[FoRK] Fwd: Hey, big spender... - slight correction
sdw at lig.net
Wed Aug 27 09:32:39 PDT 2008
Stephen Williams wrote:
> Jeff Bone wrote:
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze at gmail.com>
>>> Date: June 10, 2008 12:40:28 PM CDT
>>> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Hey, big spender...
>>> Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>>>> Not true; the total cost of the new spending proposals Obama's
>>>> offered up
>>>> on the campaign trail, collectively, total something in the
>>>> neighborhood of
>>>> $1T (rough est., but certainly in the ballpark.)
>>> $1T? This is a fable.
>>>> Except the $1T in new spending he's proposing... Except the fact
>>>> that he
>>>> hasn't said anything concrete about spending REDUCTION.
>>> It's not a spreadsheet, it's a set of priorities. The 1T number isn't
>>> even real, and the absence of cuts is what we call "campaign trail."
>>> You don't object to politicians playing good ball, do you? Personally
>>> I think that's a quality.
>> This was your prior challenge. It's like fucking Groundhog Day,
>> Lucas. Either read the answers to the questions you ask, or stop
>> asking them.
>> Here were the answers, among others, in support of $1T. That
>> estimate's been increased with additional scrutiny of his specific
> Where please? Young man, Faux News fiction and flaxen ur-witch spells
> will not be accepted on this assignment.
> Err, Dear Mr. Bone,
> I must pick the first of your sources to point out that the skeleton
> of your argument seems to be broken, or at least severely cracked.
> Perhaps the load you have been carrying has affected your posture?
> (Sorry buddy, my name is so boring, I have to have some fun with
> others. There is a couple, last name Sugar, who Mercury profiled as
> having a very successful blog publishing business... OK, enough lame
> attempted humor.)
> So, man, WTF? From the article:
>> $65 billion-a-year health plan
> A chunk, but could save money for Medicare, etc. An investment,
> perhaps, that might pay off.
>> $15 billion in green energy spending
> An obvious investment that almost surely would pay off in some way.
> Are you arguing against this? Should we wait for Exxon to figure out
> how to corner the market on it first?
> If this site is correct, we spend $1.62B *per* *day* ($116 * 14M bbls)
> to import oil. ($2.058B at the peak of $147/bbl.) That's 40,000
> (50,000) times more than this investment in green energy.
Err, I plead sleep deprivation. Make that 40-50x.
> This site seems to agree, although the price is worse since only 10M
> are crude, the rest are refined:
> It's obvious we should have annexed Canada... ;-)
>> $85 billion in tax cuts and credits
> Um, hello? Tax cut? Not equal to "spending proposal" of "new social
> program spending" as you said repeatedly. In fact, you are advocating
> for tax cuts, no???
> So, that's $85B * 4 = $340B in tax cut, not spending.
>> $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid
> Whatever. I don't know if this is related to spending less in
> Iraq/Af. or not.
> Could certainly pay off. Would pay off much more if my
> land/rights/services for cash proposal were enacted.
>> $18 billion a year in education spending
> Certainly an investment that could pay off in all kinds of ways.
>> $3.5 billion for a national service plan
> A pittance for something that could definitely benefit many, likely
> many more than will participate directly.
>> Put it all together, and we are talking about a $200 billon plan,
>> $800 billion over four years. And that does not even include fixing
>> the alternative minimum tax, a $50 billion-a-year item that will
>> assuredly get passed.
> And, you counted another tax cut for $200 billion of that Obama
> "spending proposal" that you fear so much.
> So, let's recap, you state that Obama has proposed a $1T spending
> proposal. And you would rather that there were tax cuts.
> Your link to back it up validates that it would indeed increase the
> deficit $1T over not spending a little and not renewing tax cuts that
> are to expire. Clearly, no one is going to simply let those tax cuts
> expire completely, so right away the $1T number is way off.
> However, in terms of what you referred to as "new social program
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> "Russell, it's not just about tax increases. There's the small
>> matter of an
>> additional $1.5T in new social program spending, and all that entails
>> terms of opportunity costs had that money and manpower been deployed
>> elsewhere in the economy.)"
> there is: ($65B+$15B+$25B+$18B+$3.5B = $126.5B)*4 = $506B in new
> spending with $540B tax cut / tax cut continuance, *over 4 years*.
> And this doesn't subtract out possible, sometimes probable benefits from:
> Medicare, better productivity, or other health related savings.
> Payback from investment in green energy, ideally a whole new industry
> where winning even a fraction of the amount we spend on oil would
> produce massive tax income and reinvestment.
> Benefit of, or replacement of current spending, foreign aid.
> Better jobs, competitiveness, less immigration due to better education.
> Lower unemployment / welfare benefits, training, rehabilitation, and
> direct benefit from national service.
> All in all, I don't find much to complain about with those choices. I
> would add more spending for science and technology.
> According to this great chart:
> We spend $632B on military and $350B on Non-Military. Obama is
> suggesting $126.5B in new spending per year, with the likelihood of
> cuts elsewhere. Not exactly earth shattering.
> This gives a better view for 2009:
> The President currently spends $17.4B directly. Does the VP remember
> how many undisclosed locations he has? (For his money?)
> DoD: $711B
> Health and Human Services ($919B for Medicare minus receipts) $739B
> Homeland Security $44B
> HUD $46B
> DOJ $27B
> DOL (unemployment) $54B
> DOT (Highways, etc.) $71B
> Treasury (EIC / Child Credit payments, i.e. negative tax) $73.5
> Interest on Public Debt $487B
> VA $92B
> EPA $8B
> NASA $18B
> OPM (Civil Servant Retirement) $67B
> Social Security $693B
> For a total budget outlay of about $3327B against $2697 receipts.
> Note that the outlay is more, but 200-500B of receipts are in the
> outlay section.
> So, we spend about $3T/yr. for the budget. And we spend $593-752B as
> a country to import oil. Note that, in 2007 dollars, crude was about
> $19/bbl before 1973 and briefly in 1998. In fact, it is generally
> around $19/bbl when not at war. If true, that greatly increases the
> effective cost of wars. Reference:
> BTW, look at the deficit as adjusted for wealth (i.e. % GDP), very
> interesting: Nearly flat for decades.
> More of the same.
>>> In fact, don't take it from me --- take it from Obama himself:
> "surrounded himself with centrist economic advisers" ... "cut smart
> trade deals and help displaced workers" ... "healthcare plan is more
> cautious" ... "resisted interventionist ... favors tax credits" ...
> [mostly debunked and out of context tax hyperbole] ...
> So, what flavor of coolaid are you drinking? You're not winning me
> over with what you have presented so far as proof.
More information about the FoRK