What are the justifications for more government spending?

[rational thinker]

I know that more government spending isn't the answer and it sounds kind of retarded to believe that since everyone knows that deficits and overspending is the problem. But why do many economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Bake say spending is the answer? I mean even Noam Chomsky (a brilliant man) believe that more spending is the key.

So what is their justification? Surely they must have a reasonable answer.

[Jordan]

Our economy is virtual. We don't make anything, we don't do anything. All we do is buy shit, thats our economic function.

So obviously the best way to stimulate an overspending economy is to keep spending. Or so they think.

[amy31416]

I know that more government spending isn't the answer and it sounds kind of retarded to believe that since everyone knows that deficits and overspending is the problem. But why do many economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Bake say spending is the answer? I mean even Noam Chomsky (a brilliant man) believe that more spending is the key.

So what is their justification? Surely they must have a reasonable answer.

Shouldn't you be studying chemistry? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Government expands to meet the needs of expanding government. ;) :rolleyes:

[Real_CaGeD]

To buy rope.

[heavenlyboy34]

Government expands to meet the needs of expanding government. ;) :rolleyes:
:(:p:mad:

[Elwar]

The Keynseyian argument is that you give people money when things are going bad and you take it when things are going good. That way you have a more steady economy all along. Kinda like if you were a shoe salesman and if you average $3k a month and you have a good month and make $5k you set aside $2k, if you have a bad month and make $1k you use that $2k.

Of course, that's the theory. The practice is, you make $5k one month and you spend $2k on a plasma screen TV. When you make $1k you borrow $2k from a foreign government.

[Truth Warrior]

The Keynseyian argument is that you give people money when things are going bad and you take it when things are going good. That way you have a more steady economy all along. Kinda like if you were a shoe salesman and if you average $3k a month and you have a good month and make $5k you set aside $2k, if you have a bad month and make $1k you use that $2k.

Of course, that's the theory. The practice is, you make $5k one month and you spend $2k on a plasma screen TV. When you make $1k you borrow $2k from a foreign government. Does that explain the $.03 FRNs? :p :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I know that more government spending isn't the answer and it sounds kind of retarded to believe that since everyone knows that deficits and overspending is the problem. But why do many economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Bake say spending is the answer? I mean even Noam Chomsky (a brilliant man) believe that more spending is the key.

So what is their justification? Surely they must have a reasonable answer.

Who is benefitting the most from this economic calamity? Is it Bill Gates? No, his stocks lost 12 billion. So, having money is not the same as having power.
Who is benefitting the most today? It is going to be the places where most of the banks are located. Why? Because after they received billions in bail out money by the government with little strings attached, the banks turned around and made it impossible for the people to get loans. What happens as a result of this? The greatest value of whatever amount the banks borrowed will ultimately be transferred (as in stolen) from the rest of the nation as a whole to the areas where they are located.
This isn't economics at work here or capitalism, but tyranny usurping power from the people.

[Truth Warrior]

Who is benefitting the most from this economic calamity? Is it Bill Gates? No, his stocks lost 12 billion. So, having money is not the same as having power.
Who is benefitting the most today? It is going to be the places where most of the banks are located. Why? Because after receiving billions in bail out money by the government with little strings attached, banks are turning around and making it impossible for the people to get loans. What happens as a result of this? The greatest value of whatever amount the banks borrowed will ultimately be transferred (as in stolen) from the rest nation as a whole to the areas where the banks are located.
This isn't economics at work here or capitalism, but tyranny usurping power from the people.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[acptulsa]

It would be a far, far shorter list to enumerate everything that has never been used as a justification for more government spending.

[heavenlyboy34]

Who is benefitting the most from this economic calamity? Is it Bill Gates? No, his stocks lost 12 billion. So, having money is not the same as having power.
Who is benefitting the most today? It is going to be the places where most of the banks are located. Why? Because after they received billions in bail out money by the government with little strings attached, the banks turned around and made it impossible for the people to get loans. What happens as a result of this? The greatest value of whatever amount the banks borrowed will ultimately be transferred (as in stolen) from the rest of the nation as a whole to the areas where they are located.
This isn't economics at work here or capitalism, but tyranny usurping power from the people.

Furthermore, why aren't more people asking, "Cui bono?" like you are? Are they being led to the slaughter? :eek: You be the judge. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

It would be a far, far shorter list to enumerate everything that has never been used as a justification for more government spending.

Problem --> Reaction --> Solution. ( lather, rinse, repeat ) :p :mad:

[ChaosControl]

They want a one world currency so they support spending to drive up inflation and debt so that our money is worthless and therefore the people will end up supporting a world currency.

That or they are truly so incredibly stupid and think it'll actually help the economy, if that is the case then we have the stupidest people imaginable in charge of running the country.

Sometimes I can't figure if the people are stupid or evil.

[heavenlyboy34]

They want a one world currency so they support spending to drive up inflation and debt so that our money is worthless and therefore the people will end up supporting a world currency.

That or they are truly so incredibly stupid and think it'll actually help the economy, if that is the case then we have the stupidest people imaginable in charge of running the country.

Sometimes I can't figure if the people are stupid or evil.


Option C-BOTH ;):(:p:mad: