The Republican Thread

[witesoxfan]

Go ahead and ignore the absolute skyrocket under Bush... lol

Who gives a crap how we got to this point, let's fix the problem.

 

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with partisan politics. Rather than taking blame for what each side messed up, they want to do nothing but point fingers at the other side and say it's the other side's fault.

 

Bush spent an exorbitant amount, and much of it was due to the war in the Middle East. That was not a completely lost cause, but some of that spending was unjustified and there was a large hole that was dug by his administration. But, up to this point, you are talking about the Obama administration having spent $15 trillion in his first 4 years in office and on pace to spend around another $4 trillion again this year. That is also a large hole.

 

Rather than throwing money at the problems, serious change and reform need to take place before the deficit can be cut whatsoever. And rather than having sequestration come into play, more sides need to admit fault in the matter and take their own lumps rather than placing the blame on others. The fact of the matter is there is too much being spent right now, regardless of the President's political party.

 

[StrangeSox]

Can the resident state-worshippers tell me how the government does nearly four times the amount of "stuff" it does now than when it was fighting a two front total war on opposite sides of the planet? Every time I see that chart I ask myself that question.

 

Ask yourself why you wouldn't look at % GDP and not absolute dollars

 

[Reddy]

Ask yourself why you wouldn't look at % GDP and not absolute dollars

 

Because you can't spin it to make Obama look bad.

[witesoxfan]

Because you can't spin it to make Obama look bad.

 

Greatest percentage of spending in non World War years. That wasn't hard.

 

Or is that 2008? I can't tell, it's hard to see. It was a recessionary period and the US Govt didn't stop spending, thus you're going to see an increased percentage. I just spun it and flipped it by myself.

Edited March 5, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Reddy]

Greatest percentage of spending in non World War years. That wasn't hard.

 

Or is that 2008? I can't tell, it's hard to see. It was a recessionary period and the US Govt didn't stop spending, thus you're going to see an increased percentage. I just spun it and flipped it by myself.

 

Which was significantly shorter than our current war(s)

[StrangeSox]

The chart continues past 2010.

 

You'd expect spending-as-percent-of-GDP to climb when you enter a recession as 1) GDP falls and 2) automatic stabilizers kick in. That's the peak you see right before 2010 and then you see the gradual spending-per-GDP decline we've been on since then.

[Reddy]

Who gives a crap how we got to this point, let's fix the problem.

I recall Hillary saying something eerily similar re: Benghazi... huh...

[witesoxfan]

Which was significantly shorter than our current war(s)

 

Yet Bush stayed generally around 18%, as Clinton did in his second term (after decreasing spending during his first term) while Obama has been around and above 20%.

 

 

[Reddy]

Yet Bush stayed generally around 18%, as Clinton did in his second term (after decreasing spending during his first term) while Obama has been around and above 20%.

I'm pretty sure that 18% isn't taking the Bush stimulus into account.

[StrangeSox]

Yet Bush stayed generally around 18%, as Clinton did in his second term (after decreasing spending during his first term) while Obama has been around and above 20%.

 

Sure, because Obama came in when GDP was severely depressed and all sorts of stabilizing spending was kicking in. That's going to shoot the ratio up right at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 regardless of who was elected and what policies they eventually put in place. Our economy is still limping along, so GDP is still about 5% below where it would be expected to be and stabilizer spending is still pretty high because unemployment is high and wages have remained low.

 

I'm not sure if the Bush numbers include the off-the-books spending for the Iraq and Afghan wars since they weren't included in the budgets.

[DukeNukeEm]

Ask yourself why you wouldn't look at % GDP and not absolute dollars

 

So as the country prospers government has to prosper too. They must always get their cut.

 

Its such an absurd notion that any growth Americans see has to be shared by the government. Jenks' graph shows how costly that approach is.

[StrangeSox]

As the country prospers, you'd expect government expenditures to grow, yes. Even if the scope of every federal program was frozen in place today, you'd still expect it to grow with the population and GDP. More people, houses and businesses mean more police and fire. More ports and port activity means more customs and security. More pharmaceutical research means more FDA review. Etc. etc. etc.

 

This is back to like HS Civics, Economics and basic-reasoning stuff.

[witesoxfan]

What does each line refer to? I have an idea but just want to make sure.

[StrangeSox]

Interesting idea too that the strength of the largest economy in the world isn't symbiotic in some ways with the strength, stability and investment of its government.

[Balta1701]

That is just wrong. What did this guy do, go buy peas one at a time from Whole Foods? Buy a can of Campbells Soup and a few bananas, there is lunch for less than $4. You can buy a whole roasted chicken for $6 and another $1 for a can of peas. Dinner for 2, or more. $36? Yeah, right. And that $3.52, 2000 calorie diet would be one bag of potato chips.

 

 

This is called bad math, bad science, and straight up manipulation. I spend $50 a week and eat 2500 to 3000 cal a day. All healthy foods.

Do you guys go to a grocery store that you drive to, or do you live in a place where your only source of groceries is the corner convenience store and it's an hour+ bus ride each way to get to the nearest grocery store (and you're limited to what you can carry home, and you've just finished up your 2nd 29 hour a week job when you head there?)

[StrangeSox]

What does each line refer to? I have an idea but just want to make sure.

 

No idea what the blue "x" line is, but it's "f" federal, "s" state and "l" local.

[StrangeSox]

Do you guys go to a grocery store that you drive to, or do you live in a place where your only source of groceries is the corner convenience store and it's an hour+ bus ride each way to get to the nearest grocery store (and you're limited to what you can carry home, and you've just finished up your 2nd 29 hour a week job when you head there?)

 

IIRC there's conflicting research on the idea of the food desert, or at least how wide-spread it is.

[Reddy]

Do you guys go to a grocery store that you drive to, or do you live in a place where your only source of groceries is the corner convenience store and it's an hour+ bus ride each way to get to the nearest grocery store (and you're limited to what you can carry home, and you've just finished up your 2nd 29 hour a week job when you head there?)

 

So you're agreeing that no one actually spends $37 a day on vegetables because the people you're talking about don't have access to groceries anyway! Goalposts, consider yourselves moved.

 

What's your ACTUAL point balta? Because if it's lack of access I agree. If it's cost, I disagree.

[DukeNukeEm]

As the country prospers, you'd expect government expenditures to grow, yes. Even if the scope of every federal program was frozen in place today, you'd still expect it to grow with the population and GDP. More people, houses and businesses mean more police and fire. More ports and port activity means more customs and security. More pharmaceutical research means more FDA review. Etc. etc. etc.

 

This is back to like HS Civics, Economics and basic-reasoning stuff.

Except government is actually outgrowing GDP.

[Balta1701]

Except government is actually outgrowing GDP.

Using the graphs already posted, federal spending is at the same level it was in 1950.

 

It actually does need to outgrow GDP over the next 20 years though, because of the baby boom retirement. It's going to have to happen.

[StrangeSox]

Except government is actually outgrowing GDP.

 

Depends on what time frame you're looking at, but that's not relevant to my statement. You expressed a feeling of absurdity at the idea that the total government expenditures should grow with GDP when basic civics and economics would tell you that it should simply to maintain a status quo.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So you're agreeing that no one actually spends $37 a day on vegetables because the people you're talking about don't have access to groceries anyway! Goalposts, consider yourselves moved.

 

What's your ACTUAL point balta? Because if it's lack of access I agree. If it's cost, I disagree.

There's a reason why the "live on $4 a day" challenge exists in the first place.

[Jenksismyhero]

Not sure how this got derailed into a % of GDP argument. The point of that graph is that we're talking about a tiny sliver of total government spending here, and liberals are acting like the world is going to end.

[StrangeSox]

Just be like Sean Hannity's good friends who live on nothing but a big ol' pot of rices and beans!

[Reddy]

Using the graphs already posted, federal spending is at the same level it was in 1950.

 

It actually does need to outgrow GDP over the next 20 years though, because of the baby boom retirement. It's going to have to happen.

Shhhhhh, that's logical. No place for that here.