Did $6 billion in campaign spending help the economy at least?
Unfortunately, calling it a mini-stimulus would be a gross understatement. While $6 billion sure sounds like a lot of money, relative to the size of the $14 trillion U.S. economy, it’s a miniscule amount. Most estimates of the 2009 stimulus package say that the $700 billion affair boosted real GDP somewhere between 1% and 4% – so an extra $6 billion in spending would have a very negligible effect on the national economy.
Even if you were to focus on areas of the country where campaign cash was concentrated, campaign spending is dwarfed by the Gross Regional Products of those areas. For instance, Ohio’s Gross State Product is just north of $400 billion dollars, far too large for campaign spending to make significant waves even if you generously assume that one sixth of the total campaign spending took place there.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
6 billion of wealth consumed with nothing of value created.
tom daschle concerned on November 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM
No. Next stupid question.
RadClown on November 9, 2012 at 6:36 PM
No. It gave us socialism.
davidk on November 9, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Yeah, because of the multiplier effect and also because all spending is stimulus.
////////////
HitNRun on November 9, 2012 at 6:49 PM
Six trillion in deficit spending in four years didn’t help in the slightest. Why would one one-thousandth of that number in a few months do any good?
Alberta_Patriot on November 9, 2012 at 6:59 PM
No. We got more of BHO and Harry Reid.
IrishEyes on November 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM