Jerrold Nadler: "We don't need to decrease government spending" (0:56:34)

[FionordeQuester]

... ....ok.

1) The only reason the Bush Tax cuts are still even around is because Barack Obama signed them back into law in 2009...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:5:./temp/~c111yiykaW:e9823:

Technically, there's always that chance that Jerrold greatly disapproved of Obama doing so, but, if so, it seems odd that he wouldn't call Obama out on it.

2) Inflation has gone up since 2002, but it hasn't gone up THAT much. For reference, here's the government spending levels, viewable on pages 341-352...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

...and here is a handy dandy calculator that takes whatever a set amount of money WOULD'VE been worth in the past, and adjusts the figure for 2010.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Yeah...I think it's safe to say that there's been an increase in government spending since 2001... . And no, I don't think we can maintain it.

EDIT: I would like to make a note though that I am not trying to imply that all Democrats are idiots. I happen to be an Independent myself. It's just, this one particular guy really shocked me.

Edited July 1, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[SRC]

He said there has been no change is discretionary spending besides military, which just happens to be among the U.S.'s top expenditures. His stance is since most of the budget is unchanged, the large deficits are caused by the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, doubled Pentagon spending, and by the U.S.'s current recession. I do not see anything unreasonable in what he said at all. He is certainly correct that ideally we want to run a surplus during good economic times to allow for more spending help during not so good economic times. Sure, it would be nice to magically reduce the deficit, but at the same time we would just be digging ourselves into a deeper hole.

Edited July 1, 2012 by SRC

[FionordeQuester]

But even now, Pentagon and U.S. army spending only accounts for around $1.2 Trillion of national spending. That is a lot, but it's not enough to go from a surplus $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus to a $15+ Trillion dollar deficit like we have now.

And even if we take him at his word that 40% of the deficit we have now is because of the Bush Tax cuts, that still leaves us with a $9 Trillion dollar deficit, 7.2$ if we took out all U.S. Army and Pentagon spending. In order for the depression to account for the rest of the money lost since 2002, it would've had to have been a depression that has cost us $13.6 Trillion dollars. I mean, yeah, the depression sucks, but I don't think it cost us THAT much money. Maybe something like, $6 Trillion dollars, but not $13.6.

Finally, discretionary spending only counts for about 40% of national spending levels. The other 60% is spending due to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, both of which have more than doubled since 2000, and will CONTINUE to grow if no adjustments are made to them.

By focusing only on discretionary spending, Jerrold is only accounting for 2/5ths of government spending, and that, to me, is unreasonable.

EDIT: Although...I would like to say that I made a mistake in assuming that he was an idiot, and using sarcasm in my points. For all I know, he could just have blind faith in his superiors, he may have been misled by faulty statistics, or...he could indeed be right, although everything I've learned up to this point about American Government and the causes of our national debt tell me otherwise, including the American Government class I'm taking in College right now.

I did find it slightly rude how he called his Republican senator's theory "rhetoric and mythology", but, again, that only says something about rudeness, not intelligence or intentions.

Edited July 2, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[SRC]

But even now, Pentagon and U.S. army spending only accounts for around $1.2 Trillion of national spending. That is a lot, but it's not enough to go from a surplus $5.6 Trillion dollar surplus to a $15+ Trillion dollar deficit like we have now.

Bear in mind deficits are on a year by year basis while the national debt is are overall debt. The US ran a budget deficit a few of the later Clinton years, but they have always been in debt. With that in mind, I think you will find a significant chunk of the deficit is from increased defense spending.

Yeah, it is a bit odd to focus on only discretionary spending on efforts to reduce the deficit. But also keep in mind that discretionary spending is a lot easier to change as well. Medicare cuts are kind of an elephant in the room, because even though its costs are escalating, folks do not want to see their benefits cut. I'm not sure if suggesting cuts would be political suicide, but it would definitely distract from Nadler's focus of his little speech. Defense spending cuts, on the other hand, are pretty popular because the wars are so unpopular at this point.

I did find it slightly rude how he called his Republican senator's theory "rhetoric and mythology", but, again, that only says something about rudeness, not intelligence or intentions.

Sounds pretty civil for bipartisan politics hahahaha.

[FionordeQuester]

...you know what, now that I look at this again, and have done research, I just realized this. Jerrold Nadler is even more in the wrong than I initially suspected, unless by "the deficit", as he refers to it at 58:17, he means something entirely different. Assuming that he's talking about the U.S. National Debt, he's claiming that there was once a 5.6 Trillion Dollar surplus in the Clinton years. That's completely false. In fact, Bill Clinton never even so much as put a dent in it if the .gov site I linked to is any indication. Now, there was a budget surplus, meaning that the government managed to not spend every last dime of the budget it got for that year, but there was never, at any time since...well, pretty much ever, a National U.S. surplus. In fact, we had a U.S. National Debt of $5,628,700 in 2000 (Table 7.1 in the .gov site I linked to). So, in a way, we've pretty much always had a spending problem.

In fact, in regards to military spending versus Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, even WITH the Iraq war, military spending has increased only a measly 2% faster than Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security spending has increased. For referance, in 2002, the amount of military spending was about 42% the amount of Health Care spending, and now it's about 44% the amount of Health Care spending. Probably larger than it sounds when we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, but still nowhere near enough to be one of the main sources of our economic woes...

...of course, it certainly didn't HELP, and the federal deficit did see a great increase in how fast it was growing once the Iraq War started (though it STILL didn't grow as fast as when Obama took charge...), but it certainly isn't the sole root of the problem.

But yeah, that's about the end of my post here. For reference, I used this source here...

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2000.html

...once I started comparing Health Care spending to Military spending, as the .gov site didn't seem to have a complete list of Military spending.

Edited July 5, 2012 by FionordeQuester

[SRC]

Okay, I watched the video again. He does not claim Clinton left with a surplus. He claims that a $5.6 trillion surplus was projected in ten years' time. The problem is that is just a projection. Although the tax cuts and military spending altered that for the worse, that prediction

In fact, in regards to military spending versus Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, even WITH the Iraq war, military spending has increased only a measly 2% faster than Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security spending has increased. For referance, in 2002, the amount of military spending was about 42% the amount of Health Care spending, and now it's about 44% the amount of Health Care spending. Probably larger than it sounds when we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, but still nowhere near enough to be one of the main sources of our economic woes...

This spending is not discretionary, though, so it is not included in his claim. Also, bear in mind Medicaid spending and Social Security will be higher in poor economic times because of more unemployment and underemployment.

Also, the deficit has basically nothing to do with economic woes. One of the reasons the deficits are increased are to stimulate the economy, i.e. the bailout.

...of course, it certainly didn't HELP, and the federal deficit did see a great increase in how fast it was growing once the Iraq War started (though it STILL didn't grow as fast as when Obama took charge...), but it certainly isn't the sole root of the problem.

Of course it isn't. But, as I noted earlier, going straight to medicare cuts would have been a mistake for his purposes even if it is a big contributor to the deficit, and going for higher tax rates for the higher brackets and cutting military spending would probably be easier.

Edited July 5, 2012 by SRC