4 ms·

> 2) Not addressing what I was saying. The size of government is irrelevant here, we're talking about stimulus spending -- totally orthogonal. Actually, it's n

by anamax 17y ago

> 2) Not addressing what I was saying. The size of government is irrelevant here, we're talking about stimulus spending -- totally orthogonal. Actually, it's not orthogonal. In fact, it's quite on point, as stimulus spending tends to become permanent spending, that is, part of govt. We don't have counter-cyclical spending in the US. We have huge increases during down times and smaller increases during up times. Occasionally the private growth during up times exceeds govt growth. However, it's basically a one-way ratchet.

jbooth 17y ago
Sigh, well if you're determined to bring silly ideology into everything, of course you can find a way to relate it. But it's entirely beside the point, unless we take your assumptions as gospel (they're not). Adding "but I think this will happen" when it is in no way mandated or apparent doesn't change the facts. We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs, so we'll be seeing federal domestic spending decrease in real terms over the next few years. If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant).
- anamax 17y ago
  > But it's entirely beside the point, unless we take your assumptions as gospel (they're not). I didn't "assume" that US govt spending grows monotonically in the past. I observed it. If you think that my observation is incorrect, let's see supporting data. > Adding "but I think this will happen" when it is in no way mandated or apparent doesn't change the facts. I didn't say that monotonic spending increases are mandated - I said that they happened. If you're going to claim that this time will be different, you get to explain why. > We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs Actually, he didn't. He announced a freeze on some types of discretionary spending. That "freeze" excludes the vast majority of the budget and the places where the increases have been occurring. Similar "freezes" have been announced in the past and didn't happen. Since this one isn't actually reducing spending (contrary to the "now" claim), it's somewhat silly to assume that this time will be any different until it actually is. > If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant). I didn't say "never", I said almost never. The 90s drop came from decreased military spending due to the end of the cold war. The military budget is now small enough that plausible future cuts are less than planned increases in other spending. In other words, that's a one-time event.

by anamax 17y ago

jbooth 17y ago

Sigh, well if you're determined to bring silly ideology into everything, of course you can find a way to relate it. But it's entirely beside the point, unless we take your assumptions as gospel (they're not). Adding "but I think this will happen" when it is in no way mandated or apparent doesn't change the facts. We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs, so we'll be seeing federal domestic spending decrease in real terms over the next few years. If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant).

anamax 17y ago
> But it's entirely beside the point, unless we take your assumptions as gospel (they're not). I didn't "assume" that US govt spending grows monotonically in the past. I observed it. If you think that my observation is incorrect, let's see supporting data. > Adding "but I think this will happen" when it is in no way mandated or apparent doesn't change the facts. I didn't say that monotonic spending increases are mandated - I said that they happened. If you're going to claim that this time will be different, you get to explain why. > We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs Actually, he didn't. He announced a freeze on some types of discretionary spending. That "freeze" excludes the vast majority of the budget and the places where the increases have been occurring. Similar "freezes" have been announced in the past and didn't happen. Since this one isn't actually reducing spending (contrary to the "now" claim), it's somewhat silly to assume that this time will be any different until it actually is. > If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant). I didn't say "never", I said almost never. The 90s drop came from decreased military spending due to the end of the cold war. The military budget is now small enough that plausible future cuts are less than planned increases in other spending. In other words, that's a one-time event.