012 / 1:27 am

        “The USPS is shrinking.”

        As of this moment, not one USPS employee has been laid off nor one single post office been closed. Proposals have been made but no action has been take.

        “How come there are pay grades in the military which limit the range of salaries?”

        Why don’t you tell me. This question make no sense at to me. What are you getting at?

        “The military has the VA as a 24/7 lobbyist for soldiers. That is a goooood thing IMO.”

        When it is part of the job duties of the regular USPS employee to go and fight wars, get wouded or die, then the USPS can have thier lobbyist. Detroit does not count.

        At this time the USPS owes more than $13 billion to the Treasury and is adding close to $23 million to that total every day. So where does that extra money come from?

        It is time to get rid of this small time albatross and let the private sector have at it.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 10:40 am

        GMB

        “As of this moment, not one USPS employee has been laid off nor one single post office been closed. Proposals have been made but no action has been take.”

        http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/employees-1926-2010.htm

        My brother worked at a rural post office and had his hours cut from 40 to 12 hours per week. As hundreds of thousands of employees have retired they have not been replaced. The USPS is shrinking.

        *******An amendment approved Tuesday would bar the Postal Service from closing post offices for one year if they are in areas with fewer than 50,000 people, unless there was no significant community opposition.******

        How is that for not letting the USPS run as a private company? The places where it is losing business = RURAL GOP AREAS can’t be closed if the senate gives the USPS back 11 billion dollars of over-payments of retirement funds.

        While we are at it, the rural areas were electrified as part of the great society and the road system also was a handout to lowly populated areas. The government also provides medical doctors to rural areas which the private sector would ignore.

        Essentially, the handouts to rural America are because of a belief in the failures of free markets.

        I think the USPS is rather well run, certainly better than other nations postal services. Certainly FedEx would raise its rates if it had to deliver a 1 ounce package to rural Illinois from NY for the same price as sending it from NY to DC.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:42 pm

        Bardolf,

        There are pay grades in the military, just as in the private sector with titles, that pay according to several factors including rank, responsibilities, and time in service. Hope that helps.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:56 pm

        Bardolf and GMB,

        As much as I see the USPS as a “black hole” (like IT departments are treated) it is a Constitutional duty. I also have little problem with supporting rural areas with some of the monies collected in higher density areas. Even though I do not consider them “rights” per se, I do believe that roadways, various methods of communications, electricity, clean water (among others) should be provided for every citizen.

        Then again, the USPS gave away the “rights” to every type of package except one–the standard letter which no other carrier can provide a service for. I still do not understand why the USPS was not allowed to do the last census as it would have put the USPS in the black for 2010/11. I mean who knows their areas better than the postal employees which could have made a little overtime while canvasing their routes. Also, why not add services like computers and the internet access (at a small fee) to expand services and help the bottom line? The libraries could do without them. Nevertheless, the USPS also thought it was a good idea to get rid of carrying tax forms as well. I know it is not a ‘business’ but I would feel better if it started acting like one.

  6. Cluster April 26, 2012 / 4:33 pm

    It’s been a bad month for liberals, and specifically Obama. The SC looks like it will uphold AZ’s 1070 law, as well as possibly striking down Obamacare. Then we have the managerial failures of the GSA, and the secret service which pales in comparison to the gun walker scandal, if the media would ever do their job on that issue.

    Combined with high unemployment (which should really be at about 12%), high gas prices, and an incessant desire to pander to special interest groups – I have to think Romney has a really good chance to wipe this guy out.

    • Amazona April 27, 2012 / 10:37 am

      Sorry, Cluster, but I have to disagree with you here on the relative importance of the Secret Service scandal and Fast and Furious.

      The gun walker scandal put weapons into the hands of murderers who then used those weapons to kill people. They still have these weapons and they are still killing people.

      The SS scandal was an agency failure. The gun walker fiasco comes down from on high, and is now being swept under the rug by those who put it in motion. The SS issue may, or may not, have been a dereliction of duty to some extent, but the gun walker program has directly led to murder.

      There is talk about an investigation of the SS sex scandal. Is there an investigation into F&F?

      And the sex scandal is about a bunch of poorly supervised guys acting like pigs, while the gun walker program was a political ploy with the end goal of “proving” the dangers of private gun ownership, as a component of another attack on the 2ns Amendment.

      No one instructed Secret Service agents to hang out in seedy dives and employ prostitutes, but people WERE instructed to sell guns to criminals.

      The sex scandal has gotten quite a bit of publicity. The gun walker scandal has been, for the most part, hushed up while its architect, the Attorney General of the United States of America, is refusing to act. (I think he may be too occupied with the urgency of determining if Trayvon Martin’s civil rights were violated.)

      • tiredoflibbs April 27, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        Ama, let’s not forget that obAMATEUR was going to use the activities of the Gun Walker scandal to push for an international gun control measure. He admitted this after meeting with Mexico’s president.

  7. bardolf April 26, 2012 / 7:25 pm

    Your point is that an increase in government spending never leads to an increase in public spending. – Bardolf

    No, I never said that stool- Clueless

    but up thread

    “An increase in government spending never leads to a significant rise in private spending. In fact, in most cases it leads to a significant fall.”- Tiredofcompexissues

    You would think this would be econ 101 for most people.- Clueless

    So you never SAID that, but you agreed with it, hence it is your contention (point) as well.

    Maybe you can clarify. Are there time when an increase in government spending lead to an increase in public spending? If so when?

    • J. R. Babcock April 26, 2012 / 8:07 pm

      Maybe you can clarify. Are there time when an increase in government spending lead to an increase in public spending? If so when?

      Am I missing something here? What is the difference between “government spending” and “public spending”?

      • Count d'Haricots April 26, 2012 / 8:15 pm

        JR,

        I was just about to ask that same question since public sector spending is not private sector spending.

        ‘dolf,
        Don’t ya just hate it when you think you have the best “gotcha” only to find out what you wrote is a real ‘dolf?

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 12:59 am

        Dang it.

    • Cluster April 26, 2012 / 9:48 pm

      I am assuming stool meant private spending, and one example would be tax payer funded sports stadiums which encourages lot of private development, and I am sure there are others. It is a fact though that we have past the equilibrium point and the current deficit spending is now harming the private sector, that was what I was agreeing with.

      I think you have selective outrage in terms of spending – always pointing the finger at conservative failures while giving liberals a pass. Case in point, I find it strange that you are quick to point out Romney big spending ways and business practices while reserving any comment on Obama’s, which are far more egregious in my opinion. I was not at all happy with the Bush spending and said so on many occasions, but Obama has been Bush on sterioids and we have to get serious about entitlement, tax and regulatory reform or we will soon be in real bad shape.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 1:06 am

        I can’t change the democrat party. I didn’t vote for Obama. I want there to be A fiscally conservative party. Two would be better, but one is a needed start. I don’t see Mitt as a fiscal conservative, sorry. He will bail out too big to fail corporations and keep interest rates low so his buddies can speculate up the price of commodities I use daily.

        And every single sport stadium is a net loser for that economy. Every single pro sports stadium without exception was an overall drag on the local economy.

      • Cluster April 27, 2012 / 7:56 am

        Mitt will be much more fiscally conservative than Obama, and we HAVE to start somewhere. And the University of Phoenix stadium has been a huge revenue generator for the city of Glendale, not too mention the tax receipts from the satellite private development that sprung up all around it – I am not sure what their ROI is, and have to think that is years down the road, but it will pay for itself, and the added development that would not have happened without the stadium, is an added net positive in terms of tax receipts and aesthetic value.

      • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        You think that giant red bird-head is aestheticlly pleasing? I think it’s just creepy~It scares the crap out of me every time I drive by!

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 1:55 pm

        Cluster,

        Hate to nit-pick but I am assured that if we harnessed the power of Joe Robbie (Miami Dolphins owner) who was one of a handful that believed in spending his own money building a stadium and is spinning in his grave–we could power a small city. Then again, aside from the infighting amongst his children–the government helped by landing a tax burden (death tax) on them they could not afford short of selling.

        Either way, Joe Robbie Stadium and the new Marlins stadium (financed with OPM) have spurred little if any local development in the vicinity. Of course the Miami Arena (Miami Heat and OPM) did not have enough high-dollar box seats so they absconded from that one (only 5 years old) to have OPM build them a “better” stadium in a much nicer ($$$-wise) that the average family can not afford to go watch a game short of the Uecker seats.

        Once again, very little development outside of the stadium but did add quite a few vendors inside (from what I understand these days.)

    • dbschmidt April 26, 2012 / 11:54 pm

      The interesting point is I believe Bardolf and Count are arguing differing views that should lead to the same conclusion with the exception of the GM bailout where bondholders got the shaft and should help prove government should not be involved in any private business outside of issuance limited regulations and standards.

      Government should shut down about 80% of its Departments of [whatever] and, if required, set national standards but let the States deal with the actual enforcement. There are enumerated duties but if you think back to the founding–all criminal and civil issues were State issues with the exception of four.

      There were a few beliefs not listed as enumerated such as the belief of an educated electorate calling for, IMHO, a public education system that taught in the classic liberal style–a little more honest history including the readings of Cicero,Thomas Hooker, Coke, Montesquieu, Blackstone and Smith rather than how to apply a condom to a banana and feel good about everything with zero competition. You know–“Everyone is a WINNER!!!!!”

      After the Federal government disbands–we need to extract from business (this is a form of crony capitalism) the “benefits” incentives included as part of the packages including medical. I just received a written offer (new position) explaining what benefits I will receive but this is the first company to offer a $dollar$ figure if I decide to “opt-out.” This, and a little obvious tort reform, wou8d bring the actual cost of medical back into line.

      Finally, although not explicitly stated, even the founders had a “safety net” for those that COULD NOT physically work, and the sick. No one died because of lack of care or compassion but it also was not an enumerated duty that was handled first by the individual, then the family, then the religion, then the county and FINALLY by the STATE or FEDERAL government–not the other way around.

      Get rid of about 80% of the Federal government (replaced at State level if required), reverse where the majority of my taxes are paid (to the State and not Federal), end all subsidies to all corporations, actually educate (rather than indoctrinate) the youth would be among the first few things I would employ if I had the power.

      BTW, Bardolf ~ as a question I put to a great deal of people and you might want to ask your daughter is: “How much money does the US Federal government have, as in their own money?” Hope you know the answer.

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 1:26 am

        DB

        Money in the U.S. is typically thought of in terms of the Federal Reserve Notes. Federal Reserve Notes are authorized by Section 411 of Title 12 of the United States Code and are issued to the Federal Reserve Banks at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.The notes are then put into circulation by the Federal Reserve Banks. Once the notes are put into circulation, they become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks and obligations of the United States.

        Though the printing of money is physically done by the Department of the Treasury, that agency is told by the Federal Reserve how much to print. The Federal Reserve also does “regulate the value” of the U.S. Dollar through its various operations, as authorized by Congress.

        Are the Federal Reserve Banks part of the U.S. government? I would say no.

      • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 11:01 am

        db,
        I think you mean Bardolf and Cluster. Although I am a dashing figure and a suburb wordsmith, I pale in comparison to the fetching and erudite Cluster.

        It’s easy to see the confusion.

      • Cluster April 27, 2012 / 12:02 pm

        I pale in comparison to the fetching and erudite Cluster.

        ROFL!

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:13 pm

        Cluster and Count,

        First and foremost, I must admit my ‘error’ in confusing the two of all of’ y’all (plural of y’all) in Cluster and Count. My apologizes to both of all y’all as you are both dashing figures and a suburb wordsmiths

        Bardolf,

        I have nothing to add to your explanation except it would be a good time to [re]read The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve and the answer is “none” as the entire Government (including it’s intermingling with the Federal Reserve) has no money of it’s own–it is our money that they are constantly screwing with.

        Ron Paul (tin foil hat ready) for Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The only person who would try to work himself out of a job.

      • Amazona April 27, 2012 / 3:57 pm

        I pale in comparison to the fetching and erudite Cluster.

        There is a reason I once referred to him as “Clustericious”.

    • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 3:01 pm

      I call them new laws and regulations that cost everyone. The government when they create them and have to manage them plus the amount of time and/or money spent by the public trying to comply with them. Most of them do nothing but they are ‘expensive’ from both sides of the counter.

  8. Liberty At'Stake April 26, 2012 / 8:42 pm

    Other people’s money … so easy to “invest” … especially when your ideology informs you it was all yours in the first place.

    • neocon1 April 27, 2012 / 9:27 am

      liberty

      Other people’s money … so easy to “invest” … especially when your ideology informs you it was all yours in the first place.

      Aaaaaaaaaaa men to that

    • neocon1 April 27, 2012 / 9:29 am

      tell us baldork……….when will the INTEREST on the trillions borrowed EXCEED the ENTIRE revenue of the federal govt mmmmmm?

      then what? too big to fail?

      • neocon1 April 27, 2012 / 10:11 am

        RUT RO

        PLUNGE: GROWTH FALLS TO 2.2%

        U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas…

        Falling home prices drag new buyers under water…

      • bardolf April 27, 2012 / 10:54 am

        See, when you rack up trillions in debt as pushed by ex-GS ex-Citibank employees etc. with wars and such you have to have low interest rates otherwise Neoconeheads scenario kicks in.

        You can keep trillions in debt if interest is 0 because zero times anything is zero. Who keeps buying such low interest bearing debt?
        Number 1 is the Social Security System.

        That is sweet for Wall Street managers for 2 reasons. First, with low interest there is plenty of free money to speculate on Neoconehead’s future gas needs. Second there is a pressure from Neoconehead to get his retirement or those of his kids out of the lame Social Security fund. Where are his kids going to put there money? Why in the hands of WS managers.

        BUT what if the managers can’t get there hands on SS right now and they see the commodities bubbles as precarious. Then they’ll use that money to invest in jobs right here at home, right, right?

        NOOOOOOOO, because Neoconehead provides the answer.

        U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas…

      • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 11:09 am

        ‘dolf,
        Aren’t you just a little confused? The interest charged by the Fed isn’t comparable to the interest on the Debt which is established by the other creditors not by the borrowers, namely us>

        interest on the Debt so far for 2012 is $236,037,590,977.61 which is ever so slightly larger than $0.00.

      • Amazona April 27, 2012 / 11:55 am

        dolf is too distracted by his adoration of his own mathematical genius and his antipathy toward those who fail to appreciate it, such as neo, Cluster, the Count, and myself, and too tangled up in his oppositional pathology, to worry about making sense.

        Remember, according to dolfonomics 001, the more of our money we send out of the country to be spent anywhere but here, the better.

        OK, I am paraphrasing, but he did scold me on my comments on the trillions of US dollars sent to Mexico by Mexican workers here in the US, legal or otherwise, ‘splaining that if the money were to remain here it would cause inflation.

        His is a theory that reminded me of the old medical practice of bleeding to reduce bad humours in the blood. We just need to bleed off lots of dollars to—–well, that’s where he lost me.

        Between this and “James'” theory that debt does not matter because we pay the interest back to those who lent us the money, in “RESERVE CURRENCY”, we have some pretty interesting economic theories.

      • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 12:30 pm

        Amazona,

        Dolfonomics isn’t really hard to understand, just hard to follow. Like Ron Paul, ‘dolf weaves his way through conflicting and irrelevant snippets to draw conclusions wholly unrelated to the supporting information. Notice how every conversation on governmental expenditures includes the trillions spent on the War in Iraq, as if we would have saved trillions of dollars had the military we had not been committed in engagement.

        I know my nephew in the Marines would have expected to only be paid when he deployed to Afghanistan and he and several hundred thousand of his closest jar-head friends could have been frolicking with the tanks and weapons on Black’s Beach at absolutely no cost to the taxpayers if it had not been for that War.

        No matter the premise of the circular logic one must suspect a theory that includes “I think the USPS is rather well run”.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        Ama,

        Doesn’t your GP (doctor) still use leaches to cure almost everything? Mine does ~ could be why I get such a great rate. Think I am going to have to look into this further.

      • Amazona April 27, 2012 / 3:55 pm

        db, I think/know you are being funny, but in fact leeches are now used in some medical procedures, particularly in limb reattachment. The saliva exuded by the leech to keep blood flowing as it sucks on its victim also keeps those tiny blood vessels open so reattached veins and capillaries can heal.

        Maggots are also used, as in old medical times, to get rid of dead flesh. As a maggot will only feed on dead flesh, they are very good at cleaning up necrotic tissue, and when it is gone they stop eating.

        I still don’t know if spider webs stop bleeding, but I imagine they do.

      • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 8:36 pm

        Ama,

        Actually you are correct on all three including the spider’s web which has been synthetically duplicated and IIRC is part of the standard med kit given to soldiers these days.

        I did see a great show on the use of maggots because they will only eat dead tissue but wasn’t sure of the leaches till I looked it up. Maybe, just maybe, my doctor is ahead of the curve. 😉

  9. Amazona April 27, 2012 / 11:57 am

    I heard a comment the other day by an economist who said that due to our current debt and deficit spending, we have already spent every penny of what our grandchildren will pay in taxes, over their entire lifetimes, two generations from now.

    So if it will take every penny of what will be the tax revenue in two generations just to pay off what we now owe, where will the government find the money to actually run the nation?

    • neocon1 April 27, 2012 / 12:14 pm

      where will the government find the money to actually run the nation?

      Ooh silly you, everyone knows that answer…TAX the “RICH” MORE….. 🙂

    • tiredoflibbs April 27, 2012 / 12:29 pm

      Where will the proggies find the money to run the nation?

      They have their eyes on the $18+ TRILLION in private retirement accounts of the American citizenry. They don’t need that money when they have SS – they are just being greedy.

    • dbschmidt April 27, 2012 / 8:39 pm

      1st generation to leave a debt to our children (not to mention grand-children). Should make everyone “proud.” /sarc and /sadness

  10. GMB April 27, 2012 / 12:14 pm

    It will be interesting to see what President Mitt’s first budget will look like. If he reduces his requests to anywhere near 2008 levels we will know he is serious about getting this country on the right track.

    Wait and see, I guess.

    • Count d'Haricots April 27, 2012 / 12:31 pm

      Hope for the best; expect the worst.

    • Cluster April 27, 2012 / 12:32 pm

      Just having a budget would be refreshing

Comments are closed.