What conclusions can you draw from this graph?

[palerider]

I resent taxes as well, but I resent even more the pseudoconservative ideal of cutting taxes while increasing spending.

Tax cuts invariably result in increased tax revenues. I don't care for spending either, but tax cuts are sound economic policy. Cut taxes and the economy expands.

A more effective government wouldn't have to waste so much money in order to have a strong military, nor would it use that military against a country that was no threat to us to begin with. An effective government would have gone into Afganistan and Pakistan after the attacks of 9/11, taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, then come home. It would not have engaged in nation building in Iraq.

You do realize that we weren't attacked by afghanistan, right? They were just a country that supported terrorists.

 

[PLC1]

And even so, defense spending is not as much as we spend on social programs.

That depends on what you call "social programs". If you count Social Security, then you're correct. The problem with that, of course, is that SS is collected as a retirement fund, and actually subsidizes other government spending. Last year, for example, SS was raided for $177 billion to cover other spending. Move SS out of the general fund, as should have been done years ago, and the figures show a different picture. According to Wickepedia:

As of September 2004 the U.S. Congressional Budget Office reported that federal government spending for 2004 was projected to be $2.293 trillion, or slightly less than 20% of the GDP. Of that, $159 billion was for net interest, $486 billion for defense, $492 billion for Social Security, $473 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, $191 billion for various welfare programs, $136 billion for "retirement and disability" benefits, and $64 billion was projected to be spent elsewhere.

If you add together the cost of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and "various welfare programs," then you're correct. These figures can be interpreted in a lot of ways, however.

My interpretation is that the government spends way too much on a lot of things. The one I personally resent the most is that $159 billion for interest. That is just money flushed down the toilet.

Here's another interesting little graph of government spending:

I found it here:

Regardless of how much we spend on social programs, interest, or anything else, the fact remains that we spend a lot of money on the military, way more than any other country in the world. There is no real way to argue that we underfund our military. If there isn't enough money for some essential, it is a result of poor use of resources, not of us not throwing enough money at the problem.

Tax cuts invariably result in increased tax revenues. I don't care for spending either, but tax cuts are sound economic policy. Cut taxes and the economy expands.

The jury is still out on that one. There is no proof that I'm aware of that tax cuts result in increased revenues. I believe that theory was dismissed as "voodoo economics" by the senior Bush, wasn't it? Nevertheless, tax cuts are a good idea, so long as they are accompanied by spending cuts.

You do realize that we weren't attacked by afghanistan, right? They were just a country that supported terrorists.

Yes, I realize that, and so did not advocate attacking Afganistan. What I said was that we needed to go after the real perpetrators of the attacks of 9/11, who were hiding in Afganistan and Pakistan. The nation building in Afganistan is a questionable government project, just as the one in Iraq is not really justifiable.

 

[itsbritt12]

Democrats have spent less only because of extreme cuts in defense spending, which then have to be refunded and rebuilt during Republican presidencies. Under Clinton, of course there was significant economic growth - the military was practically non-existant.

 

[TheWaffle]

Actually, the national debt is not "the economy." Estimates range from 1-3 years for the period of time it will take for the behemoth called the U.S. economy to change directions. Short term actions can have an effect, but it takes quite some time for changes to manifest their results.

The stock market? Do you mean under Democrat presidents, or Congress, or both? The political scene here is only one factor of the stock market, but it too is driven over a period of time by fiscal policies at the federal level. We can only imagine where it might be today if 9/11 had not happened. It WAS a huge hit on the markets, that took months to recover from. But the economy continued to expand and improve to date.

The failed programs and wasted money? No denying it. But if you look for evidence, you will find these types of huge expenditures, often money down the drain, in almost all administrations and congress. With Congress holding the purse strings, you're giving the President, any President too much credit, or blame.

Invading for no apparent reason - That's subject to opinion and perspective.

Social programs - To be honest, they are areas that the federal government really has no business being in, for the most part. To provide a responsible, adequate safety net is one thing. To be our nanny, our sugar-daddy, and the arbiter of income redistribution is something else.

Just so and Palerider know, I'm not an idiot. I'm well aware that the national debt is not the economy. When I said economy I made the enormous leap of logic that when the national debt is rising or staying the same but it is still the same (or decreasing) relative percentage of the GDP then that means the economy is growing. Phew that took some major brainpower to churn out.

And I like how it is always the conservative way to claim any economic growth even under a liberal president for their own. Cause apparently Bush was completely responsible for all the economic growth under Clinton right? And the economic fall under Reagan was Carter's fault right? Even though it occured after Reagan instituted his policies.

I just find irony in that the charts show distinctly that under both Bushes and Reagan we were either borrowing absurd amounts of money or the economy was collapsing, or both. Have your pick. And under Clinton things seemed headed in the right direction. Take a look at this link, I'm not sure why you all claim that Clinton destroyed the military, under him military spending remained almost constant. Charts showing the trail towards the end of his term are often attributed to a growing national budget where the % spent on defense decreased as a result but the actual cost stayed the same. I also find it ironic how many of you defend the tax cuts while increasing military spending. This is what republican presidents over the past thirty years have done, they cheat the system to look good for a year or two and then leave a mess for the next president, who if republican will continue with this "oh, look money grows on trees approach" toward the national debt, or if a democrat will actually try and stabilize spending.

And as far as some people saying the debt can be viewed as international investment need to review the reality of the situation. Every year we waste billions paying off the interest, this is not some sort of beneficial symbiotic relationship. This is really just a leech on our budget and economy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

 

[palerider]

And I like how it is always the conservative way to claim any economic growth even under a liberal president for their own. Cause apparently Bush was completely responsible for all the economic growth under Clinton right? And the economic fall under Reagan was Carter's fault right? Even though it occured after Reagan instituted his policies.

A bit of historical research on your part is in order. I was an adult during J. Carter's presidency and the economy was not good. 21% interest on a new car, 25% on a used car (if you had good credit). 17% home mortgage loans, unemployment in the double digits, inflation in the double digits. J. Carter was the only president who had an actual misery index attatched to his time in office. Reagan inherited a mess.

 

[TheWaffle]

A bit of historical research on your part is in order. I was an adult during J. Carter's presidency and the economy was not good. 21% interest on a new car, 25% on a used car (if you had good credit). 17% home mortgage loans, unemployment in the double digits, inflation in the double digits. J. Carter was the only president who had an actual misery index attatched to his time in office. Reagan inherited a mess.

Then I tell you that Carter inherited a mess from Ford, it's a completely cyclical argument.

Carter's actions were meant to stabilize the economy, his attempts to induce a recession and following recovery work over a 5-10 year time plan. Hence Reagan had that going for him and he still screwed everything up.

 

[PLC1]

Then I tell you that Carter inherited a mess from Ford, it's a completely cyclical argument.

Carter's actions were meant to stabilize the economy, his attempts to induce a recession and following recovery work over a 5-10 year time plan. Hence Reagan had that going for him and he still screwed everything up.

And I can tell you that the misery of which you speak, the mess that existed in the early '70s, had nothing to do with the occupants of the White House at all. The economy was in a downward spiral as a result of four letters:


OPEC

 

[StatesRights]

The conclusion I draw from this graph is that under Democratic or economically liberal Republican (with the exception of Bush) administrations that taxes are increased in order to increase domestic spending. Simply put, taxes were so high under the pictured liberal GOP/Democratic administrations that deficit was very low because of a large tax base from which to draw.