THAT Explanation Fails

It is my recollection that Bush's medicare expansion was in response to a movement in Congress to expand medicare drug coverage by much more. I believe that, at the time, the Bush plan was considered to be the "cheap" alternative and that he took considerable flak from the Democrats for not doing nearly enough.

I'm not attempting to defend the expansion, but it is worth putting it into the correct political context. The unfortunate reality is that the Democrats who continuously pushed for higher spending during the Bush years were able to tar Bush with the "big spender" brush and cast themselves as fiscally responsible.

If we really want to get a good perspective on the relative propensity to spend of the two parties it is necessary to look beyond simple measures of how much was spent during each administration. How much of the spending during the Bush years (e.g. "No Child Left Behind") was opposed by Democrats as being too costly?

For those interested in the facts, the federal spending numbers are available from the Obama administration through this link:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html

See Table 1.1

According to that table, the Bush administration expanded Federal spending from $1.863 trillion in 2001 to $2.983 trillion in 2008, an increase of $1.12 trillion over 8 years. Over the same time period, annual tax collections increased by $533 billion. A $1.12 trillion increase in spending -- even spread over 8 years -- versus a $533 billion increase in taxation is indeed “fiscally reckless” and is a terrible track record for an alleged “conservative”.

However, according to that table, FY2009 spending -- Obama's first year in office -- is projected to be $3.998 trillion, an increase of $1.015 trillion over the prior year. Thus, Obama has nearly matched 8 years of reckless Republican spending in a single year -- and he has done this in the face of a projected decline of $367 billion in tax collections.

So by any rational definition of fiscal responsibility, the Professor is correct: Obama is indeed worse than Bush -- and our power-lusting Looter-in-Chief has barely gotten started.

You're basing that on the asumption that a deficit in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 is equivalent to a deficit in 2008 or 2009. What's the justification for that assumption?

I've assumed nothing, except that the numbers at Obama's web site are accurate and that if Obama wanted to stop the spending that Bush had started, he'd have introduced legislation to stop it.

He's introduced no such legislation -- in fact, he's only expanded on the spending Bush started -- so the claim that he bears no responsibility for that spending is specious.

OK that's enough of the BS. No one was shown capable of intellectual honesty or of knowing the facts. And Michael you have failed miserably as well but at least you convinced yourself either through ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that you made a good point.

Of that $3.998 trillion (estimate) the FINAL number was $3.522 trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/b...


Of the increases in outlays Obama's non-obligated new spending increase for 2009 was $0.200 trillion. THAT'S IT.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/b...

And Michael you have failed miserably as well but at least you convinced yourself either through ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that you made a good point.

I gave you the numbers straight from the Obama administration's web site. How can it possibly be "intellectual dishonesty" or "ignorance" to use the numbers the administration itself is putting out?

Can you do basic division Michael? What's 0.2 divided by 3.5 multiplied by 100? That's the percent of the budget that Obama is responsible for which DOES not fit your claim of "So by any rational definition of fiscal responsibility, the Professor is correct: Obama is indeed worse than Bush.."

Can you just admit you're wrong? Because you are.

I've given you the numbers from Obama's own web site. If you wish to ignore them and use the New York Times' numbers instead, you are free to do so -- in which case you are simply one Obama apologist using numbers generated by another Obama apologist.

Besides, why are you even protesting over the numbers? As a Keynesian, you -- like Obama and all his fellow looters in Congress -- are publicly committed to the belief that stealing the people's money and spending it for them will make them wealthier. So why are you now trying to deny that the spending is ocurring? I thought it was "creating or saving jobs"?

Easy! Because the administration lies!

Government spending increased even under that "libertarian" Ronald Reagan.

Of course, he never claimed that he was cutting spending. I recall quite clearly RR saying that he was only cutting the rate of increase in spending.

I remember a RIFfed federal employee complaining that "you can't MAKE people do anything anymore (emphasis mine).

Government spending increased even under that "libertarian" Ronald Reagan.

Yes, I know. I remind conservatives of that fact all the time -- they don't like hearing it, but it's the truth.

I just can't believe that Dr. Krugman has thoughtfully considered the effects of the changes he champions. If the Senate moves to a simple majority policy, this will allow smaller and smaller majorities power over bigger and bigger minorities. (Actually, polls indicate only minority support for the current health care bill, so this is a case of a minority pushing their agenda onto a majority.) I think this will make politics even more high stake and, therefor, more devisive.

There's another reason Krugman should be careful what he wishes for. If history is any indication, there will come a day when Republicans will have the majority. With a simple majority, maybe Democrats could get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated to squelch critics like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But when the political tide swings back to the right, it seems logical to apply this "Fairness" Doctrine to the New York Times. Sure Krugman can fall back to his professorship at Princeton, but academia seems like equally fertile ground for a "planting" of fairness. But Krugman's a smart guy - surely he could find another trade?

Why is anyone surprised when politicians and the voters who elect them attempt to expand their power? Theft has always been a quicker route to wealth than exchange. However, once the thieves realize that they are actually the victims, that they have been robbed too, then they protest. Today, over half the population thinks that politics will provide them with more than they can provide themselves with. As long as they think this way, expect more spending and deficits.

Re: "the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Obama, too, is a buy-now-pay-later president – indeed, even more fiscally reckless than was Mr. Bush"

You know very well that's not the only reasonable conclusion. Perhaps that's your conclusion. How much of Obama's deficit vs. Bush's deficit is from a shortfall in revenues as a result of the recession? How much of Obama's deficit really is Obama's deficit and how much is a carryover from Bush? How much of Obama's deficit is temporary, deliberate deficit spending to respond to a recession, vs. Bush's inauguration of entirely new, long-standing programs (Part D, tax cut) funded by deficits. I know you're quite aware of these things, Don. Why can't you just say "I don't agree with Obama's decision to do the deficit spending that he's doing, but in terms of long-term fiscal sustainability there are very good arguments to suggest that Obama is much less fiscally reckless than Bush.

You know very well that's not the only reasonable conclusion. Perhaps that's your conclusion.

I agree with you about the use of wording "only reasonable". Nontheless, it is a conclusion that could and should be made by those that cannot stand Krugman's bias.

Let's not forget the both Krugman and Boudreaux know where the real responsibility for spending lies; the congress. Krugman, though, attempted to draw the blame away from congress while simultaneously smearing Republicans past and present. Oh, and what is Krugman's solution: buy-now-pay-now [and even that's not accurate]? Well, that seems fine in principle but the biased Krugman should know that that's not how politicians operate. In fact, the very things that Krugman wont write about -- a program that he has jealously guarded -- is a budgetary buy-now-pay-later scheme. Social Security, Paul?

The one thing that I can say about this congress is that it's not buy-now-pay-later. More appropriatetly it could be labeled as take-now-take-more-later while it redistributes¢ralizes-now&later.

How much of Obama's deficit is temporary, deliberate deficit spending to respond to a recession, vs. Bush's inauguration of entirely new, long-standing programs (Part D, tax cut) funded by deficits.

Temporary? Does the heathcare overhaul seem like it'll temporary? The Bush team sold the Medicare expansion as a long-term cost reducer. Sound familiar? The Bush team also responded to a crisis...9/11 and its affect on capital markets, remember? Bottom line...there's no excuse for this kind of fiscal irresponsibility; and any justification by you (or others) by making comparisons to past administrations/congresses is an attempt to make an excuse; and it would lead to a stupid game of finger-pointed that never ends.

whoa! how did centralizing become a 'cent' sign.

¢

Yeah, let's just ignore the 500 pound gorilla in the corner. You know, the unfunded liabilities that are now somewhere north of 100 trillion dollars. The gorilla is the problem. Without the gorilla none of the rest of the debt would be of any great concern. Without the gorilla, it would be easy to pay the healthcare expense of the unfortunate. It would even be easy to pay a two trillion dollar "necessary" war expense. And who created the programs that created the gorilla? Yeah, go ahead, deny away. But I'm not taking you seriously until you admit that maybe, just maybe, it was all a huge mistake.

Precisely - entitlements and their contribution to the long term debt is the right debt to worry about. I'm not sure what you really expect me to deny - Social Security and Medicare are front and center in any discussion of fiscal sustainability. And really we could probably even shorten that to just Medicare.

P.S. The denial part wasn't about the fact that these programs are a huge drain on the morale of the productive class, but rather, about the fact that the Progessives are responsible for their existance.

Far be it from me to defend progressives! (Granted - the mere existence of Social Security and Medicare isn't something progressives have done that bothers me. Perhaps the way progressives have run the program bothers me, but not the programs themselves).

The way progressive have run the program... Okay, I'm not seeing how any other outcome than pretty much what has happened could possibly have been reasonably expected. Its not like the creators of these programs weren't warned about the dangers of creating entitlement systems in a Democracy. Or about failing to protect the rights of minorities - in this case, the property rights of the producers. These problems have been understood since at least 500 BC.

Sorry, shouldn't have personalized the comment.

But no, Social Security isn't off the hook. It is only temporarily "sustainable" in that it can't be killed so it must be periodically adjusted to take a larger and larger percentage of the creative efforts of the political class. Medicare is the same, but it is temporarily in a bind because for some reason the Progressives want to expand it first rather than doing the adjustments that will ultimately be required to fix it. My prediction is that within a generation both programs will produce dramatic negative unintended consequences in direct proportion to the necessary decline in the rewards to productive behavior.

Make that, "the creative efforts of the productive class.

How much of Obama's deficit is temporary, deliberate deficit spending to respond to a recession, vs. Bush's inauguration of entirely new, long-standing programs (Part D, tax cut) funded by deficits.

Well, shit that is easy; we're about to engage in a 2.5 to 6 trillion dollar government program (we really don't have any clear idea how much it is going to cost - the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration have done their best to try to obfuscate the matter - wow, it is Iraq all over again), the most massive combination of government spending and government mandates in U.S. history. That of course completely swamps Part D or any of Bush's tax cut.

OK, but they're actually paying for that program with revenue. It's supposed to reduce the deficit. You're confusing spending with deficits. Granted, projections may be wrong and it may end up contributing to the deficit. But it is not designed to be deficit-financed.

OK, but they're actually paying for that program with revenue.

Ha ha ha ha.

Do you actually believe that? The projections are based on a whole set of future actions which basically boil down to things like future Congresses cutting entitlement spending and engaging in other sorts of behavior which the current and past Congresses have been unable to do. So whether it is "designed" to be deficit financed or not isn't terribly important.

Precisely the point I made in my post - thank you for repeating it.

No, you argued that "projections may be wrong," as if any error was just happenstance or the result of imperfect models or some such. I'm arguing that the claims are simply lies and should not be believed. Given the level of obfuscation on these matters we've seen out of government - their unwillingness to submit these various plans to any real sort of real cost accounting - my position stands on even firmer ground.

You never said anything about lies. In fact, you specifically cited things like the unpredictability of future behavior - which is more an issue of projection accuracy than outright lying. Besides, you conveniently failed to quote me saying "it may end up contributing to the deficit", which is the bedrock, bottom line point.

BTW, the "Iraq all over again" should have been your first clue that I was not simply talking about unpredictability.

Let me quote myself from my first comment to you:

...(we really don't have any clear idea how much it is going to cost - the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration have done their best to try to obfuscate the matter - wow, it is Iraq all over again)...

Definition of obfuscate: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfus...

To obfuscate is to be deceptive; to be deliberately evasive as I am using it.

I would also use terms like hoodwink, dupe, etc.

Besides, you conveniently failed to quote me saying "it may end up contributing to the deficit", which is the bedrock, bottom line point.

There is no "may" about it; it simply will.

Mommsen1625, if I was refering to the point you made in your first post when I wrote "precisely the point I made", then I would have replied to THAT post, rather than the post of yours that I chose to reply to.

Huh? You've just disappeared down the rabbit hole. I had no other point than the one I just described.

You have said two things in this series of comments - first that Congress lied, and second that the deficit projections might not be accurate. I agreed with the second but I disagree with the first (ie - I don't think anyone knowingly lied about anything - after all, it's the CBO that came up with the deficit impact, not Congress).

So (and I didn't realize this was so hard to grasp) I responded in agreement to the second point and didn't respond in agreement to the post where you made your first point!

Don't take a response where I say I agree with you and assume I'm saying I agree with everything you've written in the thread! I don't! If I did I'd have responded positively to those posts!

You keep on heading down that rabbit hole.

My point about inaccuracy is based on the obfuscation; and they are engaging in that. Example: remember, back in 1994 that the CBO used as part of its estimates what all the mandates would cost? Now they have not done so. Why have they not done so? Because the Congressional leadership have blocked, ignored, etc. such. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the CBO is actually reporting. It would seem to me that one of the things that we would like to know in a democracy - remember, you're the big democracy advocate, I am not - is information on how government activities are going to create burdens on individuals, businesses, etc. and what that is going to cost. Leaving that sort of information out is problematic at best.

Anyway, let's quote you:

You never said anything about lies.

You have said two things in this series of comments - first that Congress lied...

People can draw their own conclusions of these two statements.

RE: "Anyway, let's quote you:
You never said anything about lies."

Do I have to review everything you ever wrote??????? I was responding to the post I was responding to. Isn't it implicit that you never said anything about lies in what I was responding to?

What if I said "you never said anything about slavery in Jamestown". Are you going to take me to task because a couple days ago you were talking about slavery in Jamestown?

Keep up mommsen1625 - it's impossible to maintain a discussion if you confuse posts.

For sake of clarity let me repeat what I wrote in its entirity:

Well, shit that is easy; we're about to engage in a 2.5 to 6 trillion dollar government program (we really don't have any clear idea how much it is going to cost - the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration have done their best to try to obfuscate the matter - wow, it is Iraq all over again), the most massive combination of government spending and government mandates in U.S. history. That of course completely swamps Part D or any of Bush's tax cut.

Jesus, you don't quit, do you?

Let me repeat for the sake of clarity: I NEVER EXPRESSED AGREEMENT WITH THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS

And again, for the sake of clarity, the only point I ever had concerned obfuscation.

Do I have to review everything you ever wrote???????

No, only what I have written in this particular conversation.

What if I said "you never said anything about slavery in Jamestown". Are you going to take me to task because a couple days ago you were talking about slavery in Jamestown?

No, because that was in an entirely different conversation.

Isn't it implicit that you never said anything about lies in what I was responding to?

No, because what you were responding directly referenced obfuscation; my entire post was about obfuscation.

Keep up mommsen1625 - it's impossible to maintain a discussion if you confuse posts.

All I can ask is that you go back up the chain of this conversation; look at what I originally wrote. I use the word obfuscate; I also reference the Iraq war. I am referencing no other string of comments than this one right here.

The federal government is headed toward the state that California is in: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_californi...

Does any one here even know how much spending increased from 2008 to 2009? Anyone???

You are asking the wrong question. It is not about "how much spending increased from 2008 to 2009". It is about the amount of new commitments taken on behalf of the American people this year, and the new ones proposed but not yet approved.

Look it up at the CBO. It is easy to do.

Oh I know the answer. I'm just wondering if people making or agreeing with the claim, "....indeed, even more fiscally reckless than was Mr. Bush." know the answer. I don't think they do... I don't think they care.

Wonderful point muir. Guess what else these libertarians don't know? That all the billionaires are batting on our team. Bernie madoff is on our team.

Ha ha ha

Love ya, mmmwwwaaahhhh

It is is Christmas Eve. Do you really think yourself so important that people are going to spend a lot of time thinking about you or your question. Hey, Star Wars IV is on Spike; that sounds far more entertaining!

Furthermore, given the number of moronic claims you've made since I've been here it is a wonder anyone gives you the time of day.

"... – indeed, even more fiscally reckless than was Mr. Bush."


sighhhhhh..... no comment. Except how depressingly misleading.

Please don't anyone reply unless you can tell me what percent of this years spending was over and above commitments from Bush (including decreased revenues).

Bush was a jerkface president. So is Obama. You don't get it, do you? ALL politicians are jerks. All of them. Attempting to compare one to another to make the point that some politicians are greater jerks than other ones is like counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

" ALL politicians are jerks. All of them."

All rich people are jerks, all libertarians are jerks, all anarchist are jerks, all CEO's are jerks, all poor people are jerks as are all pregnant teenagers and retarded people too.

These are inane statements. Your's of which can only be interpreted to mean you are an anarchist who I assume is planning on buying a ticket to Somalia.

Your's is basically the position of a bigot. It's just possible there are some really good and decent people who happen to be politicians.

Yes, 2009 deficits are a continuation of Bush policies, and past president's. But, Obama has chosen to continue those same policies, and add massive new commitments such as the recent health bill. He also proposed a new budget that is a 12% increase in spending - well above the pace of inflation.

Obama has a serious problem, the deficit amounts are MASSIVE and far bigger than any country has run in absolute terms. Someone must purchase that new debt issuance, and right now that is China and the Fed. The fed is soaking up massive portions of each new debt issuance, and this will not be able to continue indefinitely. If this dries up we will have fiscal crisis #2 where a crashing treasury market will be just like a crashing housing market.

See for yourself here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/179827-why-inte...

Tell us Muirgeo, when does anything become Obama's responsibility? When does he own the fiscal situation?

Wasting time telling you anything is an exercise in futility, muirduck. Some really bright people who post here tell you truthful factual things every time you raise your ugly fat head, but it just slides off your socialist orthodoxy like water off your duck's back.

I could slap you in the face with an infant's wet diaper and you'd just lick your lips and carry on about lemonade.

So in other words you don't know the answer do you? I bet NO ONE HERE does...likely even the professors.

The answer is unimportant; whether Obama is fiscally reckless - and he is - is independent of such.

Your smoking WHAT??

The answer doesn't matter he's fiscally reckless because you say so??? The question is..Is he more wreckless then Bush. The answer does matter. And the facts needed to answer the question matter.

"Is he more wreckless then Bush. The answer does matter."

No, the answer does not matter because we live in the present.

Which from a Keynesian perspective is the perfect time to have some debt... Your perspective got us in the tanker... again Keynes will save capitalism from itself.

"Which from a Keynesian perspective is the perfect time to have some debt..."

No; this administration is concerned with building a political base that will keep them in power. Everyone knows that more debt is lipstick on a pig. The Republic, which this group of street agitators are desperately trying to tear down, is in great danger.

"Above all things, never be afraid. The enemy who forces you to retreat is himself afraid of you at that very moment."
- Andre Maurois

Wonderful point muir. Keynes is one of us. He was born with silverspoon in his mouth, and had great ideas about how to save world from the proles. I'm sure he will save capitalism from itself, so that we capitalists will have something for nothing at the end. These libertarians have nothing, we have all the capitalists on our team.

Yes, it is a perfect time to transfer some money from the middle class to the top 1%, perfect time for government to do that transfer through some new debt. Al Gore needs some public monies for his new carbon trading schemes. We are right behind. Blizzard in Dallas on Xmas day doesn't matter. Al Gore is the modern day noah, saving the world from floods of biblical proportions.

Love you..Mmmmwwwwaaaahhhh

I would just note that nearly everything stated on blogs is a matter of opinion, so that argument works against most of everything you say.

The answer matters according to you.

I think "cognitive dissonance" is too weak to apply here.

I agree Sam. Krugman appears to experience no discomfort with his contradictions. Cognitive dissonance is what happens to people who are open to the the idea that their own beliefs may not make sense. Cognitive dissonance encourages them to resolve their contradictory beliefs in a satisfactory manner.

Krugman apparently continues to expect more out of politics and politicians than what is reasonable.

Yes, but oddly, only from Democrats.

If it helps, the principal difference between the Bush and Obama presidencies in the impact of their spend-now-pay-later policies, thus far, is that Bush had the good fortune to be operating inside the margins of where consequences might be triggered while Obama has pushed well outside of them, ensuring the consequences will be inevitable. [Here's the link to just the chart presented in the post to illustrate the points made.]

Krugman; "...our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front."

Conveniently ignores that the current majority party initiated the actions that have directly caused the "severe problems", and that the current majority party is, even as Krugman speaks, initiating yet another program of the kind that caused the "severe problems". And now Krugman wants to limit the ability of the minority party to block the kinds of progams that caused the "severe problems". Clearly, he is not thinking clearly. I say make it harder. Raise the number of votes required for cloture from 60 to... lets call it 80.

Bret's comment, "Are you really sure you know what's going on everywhere else in the galaxy?"

Makes me think of this:

Is the Congress sure it knows what's going on everywhere in the Healthcare sector of the economy? (http://cafehayek.com/2009/12/an-open-letter-to-...)

"The galaxy"? Are you really sure you know what's going on everywhere else in the galaxy? :-)