Federal Spending Grew More Than Ten Times Faster Than Median Income

Heritage Foundation ^ | March 2011 | Heritage Foundation

[1010RD]

Is it a revenue problem or a spending problem?

[Red Badger]

Note that the scale stops at 2009.....................

[Loud Mime]

Look at the graph - - the term “skyrocketing” works to describe the sudden rise in spending.

But, alas, it’s skyrocketing like a Saturn V moon-booster.

[Red Badger]

2007, the DEMS took control of Congress...........................

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[vanilla swirl]

How could a rational human being suggest we could tax ourselves out of this mess?
oh, nevermind...............

[Elendur]

good point. i think a chart including 2010-11 would be much more depressing...

also, i doubt the graph adjusts for inflation, or QE2.
i think average income is actually going down, if those are properly accounted for.

[FReepaholic]

Notice the ramp-up began in the mid-70's. Nixon took us off the gold standard and the Fed cranked up their printing presses:

Nixon Shock

[Elendur]

the next chart on the same website, accounts for inflation.

http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/federal-spending-inflation
http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/total-government-spending

the Welfare spending chart is also shocking.
from 50 billion for Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964,
to 890 billion now:
http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/welfare-spending

[Nervous Tick]

Ping.

This is graphical evidence for why pegging federal spending to a “reagan benchmark” is not such a good idea.

FRegards

[Owen]

I don’t want to get configured here as being in defense of this. We were talking about the pros and cons of debt vs none at all.

The young husband who refuses any and all debt, and loses his job because he can’t buy a car for cash and thereby can’t go to work and grow his position/pay, or earn it at all for that matter . . . blah blah.

Again I don’t want to get cast in the role of defender of this stuff. It’s fair to note that start of all this bought the elimination of the greatest threat to American sovereignty, or outright physical existence, that ever existed — the Soviets. It bought a lot more, and much of it of doubtful value, but it did buy some admirable things.

Also, we have had oil driven population growth. Clearly a government that serves a growing population has to grow itself.

My unified field theory is more in play here than I think anything else. Per Capita oil production is cratering globally. Oil is the lifeblood of civilization and this is not going to change. The physics of alternatives are absurd. With population growth, and the death of old oil fields, the future is not bright no matter what is done fiscally.

[jpsb]

Notice the slope was pretty consistent until George Bush then it took off.

Also notice the income slope is less then inflation so in real terms income is down.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I don’t want to get cast in the role of defender of this stuff.

If by “this stuff” you mean “runaway federal spending”, then don’t worry. I don’t figure you’d hang out at a conservative website for over ten years if you were a big government liberal. :-)

However, you *have* gone on record in discussions with me as theorizing that the correct level of government spending (and debt) should be extrapolated from the spending and debt during the Reagan years, corrected for inflation and population growth.

I’m merely offering evidence that this may not be such a good idea — that the Reagan economy should not be the peg from which you extrapolate. And I agree that he “got” something for what he spent — something big — but after the Soviet Union capitulated, that the peg should have been reset lower. It was not.

Don’t be anxious about your position. It makes enough sense that I have given it a lot of thought. I don’t agree with you but your position is by no means ridiculous. It falls into the “reasonable minds may disagree” territory, I think.

FRegards

[FromTheSidelines]

also, i doubt the graph adjusts for inflation, or QE2.

Yes and no... It adjusts for the official Government inflation rate, so it doesn't reflect the real impact of quantitative easing (which is underreported with the Government's artificially low inflation rate).

[Owen]

Yeah, understood.

I picked Reagan era only because I thought that would be in a hard core right wing comfort zone. It was almost arbitrary.

I think my overall point is more along the lines of “government spending has to grow” — because population does, than defending any levels or slopes.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Tunehead54]

4 l8r ;-)