Slowest spending (growth) in decades

[dogtowner]

maybe, but rabid partisanship and the lack of willingness to compromise aren't serving us very well just now.

From a right now practical perspective that just may be. But just maybe if it gets the citizenry to wake up and see just how poorly served they've been served by DC thepast several generations then it could be a positive force for some substantive change. That would beat the negative force such as Spain and Greece are living through. No matter what, change is on the way.

 

[steveox]

This chart is true. Even Fox News says spending is lower then ever before. Because the house Republicans wont let him spend. Democrats are for tax and spending.

 

[dogtowner]

If they didn't cut the size of government, cut regulations, and cut spending, how did they prove anything?

I'm not old enough to remember Coolidge, but I do remember Reagan. I even voted for him in '80. I didn't in '84, when government size and expense kept going up despite all of the rhetoric.

I was uneasy over the Reagan boom for the same reasons as I know it could not end well. And so it didn't. Saw the same with Bubba and even Bush II. Now booms and busts are probably unavoidable but what we can and must do is get control of the federal government back and whittled down to Constitutional bounds.

 

[dogtowner]

This chart is true. Even Fox News says spending is lower then ever before. Because the house Republicans wont let him spend. Democrats are for tax and spending.

charts merely reflect numbers graphically. but the numbers are bunk.

 

[steveox]

But they are cutting spending.

 

[PLC1]

From a right now practical perspective that just may be. But just maybe if it gets the citizenry to wake up and see just how poorly served they've been served by DC thepast several generations then it could be a positive force for some substantive change. That would beat the negative force such as Spain and Greece are living through. No matter what, change is on the way.

Maybe. If enough of us vote Gary Johnson, perhaps some of the powers that be will get the message.

 

[PLC1]

here's another chart. Note the red is federal spending by year.

source

 

[dogtowner]

here's another chart. Note the red is federal spending by year.

source

I notice its spending as a % of GDP by year as opposed to dollars also that its notably higher under Obama than his predecessors. Also that it's staying higher where previous spikes were spikes.

 

[PLC1]

I notice its spending as a % of GDP by year as opposed to dollars also that its notably higher under Obama than his predecessors. Also that it's staying higher where previous spikes were spikes.

That's right. Since the GDP is not growing overly much just now, neither is federal spending.
Those big spikes you see represent WWI and WWII. The little ones correspond to the recession.

Note that the graph actually goes down in certain years as well.

 

[dogtowner]

That's right. Since the GDP is not growing overly much just now, neither is federal spending.
Those big spikes you see represent WWI and WWII. The little ones correspond to the recession.

Note that the graph actually goes down in certain years as well.

yes it does go down when GDP growth is dramatic. but then Congress catches up and "fixes" that.

but spending as $ is way up if you look at the link I posted upstream. Its a PDF but I did indicate the pages to skip to.

 

[Gipper]

If they didn't cut the size of government, cut regulations, and cut spending, how did they prove anything?

I'm not old enough to remember Coolidge, but I do remember Reagan. I even voted for him in '80. I didn't in '84, when government size and expense kept going up despite all of the rhetoric.

Well you make a good point. Yes, Reagan was a disappointment on many fronts. However, did he push through a huge new entitlement program that imposes many new taxes, while the economy was faltering? Did he run $1 Trillion deficits annually while the economy tanked? Did he push for government expansion in all departments? Did he refuse all efforts at developing energy sources? Did he push the EPA down the throats of business? Did he condemn the private sector with regularity while commending the efforts of government?

I hope you get my point.

Yes Reagan did increase spending, but he did this only to appease the Dems who controlled Congress so that they would allow him to build up our military resulting in the demise of the USSR. Please read that last sentence again and allow it to sink in. Because it is FACT. And keep in mind the revenues to the treasury expanded dramatically during his presidency even though he passed tax cuts. And, he did not come to office with a $11 TRILLION deficit only to add $5 trillion more?

 

[PLC1]

Well you make a good point. Yes, Reagan was a disappointment on many fronts. However, did he push through a huge new entitlement program that imposes many new taxes, while the economy was faltering? Did he run $1 Trillion deficits annually while the economy tanked? Did he push for government expansion in all departments? Did he refuse all efforts at developing energy sources? Did he push the EPA down the throats of business? Did he condemn the private sector with regularity while commending the efforts of government?

I hope you get my point.

Yes Reagan did increase spending, but he did this only to appease the Dems who controlled Congress so that they would allow him to build up our military resulting in the demise of the USSR. Please read that last sentence again and allow it to sink in. Because it is FACT. And keep in mind the revenues to the treasury expanded dramatically during his presidency even though he passed tax cuts. And, he did not come to office with a $11 TRILLION deficit only to add $5 trillion more?

Yep. That last sentence sums it up, no doubt.
Overspending is always the other party's fault, after all, and

Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

Yep, that's the ticket.

Or, could be that both parties are the parties of big government and increasing spend... no, can't be. Perish the thought.

If that's so, then we're in really deep doo doo.

 

[Gipper]

Yep. That last sentence sums it up, no doubt.
Overspending is always the other party's fault, after all, and

Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.

Yep, that's the ticket.

Or, could be that both parties are the parties of big government and increasing spend... no, can't be. Perish the thought.

If that's so, then we're in really deep doo doo.

It is very telling that you have no problem criticizing Reagan, but regularly post information and opinions favorable to Obama. The OP is a perfect example. How does one criticize Reagan's spending, but ignore or find excuses for Obama's?

Regarding the OP, will you admit you were duped by the lib media again?

And, I more than most on this forum have been very critical of the Rs. But, unfortunately you come to this forum NEW every day.

 

[PLC1]

It is very telling that you have no problem criticizing Reagan, but regularly post information and opinions favorable to Obama. The OP is a perfect example. How does one criticize Reagan's spending, but ignore or find excuses for Obama's?

Regarding the OP, will you admit you were duped by the lib media again?

And, I more than most on this forum have been very critical of the Rs. But, unfortunately you come to this forum NEW every day.

Because our stereotype of Reagan as the great small government conservative and Obama as the reckless tax and spender is flawed. The two have more in common than we'd like to admit.

and no, it's not the "lib media", it's the Wall Street Journal. Just because they print something that doesn't fit into your liberal<----->conservative one dimensional model doesn't make it "lib media."

 

[BigRob]

Yes Reagan did increase spending, but he did this only to appease the Dems who controlled Congress so that they would allow him to build up our military resulting in the demise of the USSR.

...sounds "progressive" -- Reagan -- our big government progressive hero.