Obama: Biggest Fiscal Conservative we have had in over 50 years!! Way bigger than RR!

Every single year for the past 60 years you can say that Government spending was at historic levels. What point are you trying to make? Why wasn't it too much under Reagan, or Bush I, or Clinton, or Bush II... why is it all of a sudden that Obama has spent too much money. What measurements are you using for "too much". You guys make absolutely no sense. And yes WWII had debt to GDP up over 120% and they had minimal intragovernmental debt during that time whereas now almost 1/3rd of our debt is intragovernmental debt. I know you don't have a clue why I'm bringing this up. But if you subtract intragovernmental debt and debt held by the Federal Reserve, the debt to GDP is no where near in danger territory. We have so much more room for so much more spending that it's ridiculous.

This country simply needs more money.

 

Then Regan and both Bushes were more fiscally responsible than Obama. Of course I don't believe that. But you should.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

By reading your posts.

 

So are you talking about nominal spending amounts?

Because if you are, you should stop... because that would be embarrassing

 

1 Government spending is good for the economy.
2 More government spending is better for the economy.
3 A president who increases government spending more than another president is more fiscally responsible than that other president.
4 Bush increased government spending more than Obama.
Therefore:
5 Bush is more fiscally responsible than Obama.

It follows logically from what you say you believe.

 

I never said #3. "Fiscal conservatism" is the opposite of #3. That is the irony I'm trying to make out of this thread. That "fiscal conservatives" have been the biggest spenders we've had.

I would say it's more economically responsible than "fiscally responsible".

 

You don't have to say it. It follows from #2.
If 2 is true, 3 is also true.

I understand the irony. Their not fiscally conservative. They're irresponsible spenders. But you're a Keynesian, so you should believe that more spending is better, Bigger increases are better. It follows from that that Bush is better than Obama.

But now you say that Bush is more economically responsible than Obama. Well, at least you're becoming more consistent

 

I agree. Specific characteristics of fiscal policy, such as whether money is being transferred to states, spent directly by the federal government, spent on welfare, social security, or subsidies, and even more complex machinations all determine the multiplier of a specific effort. All other things equal, direct federal government spending on infrastructure has a bigger multiplier than spending on entitlement programs. Transfer payments to states and localities for any effort have a smaller multiplier than direct federal government spending on any effort. Consequently, a major criticism of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would be the lack of 'bang for the buck' stimulus. Policies with larger multipliers would receive less funds, whereas policies with smaller multipliers would receive greater funds.

 

This is where I differ from most conventional thought. The benefit of Government spending money is not only on what they get in return but it also benefits our producers who now have more consumers. I think the latter part is the most important aspect of Government spending. With that said, it wouldn't hurt if their spending also provided some kind of benefit to the country. Even if it's sending the people on unemployment out to clean the streets.