Where Did the Last Batch Go?
Obama and the Left want a big new infrastructure spending bill, based on twin theories that it would be a) stimulative and b) a bargain, as needed infrastructure could be built more cheaply with construction industry over-capacity.
Since this is exactly the same theory of the stimulus four years ago, it seems a reasonable question to ask: What happened to the damn money we spent last time? We were sold a 3/4 of a trillion dollar stimulus on it being mostly infrastructure. So where is it? Show us pictures, success stories. Show us how the cost of construction of these projects were so much lower than expected because of construction industry over-capacity. Show us the projects selected, to demonstrate how well thought-out the investment prioritization was. If their arguments today have merit, all these things must be demonstrable from the last infrastructure bill. So where is the evidence?
Of course, absolutely no one who wants to sell stimulus 2 (or 3?) wants to go down the path of investigating how well stimulus 1 was spent. Instead, here is the argument presented:
Much of the Republican opposition to infrastructure spending has been rooted in a conviction that all government spending is a boondoggle, taxing hard-working Americans to give benefits to a favored few, and exceeding any reasonable cost estimate in the process. That's always a risk with new spending on infrastructure: that instead of the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, you end up with the Bridge to Nowhere and the Big Dig.
In that sense, this is a great test of whether divided democracy can work, and whether Republicans can come to the table to govern. One can easily imagine a deal: Democrats get their new infrastructure spending, and Republicans insist on a structure that requires private sector lenders to be co-investors in any projects, deploying money based on its potential return rather than where the political winds are tilting.
This is bizarre for a number of reasons. First, he implies the problem is that Republicans are not "coming to the table to govern" In essence then, it is up to those who criticize government incremental infrastructure spending (with a lot of good evidence for believing so) as wasteful to come up with a solution. Huh?
Second, he talks about requiring private lenders to be co-investors in the project. This is a Trojan horse. Absurd projects like California High Speed Rail are sold based on the myth that private investors will step in along side the government. When they don't, because the project is stupid, the government claims to be in too deep already and that it must complete it with all public funds.
Third, to the extent that the government can sweeten the deal sufficiently to make private investors happy, the danger of Cronyism looms large. You get the government pouring money into windmills, for example, that benefits private investors with a sliver of equity and large manufacturers like GE, who practically have a hotline to the folks who run programs like this.
Fourth, almost all of these projects are sure to be local in impact - ie a bridge that helps New Orleans or a street paving project that aids Los Angeles. So why are the Feds doing this at all? If the prices are so cheap out there, and the need for these improvements so pressing, then surely it makes more sense to do them locally. After all, the need for them, the cost they impose, and the condition of the local construction market are all more obvious locally than back in DC. Further, the accountability for money spent at the Federal level is terrible. There are probably countless projects I should be pissed off about having my tax money fund, but since I don't see them every day, I don't scream. The most accountability exists for local money spent on local projects.
Hoover Dam. Yes, I recall the ad starring Pachel Maddow extolling the virtues of government run infrastructure projects. And I wish I (or someone) could ask Ms. Maddow: "Rachel, NBC has its headquarters in Rockefeller Center. Who the f### do you think built it, and how much did it cost, compared to Hoover Dam?" The answer is the Rockefeller family, and $250 million. Hoover Dam cost $49 million at about the same time, so no adjustment for inflation necessary. Who is John Galt?
Yes Larry, that is exactly what I am referring to, and they will make Mediscare and Obamascare “more efficient” by unilateral decree (rationing, Larry), hopefully resulting in your premature expiration.
It will be hilarious watching you leftist tools explain that one away when it happens in 5 – 10 years.
Larry, the model for the “stimulus” was FDRs 1936 cronyism.
You remain an historical ignoramus.
The money did not go where you think it went.
And Republicans are just as guilty of frontrunning on any benefits (there were very few).
Please try to keep up.
Rachel Maddow? That guy is awesome!
Larry, the fact that you do not understand that the stimulus 1) didn’t work, and 2) was a waste, everywhere, and that you want more of it, means that you have exceptionally low IQ.
You may in fact be dumber than muirgeo, who is one of the dumbest people in human history.
It takes years of effort to equal his fatuous ignorance and outright lack of knowledge, but you are very quickly approaching his monumental achievement.
the ultimate purpose of stimulus is to get money to people to spend.
That is the false Keynesian premise, correct, Larry.
Unfortunately, that premise has now been proven false.
Larry, please document the successful instances of your theory.
Larry, see, the thing is, most of what you believe is wrong. The data all confirm this.
That’s a horrible truth to have to face, but such is life.
Larry, the truth is the economy sucks, because you fucked it up good.
You fucked it up so good that it will suck for years to come, because you leftists fail to realize that there is no magic economic wizard who guarantees your idiotic social welfare programs.
So yes, you are responsible, we will hold you responsible, and you will likely die at an early age because of your own stupidity, which would be nice.
Your progeny, if anyone were dumb enough to procreate with you, will enjoy a luxurious life of paying for your selfishness and stupidity, via zero interest rates, taxation disincentives to save, and general economic ignorance.
Larry, you are the problem.
the stimulus did not get built into the baseline. And if it did - it would have had to be approved with CRs with the GOP's concurrence.
the stimulus is not in the CRs. The GOP opposed the stimulus and once they re-gained the house they would never approve continuing stimulus in the CRs.
do you believe the GOP approved continuing the stimulus when they voted in favor of the CRs?
so here's the vote:http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/14/only-70-republicans-vote-against-disastrous-cr/
Meso - have you actually gone to healthcare.gov to see WHO provides the insurance guy? Have you considered that there are dozens of private companies providing the insurance and in turn to hundred of thousands of heath providers?
there is no direct govt involvement in patient care just as there is none in Medicare. There are issues of what is or is not covered -yes - but tell me that private companies also don't do that.
as an ex-EMT, I am thankful you are an Ex guy. Clearly you are not fit to make judgements where consequences can be serious. in general right wingers ought not to be in the business of providing emergency care to anyone given the effects of right-wingism on using good judgement.
the model for stimulus guy - in a model employed by economists - across the entire planet.... to include virtually all OCED countries at one point or another. In your own addled brain - it's only in American that these things happen and then only with liberals. Meso, my man... you know before the internet you guys had fewer alternatives for spouting your foolishness. Some of you would stand on soapboxes in parks. Others would show up at county fairs shouting at whoever would listen..still others would shave their heads, wear uniforms and congregate in rented store fronts.
Now the internet has given you voice and the rest of the world just has to grin and bear in I guess.
Meso.. do you think the private companies don't ration?
Meso.. you do not agree with that - but that's the stated purpose of it and stimulus is considered a valid technique - around the world.
It's not my theory guy. There are hundreds/thousands of economists - around the world that advise govt that believe in it.
any govt spending whether it be for roads or tanks - is stimulus. when we approve a new fighter jet or build a new aircraft carrier - that is stimulus. When we build a new interstate highway bridge or send launch a weather or GPS satellite.. that is stimulus.
if you disagree with it do you also disagree with defense spending?
You are quickly elevating to “dumbest person on the internet” status, Larry.
1. There are thousands of economists who disagree
with Keynesianism, too. The positive existence of thousands of others who support it (in the face of overwhelming evidence of its failure) does not alter the fact that they are wrong, in the
face of overwhelming evidence of its failure.
2. Defense spending isn't (necessarily) a spending stipulation of Keynesianism, so I have no idea what you are driving at there (or most other places).
As we explained to you earlier, Defense spending now comprises half of current social spending levels, retarded monkey.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
While it is still large, it is now dwarfed by social spending. Cutting one and not the other –
Obama’s/the left’s plan - will do nothing to solve the spending problem.
Either you understand this, or you don’t.
You clearly do not, because you are extremely dim-witted and intellectually stunted.
Larry, that is exactly how we (and the rest of coherent society) think of you.
What does this post even mean? Do you have any salient point to make, or are you just going to ramble on about models, which you know nothing about, and how they may or may not be related to something you're trying to say?
No, they don’t, idiot.
They allocate resources based on economic scarcity and capital/resource availability.
Governments ration via non-economic force. Governments are non-economic actors.
The fact you do not understand this distinction reveals your staggering economic ignorance.
Larry, I don’t give a flying fuck about your bullshit government propaganda.
There is massive government intervention in healthcare, and since I’ve worked in the field, and you have not, means you have zero clue what you’re talking about (again).
Government dictates coverages, and sets interstate prohibitions, among other things.
Saying government plays no role in healthcare is beyond ignorant – it is delusional.
Medicare is a government program, Larry. If the medicare “doc fix” isn’t implemented, thousands of doctors will stop taking medicare, or retire. That will directly impact delivery, Larry.
Larry, you are a fantastically ignorant sack of crap.
Larry, everyone is starting to get the picture, except you.
You may want to read this (this weekends issue):
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/02/Barrons%20greece.jpg
(Their timeline is off – we’ll be worse than Greece in 5 – 10 years, not 25)
We have a massive spending problem, thanks to moronic leftists like you.
Larry, you excel in 1 area: missing the point.
And being an arrogantly, aggressively ignorant cocksucker
Ok 2 areas.
Charles is exactly correct that the baseline stimulus spending was built into Barry’s massive spending binge, hence Barry is the worst spender in US history
http://blog.american.com/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071704576276584062512382.html
http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-data-show-debt-problem-is-spending.html
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-obama-spending-binge?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obama-off-thrifty-spending-claim-231221900.html
There is another option.
re: thousands - and none of them are advisers to countries? none? You'd think that just with normal distribution about 1/2 would be but virtually none - not now and not for decades?
I look at the reality and you do what? talk about theories?
defense spending is no different than other spending but when you spend on defense you are engaging in Keynesian practices. What are they saying will happen to the economy if the sequester goes forward and DOD jobs are lost?
"we" have not explained anything nimrod. "we" can't seem to disagree without acting like a foul-mouth 5 year old.
by the way noodle nose - National Defense spending consumes virtually all of the tax revenues we take in right now when you count in addition to DOD, Homeland Security, NASA satellites, DOE reactors and weapons, the Va, the pensions and health care of DOD retirees...etc..
and so I've asked - what percent of our spending - should we be spending on defense? give me a number. you give me the percent and I'll show you how much that number is of the current revenues and then I'll ask you if you favor cutting DOD to that level of spending and my guess is that all your blather about govt spending and Keynesian theories will evaporate in a heartbeat - and a flurry of curse words that also typically accompany your intelligent "tomes".
Larry, many are advisors to countries.
Name the Keynesian advisors to Europe. Name the Keynesian advisors to Chavez.
You have a full list of ignorant people there.
I don’t know what we “should” be spending on national defense – it should be less than currently (see above).
Larry, I’m wondering, are you mildly retarded, or full-on?
Larry, have another look at this chart
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
As a kind of leftist Rorschach test, what do you see?
Are the leftmost 2 columns higher than the rest?
Guess what those columns are, Larry? Want a hint?
Both are social welfare spending, currently, and YoY.
Now look at the third column, defense spending.
Is that larger or smaller than either/both of the first two?
Now combine the first 2 column heights.
Are they larger or smaller than column 3 Larry?
we don't need to name advisers if we know the country considers stimulus to be a credible policy. The real point is that many countries - advised by many different economists think stimulus is credible strategy.
so yourself and a tiny number of independent "economists" are calling the majority of economists int he world that advise countries - "ignorant"?
you don't know what we should spend on DOD ... what kind of nut are you boy?
Mesa... don't try to impress me with your "intelligence" boy... you are in a contest with rocks.
Oh yes you do, moron.
You not only need to name them, you need to explain why & how their recommendations worked, and the justification for those actions (which failed).
The same standard you apply to us.
Goose, gander, etc.
Hypocritical asshole.
[Yes, and the rocks have defeated you]
no need to name anyone guy if the countries accept their advice and they do. the real word is composed of most countries that believe stimulus is a credible policy - at times. that's the real world.
your world denies the real world... and insists the real world is wrong...
when I point that out to you - you go into your 5yr old tantrum... which really impresses me NOT!
see.. it's a real problem when someone believes the entire world is wrong... about something.
and instead of admitting that - they want a list of names... WTF? Meso..my man... get a grip boy.
Actually Larry, the "real world" is comprised of failed Keynesian policies.
You live in a very strange alternate reality.
Don’t you worry your little leftist Keynesian head, Larry, everything is going to be just fine….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-17/saxo-bank-ceo-says-euro-doomed-as-single-currency-woes-resurface.html
take Mr. Reagan - who outspent the Soviets on National Defense... just spent them into the ground... turned out good, right
star wars, GPS satellites, NOAA weather Satellites, nuclear weapons, 3 billion dollar aircraft carriers... all Keynesian stimulus, right? I mean.. if we had left all that govt spending with the private economy .. it would have been much better right?
That’s right, Larry.
Except it’s wrong.
Reagan did indeed spend the Soviets into the ground. When debt/GDP was in the 20 – 30% neighborhood.
As all economists know (since you have no economic training, I don’t expect you to know this, Larry), the point of no return economically is about 90% debt/GDP.
Guess where we are now, Larry? About 103%. And guess what is driving the worsening fiscal position, Larry?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
I thought you lefties were so worried about debt/GDP, Larry? You were when Bush was prez. And apparently when Reagan was too.
What gives, Lar?
Look at the spending. It has stayed at 3.5T ever since. Call it what you will. Republicans did agree to it.
let's see - you think the fact that defense is listed as #3 is wrong? And the list includes social security which is not paid for out of general revenues but FICA so that's an honest chart from the get go?
take away SS and DOD becomes #2 but if you look closer, you'll see that they are saying that national defense is DOD and that's not true. National Defense includes much more than DOD and ironically DOD does not include things like the VA or NASA military satellites or DOE ship reactors or weapon system nukes... etc..
when you PROPERLY allocate ALL the spending for National Defense - it is if not number one - damn close but you boys with your right wing agendas don't really want to know the truth about this anyhow.. you just want to confirm your own biases so you gravitate to sites that do just that even if what they say is completely false.... but then again..that's just who you are... not really interested in the facts and the realities - just your own ideology that you cling to. tsk tsk...
wait.... wait... here comes the tantrum....
No, not what I’m saying at all, Lar. You seem to be saying that.
Let’s look at the graph again together –
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
What do the first 2 lines represent, Larry?
Social welfare spending.
[No, Socialist Insecurity is not “paid for” – we’ll leave that for another thread.]
The third category – less than half the first two combined – represents defense spending.
Defense spending isn’t driving our rapidly worsening fiscal situation Larry, social welfare spending is.
what's SSA? and is it funded from the same revenues that pay for DOD?
What’s SSA? Socialist Security Administration. Entitlement spending.
So Larry, your belief simply isn’t true.
In order for it to be true, this defense spending figure would have to be off by more than twice its value – government is highly inaccurate, but not that inaccurate.
Defense spending is quite large, however it is now dwarfed by entitlement & social welfare spending. And those categories will continue to expand exponentially.
SSA is paid for from FICA not general revenues. You cannot claim that entitlement spending is more than DOD spending - for general revenues because it's simply not true. that's dishonest.
people pre-pay from their paychecks for SS. It's not general revenues.
re: DOD spending: here it is guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
check it out. It IS TRUE. When you HONESTLY total UP ALL the expenditures from the general fund for everything that is truly National Defense, you DO get twice the number used for DOD only.
some of that spending IS for MILITARY entitlements ... like the VA, like military and civilian pensions and health care - ALL of that is legitimately military spending.
and so I ask you - if we take in about 1.5T in general revenues and we do - what PERCENT of that do you think we should spend on DOD / National Defense?
don't weasel on me now.. be honest and truthful here... give me a number...
Larry, ignore the “paid from” (funding) aspect – these are actual current government outlays. This graph shows what government is spending money on right now (and same quarter last year).
Your contention is that defense outlays are larger than entitlement & welfare spending (HHS & SSA), which is flatly untrue. Unless you are calling Timmy Geithner a liar (which he is, just not for this).
Stop trying to obfuscate, fool.
what graph are you talking about?
SS is paid from FICA. It does not involve general revenues which is where the deficit comes from.
It IS an entitlement but it is PREPAID from FICA taxes NOT paid from general revenues.
so including SS as an entitlement as if it was Medicaid or Medicare (which DO use general revenues) is dishonest and misleading.
the truth is if you legitimately and fairly include ALL Defense spending - it consumes well over a trillion dollars when our total tax revenues is but 1.5T.
that's the truth. that's the fact.
non-FICA/SS entitlements LIKE Medicare (B,C,D but not A) and MedicAid and things like SNAP and SCHIP also eat up about a trillion dollars and in total we spend about 2.5T while our actual tax revenues are about 1.5T.
All of what I am telling you is the honest truth and I can provide CBO data to back it up.
the problem that we have is disinformation these days such that people simply don't know the actual facts and actually believe propaganda - without verifying it.
I have you a wiki reference for military spending - go down to where it says
Budget breakdown for 2012 and you will see where I got my spending info from but note that the list in wiki does indeed come from OMB and CBO.
Larry, you are completely delusional, and unable to articulate your incorrect position.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/01/Spending%20Q1%20TBAC.jpg
Government currently spends more money on social welfare and entitlement programs (HHS & SSA) than it does on defense spending (Defense). End of discussion.
here's the CBO guy:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf
look at page 12, table 1-1
and page 19, table 1-3 to get a good picture.
zerohedge is not a credible site guy... use credible sites
Larry, zerohedge is perfectly credible, since they use the Treasury’s own info – here is the Treasury site:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/quarterly-refunding/Documents/TBAC_Discussion_Charts_Feb_2013.pdf
See p. 6.
Larry, you are delusional.
SSA is not paid from general revenues. Look on page 6 of your reference and look at the far right and what do you see? "other defense & civil", Now look at the middle: VA... Now add those two to the Defense stack - and leave out SS because it has nothing to do with general revenues.
if you are seriously interested in understanding guy - you need to look at the numbers behind these charts and you need to recognize that the VA and other National Defense are not counted together with DOD spending - and all of those PLUS the civil service and military pensions and health care - to include Medicare AND the interest charged for the portion spent on DOD/ND is ALL attributable NOT to entitlements.
And I ask you if we take in 1.5T total - tell me what percent of that should go to all these categories of National Defense?
this is real, not graphics and charts...real numbers.. and what is your answer? what percent of our available revenues do you want to spend on National Defense?
Entitlements do have their own issues, agreed.. and they need to be dealt with but you tell me what kind of spending we should do for National Defense.
It's EASY to blame ONLY entitlements guy but that won't fix the deficit. Are you willing to do with the full reality here or are you only going to hammer on entitlements?
Larry, apparently you can’t do math.
Even if you added everything together other than HHS, SSA, and Treasury, that total is far lower than HHS & SSA combined.
There is no other interpretation. HHS & SSA are the primary large outlays now.
You are unbelievably ignorant.
SSA is paid for guy. you could completely wipe out SSA and it would have no impact on the budget.
you keep clinging to this but the reality is that SSA has nothing to do with the budget and the deficit.
I've provided you with real numbers and references and you keep pretending that SSA is in the budget in a way that it is involved with deficits.
It's a pass through. FICA brings in 865 billion and that 865 billion turns around and pays for SSA and MedA - and it never touches the general fund or vice versa.
But if you actually admitted the truth here - then it would royally screw up your anti-entitlement ideology argument.
the primary entitlement consumer of the general revenues is Medicare, MedicAid, Schips, food stamps and other sundry things like housing vouchers. they also include the VA and the pensions and health care of the military and civilian "defense" workers.
So when we say "entitlements", it INCLUDES those paid to the military AND to civilian DOD/ND workers.
and even if you cut them all to zero.. wiped out SSA, you STILL would not balance the budget AND you'd end up with about 80% of the total budget spent on DOD/National defense.
I keep asking you what percent should be spent on DOD/ND and you keep ignoring it - and for good reason - because you know once you answer that question your goose is cooked on this issue.
Larry, again, we are not discussing revenues/funding. We are discussing outlays, of which SSA &
HHS are the 2 largest, and when combined dwarf all other expenditures.
No, Socialist Insecurity is not “paid for” – it is net revenue negative, and is directly contributing to debt outstanding (different discussion).
I have no opinion on what we should or should not spend on defense – that is a tangential question at best. It should be lower.
Were you not already known for your idiocy and general lack of intelligence, I would find it astonishing that you cannot arrive at the correct conclusion from the information presented to you.
Because you are a leftist, you ignore reality, so it is completely unsurprising that you cannot process information.
It should probably be said Larry that national defense is expressly directed by the Constitution as a proper function of government, and Socialist Insecurity and other entitlements are not.
"outlays" without in context of the budget and deficit mean nothing. what point would you make that had anything to do with WHY they are important?
even then - if you are truly honest and add all National defense outlays and the VA and the military /DOD entitlements to the one column it will be easily as tall but you refuse to admit it.
SS is not revenue negative and never will be because by law - SS cannot pay out more in benefits than FICA generates. Remember the automatic reductions in benefits if no reforms made?
re: tangential - ha ha ha. Tell me WHY there is ANY discussion about any of this to START WITH?
WHY is it an issue?
re: idiocy? ha ha ha .. you're a HOOT boy. the REALITY you allude to is the fact that we spend 1.5 trillion more in year than we take in in revenues and because of that we are 16T+ in debt and it has virtually nothing to do with SS and a great deal to do with "defense" spending - and yet you say the defense spending part is not relevant... hmm....
general welfare? oh.. and what does the Constitution say about HOW MUCH we should spend ?
got that number?
My question to you exactly, fool.
How much is enough for you, George Warren Brown?
Speechless Larry?