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

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?

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.

Something is off in that chart. You need to measure spending as % of gdp.

By going to government spending.com it becomes obvious that the spending is now more than ever (44% of the economy + fed private purchases). US has actually surpassed some of the scandinavian countries in the spending department (at least 2 years ago).
 
Your graph is bullshit.. spending as a % of GDP is the highist it's been since WWII

usgs_line.php


US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local

I'll assume that you aren't well versed on this subject. The chart is federal government spending. Your chart is total government spending. The chart in the OP comes from the St Louis Fed, which is one of the best repositories of US economic data in the country.

Jroc's Total Government spending is a better way of looking at the problem. Most State & Local spending is Federaly Mandated.

Here is the big problem with Federal Spending, Federal Treasury Notes, Bills & US dollar.

debt-gdp.png


Here is the problem with the USA as a Whole. Massive Debt. If you think we can magically increase Government Revenue & Spending when the Country as a whole can't sustain it's spending level you have a serious problem unless we print money which is still a serious problem.

saupload_total_credit_market_debt_vs.gdp_.png

total_debt_to_gdp_4_1_2010.jpg


The even Bigger problem is we have fewer workers to pay the Massive Debt or proposed increased spending.

fredgraph.png
 
Last edited:
You should be known as Afgraphistan!






And yes, I am drinking.
 
...Here is the problem with the USA as a Whole. Massive Debt. If you think we can magically increase Government Revenue & Spending when the Country as a whole can't sustain it's spending level you have a serious problem unless we print money which is still a serious problem...
saupload_total_credit_market_debt_vs.gdp_.png
Massive spending and debt by the federal government is a problem because history's shown (like with fascists/communists) it leads to total state control, war, government collapse, and mass poverty.

Private control is good, and individuals loaning money to each other is good for a healthy economy (OK, it's bad for religious fanatics running around cutting off bankers' hands). Seeking Alpha's site is pretty good, but these days we can do our own analysis without their help. They got their graph from the Fed's graphing site and we can get it ourselves and plot it better. By looking at total credit growth (change from year to year) we're looking at free people loaning money to each other--
totaldebtgr.jpg

--and we're seeing that economic freedom is in very short supply right now.
 
.
.
View attachment 13387

I like this graph because it shows ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING and how it ramped up after the democrats took over in 2006. (That was the year the democrats swept virtually all the races including the ones down the ticket). And the fact that we are now being bled so much worse at the local and state level only means we have that much less for the feds to take.

Also, if I recall correctly, the spending for ObamaCare is timed to get Obama and the democrats through the 2012 election before it finally kicks-in (2014?).

So what happens to these charts when THAT finally happens?

We had a very deep recession (losing 5-7% of GDP) and automatic stabilizers kicked in. So the numerator (spending) got larger to fund stabilizers and the denominator (GDP) got smaller because of a recession.

What does that have to do with Democrats taking over in 2006? What do you find surprising about that? If you look at the chart, you'll see the same thing happens in every recession (though the depth of the recession obviously dictates the depth of the change)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top