Spending to GDP Less than Under Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK & Ike

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Toro, May 17, 2011.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,800
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,135
    fyi

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Zander
    Offline

    Zander Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,455
    Thanks Received:
    6,576
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Ratings:
    +12,895
    Still too much
     
  3. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    so what does this tell us toro, exactly:eusa_eh:aside from the obvious?
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,800
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,135
    What do you think it tells you?
     
  5. Zander
    Offline

    Zander Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    17,455
    Thanks Received:
    6,576
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Ratings:
    +12,895
    Who cares? We have a $14 trillion+ national debt and it keeps growing. I don't care about statistics, I want action. CUT SPENDING.
     
  6. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    49,492
    Thanks Received:
    7,550
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +16,320
    Good find. Telling how no one on the right has much to say about it.
     
  7. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    I asked you first..:lol:


    its telling us spending to gdp in % is lower than the historical average...what happy days? we are on a clear fiscally sound course, what? does this include spending built in btw?Is this in real dollars of fed revenue, outside deficit spending?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2011
  8. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    theres been 7 posts 2 by toro and one by you , you dolt. jesus christ.
     
  9. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,220
    Thanks Received:
    6,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,064
    Taxes under Eisenhower were above 90% for the richest Americans. Thanks for pointing that out.

    This economy is what happens when you throw money at rich people.
     
  10. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,800
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,135
    What it tells me is that the American economy has had the capacity to spend a greater share on government programs in the past. True, defense was a bigger share of the economy in the 50s and 60s, but nonetheless, government spending played a bigger role then than it does now. My guess is that most people would think the opposite, given the tone of the debate. It doesn't mean we should have more government spending but per capita growth grew at a pretty constant rate from 1945 to 2006 no matter what the level of taxes or government spending.
     

Share This Page