Obamanomics
(Which, pssst, Republicans, aren't all that different from the Bushanomics that came previously.) Nick Gillespie writes at reason:
So what's the harm in the feds spending like there's no tomorrow, especially when people are still hurting in terms of jobs, wages, and the like? There are many harms - we're saddling future generations with debt squandered even before they were born, for instance. Imagine being stuck with your parents' credit card bills for vacations they took and cars they bought (and sold) back in 1970. Feh.
Yes, let's repeat that and see how it goes over:
Imagine being stuck with your parents' credit card bills for vacations they took and cars they bought (and sold) back in 1970. Feh.
Nick goes on:
But for the sake of brevity, let me focus on just one serious problem with running perpetual deficits and racking up huge debts at the federal level: Countries whose governments that carry debt loads of 90 percent or more of their economies for prolonged periods squeeze down long-term economic growth, the one thing everyone agrees is central to improving living standards.
As Veronique de Rugy wrote in the October issue of Reason:
In a recent National Bureau of Economics working paper called "Debt Overhangs: Past and Present," economists Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff show that in 11 of the 26 cases in their sample, countries in which debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP for at least five years did not experience an increase in interest rates.But stable interest rates are not a sign that these countries are in good shape. Economic growth in the 26 cases was 1.2 percentage points lower than in other periods, "the average duration of debt-overhang episodes is 23 years, and it produces a 'massive' shortfall in output that is almost one-quarter less, on average, than in low-debt periods."
In other words, the fact that bond markets are blasé about high levels of debt in countries perceived as safe tells you very little about how well they are doing. It certainly should not be mistaken for a signal that the government can borrow more without risk.
Nick continues:
How many of us will be consigned to live out our futures in that Phantom Zone of missing economic growth?All to pay for, what, military adventures that have done precious little to reduce the world's supply of suffering? Or for expanded drug benefits for already-wealthy seniors? For a war against weed that has turned the Home of the Free into history's greatest jailer nation?
Bushanomics* = $4.899 trillion increase in the debt
Obamanomics** = $4.939 trillion increase in the debt
* over 8 years
** as of March 2012, just a little over three years since taking office
Source: Mark KNoller, CBS
So yes, totally similar: spending money we ain't got. Just much, much faster.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 3, 2012 2:08 PM
On the other hand, the people have spoken and they want European-style socialism. What they didn't realize is that this will require European-style taxes. They may not have realized that's what they were voting on, but it was.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 3, 2012 2:12 PM
I R A Darth Aggie lets be more precise, they voted for European socialism that is supposed to be paid for with the money of those that haven't paid their "fair" share.
Paradoxically, they fail to realize that their wealth redistribution programs are being paid for indirectly by themselves, as evidenced by the declining income and wealth of the middle class.
Meanwhile the wealthy have the means to minimize the effects of these policies.
Bill O Rights at December 3, 2012 5:13 PM
"Paradoxically, they fail to realize that their wealth redistribution programs are being paid for indirectly by themselves, as evidenced by the declining income and wealth of the middle class."
Those whiny little children! Don't they know their alcoholic fathers only drink because the kids cry and bruise so easily?!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 3, 2012 5:59 PM
Anyway, on a more data-saturated note, the Wall Street Journal pointed out back in May that Obama's spending rate is, like, way low, doods.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=1
Kind of an odd place to find a factual analysis of spending by their not-favorite President.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 3, 2012 6:06 PM
The message being sent us by the Occupy movement was how our money is being subverted by the way interest rates work-- That in order to repay costs, new money has to be conjured out of thin air by the Fed, in order to make the repayments. The money supply must double every fourteen years, competing for the same goods and services.
In this way, we can never be free of debt! The solution is for the government to reclaim the issuance of currency.
jefe at December 3, 2012 7:17 PM
Considering that the dollar is a fiat currency (the value set by the fed and not by an actual value) there is at least $4 Trillion outstanding dollars. If everyone wanted to turn it into gold at $1,715 per ounce the U.S. would have to have 2,332,361,516.03 troy ounces of gold or
The amount of of gold in mined in the history of the world is estimated at
That is an easy quarter of the value of all the gold mined since recorded history has started. If the nations that bought T-Bonds started cashing them out tomorrow -- how long until the Fed and the government would last?
Full faith and credit doesn't seem so smart now?
Jim P. at December 3, 2012 9:11 PM
Okay, let's straighten this out again: Congress has 100% of the money in government.
Not the President. Not the Senate.
But they cannot ignore the wishes of an ignorant public that not only does not realize the above they do not understand that money is not just cash - along with a million other things about running a country.
Radwaste at December 4, 2012 3:00 AM
I like what Obama has to say about adding absurd amounts of debt to future generations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
Can I question his patriotism now?
Jason at December 4, 2012 12:07 PM
Hey, Gog, that chart doesn't include FY 2009 for Obama, when he ramped things up with his stimulus plan and the latter part of TARP during the last 8 months of that fiscal year, in addition to the spending increase of Bush. (Yes, I know Bush gave him permission to use the remaining TARP, OK?)
This chart was done by some clever bastards who wanted to sling some disingenuous crap to fool the masses.
mpetrie98 at December 4, 2012 2:49 PM
I know I'm being picky, but did you happen to mean The House of Representatives has 100% of the money in government?
The problem with that concept is that you actually have to have people with integrity running the House. Right now we have the quisling Boehner running it and coming up with ways neutralize true conservatives in the House. What has to happen is that House needs to pass true reform budgets and let the Senate and the president either pass them or shut down the government. That is the answer.
There is a reason that the founding fathers gave the power of the purse to the House. If they were truly representing the people -- the representatives would understand what there constituents were saying. Get out of our lives.
Jim P. at December 4, 2012 8:38 PM
Leave a comment