The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on February 02, 2010, 02:12:21 PM
-
Kurt_and_Hunter (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-02-10 12:32 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x166801
If this years budget deficit was 3.6 trillion but led to 8% growth...
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 12:41 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
The current deficit is $1.6 trillion (I think... that's from memory of the news)
US economic growth going forward is expected to be in the 3% range for a long time and unemployment expected to be high (7.5%+) for years.
Okay, a hypothetical...
If this year's budget added $2 trillion in job creation and economic stimulus and the result was GDP growth of 8% in 2011 and 6% in 2012 and some points cut off unemployment how would that affect the deficit and debt in 2014? How about in 2018?
Government revenues are dynamic, not static. In practice GDP is a greater driver of revenue than abstract tax rates. (Repealing the bush tax cuts will generate a hell of a lot more revenue in an environment where people are working and spending and booking profits.)
My instinct is that a stimulus blow-out this year would not make the long-term deficit and debt much worse and would stand a real chance of reducing deficit and debt in the long term, and perhaps even in the medium time-frame.
(Yes, I know this will not happen. The question is about ideal policy, not predicting what congress will actually do.)
Comments?
uh...what?
taught_me_patience (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-02-10 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Currently tax receipts are 16% of GDP
2.3T/14T or so. So, if you add 8%, GDP would be approx 15T. Additional tax receipts would be 160B. Therefore, you're 1.6T deficit, to increase tax receipts 160B. Not a smart economic move. The 8% growth rate assumption also seems pretty "optimistic".
leveymg (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-02-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. 2009 US GDP didn't grow 8%. It grew .1% (flat) after declining -1.9 in 2008
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 01:07 PM by leveymg
Q1 (-)5.7
Q2 (-)2.1
Q3 (+)2.2
Q4 (+)5.7
If it grows flat then it's not growing...there is more to this post, but I don't care...
-
Where the hell is he getting 8% from? Obviously where the sun doesn't shine.
My instinct is..
Your instinct doesn't count for shit, Kurt. Economics, which your messiah flunked, is more than feelings.
-
They will spend a massive amount of cash that doesn't exist to try and get the economy to look like its getting better even though its just another bubble set for a very major crash after the elections.
Did I miss something?
-
With all the proposed spending, wasteful and necessary in Lord Zero's budget, the fact is that he has already used the uppermost fantasy numbers for growth. The deficits can only be worse than Lord Zero guesses they will be, but they certainly won't be better.
-
With all the proposed spending, wasteful and necessary in Lord Zero's budget, the fact is that he has already used the uppermost fantasy numbers for growth. The deficits can only be worse than Lord Zero guesses they will be, but they certainly won't be better.
My proposed federal budget is $29.99
heh
Seriously we could kick off the illegals from welfare, then simply trim 3% off of welfare benefits while tightening the rules as to whom can get them. Lets take the middle class off the welfare benefits. Lets end all corporate welfare for real too. Most of the stupid farm programs too. Then we can ban Congressmembers families from flying on military aircraft and running up liquor bills.
-
My proposed federal budget is $29.99
heh
Seriously we could kick off the illegals from welfare, then simply trim 3% off of welfare benefits while tightening the rules as to whom can get them. Lets take the middle class off the welfare benefits. Lets end all corporate welfare for real too. Most of the stupid farm programs too. Then we can ban Congressmembers families from flying on military aircraft and running up liquor bills.
If you think congress is bad now, wait until they sober up.............they'll be a mean bunch of drunks.
-
If you think congress is bad now, wait until they sober up.............they'll be a mean bunch of drunks.
I just posted "My Federal Budget" in the blogs section
-
DUmmynomics:
1. Take money from economy
2. Wash money through congress
3. Dump money back into economy
4. Call money dumped into economy "growth"
5. Use "growth" as an excse to take more money out of economy.
6. Rinse, repeat and pat self on shoulder for being a sooper-jeenyuss
-
1. Take money from economy
2. Wash money through congress
3. Dump money back into economy
4. Call money dumped into economy "growth"
5. Use "growth" as an excse to take more money out of economy.
6. Rinse, repeat and pat self on shoulder for being a sooper-jeenyuss
And thats not just DU the whole Democrat Party and now the FedGov is really doing it.
-
And thats not just DU the whole Democrat Party and now the FedGov is really doing it.
I told my 11 year-old about the so-called stimulus and how it comes from tax revenues but where tax revenues come from. His response? "But they're just putting back where they got it from. Why take it away in the first place?"
If an 11-y/o can figure it out it means the dems aren't stupid...
...they're corrupt.
-
Kurt_and_Hunter
If this years budget deficit was 3.6 trillion but led to 8% growth...
The current deficit is $1.6 trillion (I think... that's from memory of the news)
US economic growth going forward is expected to be in the 3% range for a long time and unemployment expected to be high (7.5%+) for years.
Okay, a hypothetical...
If this year's budget added $2 trillion in job creation and economic stimulus and the result was GDP growth of 8% in 2011 and 6% in 2012 and some points cut off unemployment how would that affect the deficit and debt in 2014? How about in 2018?
Government revenues are dynamic, not static. In practice GDP is a greater driver of revenue than abstract tax rates. (Repealing the bush tax cuts will generate a hell of a lot more revenue in an environment where people are working and spending and booking profits.)
My instinct is that a stimulus blow-out this year would not make the long-term deficit and debt much worse and would stand a real chance of reducing deficit and debt in the long term, and perhaps even in the medium time-frame.
I'd love to answer this, but I don't have time to write an essay, and that would be what it would take to correct all the errors this primtive presented.
Briefly, adding $2T in "stimulus" for one year, even if GDP went to 8% for that one year, would not cause it to be at 6% the next. It's a one year shot in the arm, and without additional "stimulus" the next year, you're not going to sustain the growth.
Com'n primitives, this is straight-up Keynesian economics. The model says you keep pumping in money year after year after year until things turn around, and then you ride out the inflation on the other side. So in your example, a one time shot would not sustain growth, and by 2014 & 2018 you'd have limited growth with double the debt.
.
-
I told my 11 year-old about the so-called stimulus and how it comes from tax revenues but where tax revenues come from. His response? "But they're just putting back where they got it from. Why take it away in the first place?"
If an 11-y/o can figure it out it means the dems aren't stupid...
...they're corrupt.
Naw, they're just frikkin' evil!
-
Remember when we laughed at the French a few years ago for their 8.5% unemployment?
-
Remember when we laughed at the French a few years ago for their 8.5% unemployment?
Remember when the Bummmerrrrrrrr was only promising to fundamentily change our country in to the spittin' image of a European shit pile?
-
Can Jimmah Carter double digit type hyper-inflation be far behind?
-
Can Jimmah Carter double digit type hyper-inflation be far behind?
Of course not - When one injects the economy full of printed dollars without anything substantial behind them, inflation is the inevitable result.
-
They will spend a massive amount of cash that doesn't exist to try and get the economy to look like its getting better even though its just another bubble set for a very major crash after the elections.
Did I miss something?
Yeah. The reporting of + job loss. With statement like "There was an overall job loss of 600,00 last month but without our stimulus package, it would have been a million."
That reasoning makes my head hurt.
-
Yeah. The reporting of + job loss. With statement like "There was an overall job loss of 600,000 last month but without our stimulus package, it would have been a million."
In that case, they would simply report a gain of 400,000. It's the same way they computed spending "cuts" when Bushco would reduce the amount of an increase they wanted in some boondoggle.