Posted on 11/11/2012 8:12:16 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Yes, the federal government is growing, as measured by its outlays of money. However, if one compares these to the size of the overall economy, the increases are less dramatic than many claim.
Total federal outlays during the first three fiscal years of the Obama administration averaged 24 percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, which measures the value of all final goods and services produced in our economy. That was an all-time high.
But 30 years ago, during the first three fiscal years of the Reagan administration, they averaged 22.5 percent. Whether an increase of 1.5 percentage points over three decades really represents out-of-control growth of government is a subjective question readers must decide for themselves, but it doesn't particularly alarm me...
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Let the skyfall
When it crumbles
We will stand tall
Face it all together
At skyfall
At skyfall
Nothing to see here. Just move on and go about your business. Everything will be fine.
So as Reagan first implemented his policies and the economy was still terrible with high unemployment low growth terrible interest rates and malaise.
The question is where it was in the 25 years between 1983 and 2007. That’s when we had a prosperous society.
C,pare the economic numbers in Reagan’s 4th year and Obama’s 4th year and you see the difference.
Well, in that case there is no ‘fiscal cliff’ and Boehner can wear the balls he seems to use when he talks to the GOP during his meetings with the rats.
Gross: US fiscal cliff deeper than advertised. Its a Grand Canyon. Washington will defer entitlement cuts & raise revenues only marginally.— PIMCO (@PIMCO) November 11, 2012
The problem with government dweebs who purport to be Kenysians, is they never finished the book where it said after an economy responded to stimulus, you need to pay down the debt—so you could do it again. Instead, when the revenues soared in the past, we just spent it.
Stupid fools.
Greece just didn’t do it correctly. /s
This article is a veritable dart board. Remember when the main benefit of federal employment was "the benefits," and they were "sacrificing income?" Look again.
What Ed neglects to tell you is Reagan’s increases were for a defense buildup that eventually led to the peace dividends of reduced defense spending in later years. And defense spending can be controlled so that it does not grow like topsy. Obama’s were for increasing social spending and introducing new social programs that are uncontrollable and only result in snowballing spending.Obama’s spending has planted the seeds of systemic destruction. Reagan’s did not. And even then Obama still outspent Reagan as a percent of GDP.
On top of the totally out of control federal government, there are the out of control state and local governments as well. When I moved to California, our sales tax was about 3%. Today it's almost 10%.
But, hey! Do I worry? Nah, because our Overlords are the best and brightest and they know how I should live my life better than I do.
That's because our "best and brightest" are much better and brighter than their best and brightest.
Naw, I agree, nothing to worry about.
What those number really tell us is the government got in the business of contracting out it’s labor force. The ratio of people paid by the government verses the private sector is meaningless without looking at the dollars spent.
Whistling past the graveyard in Communist MN.
Heh. Ed Lotterman, shill for Obamugabe.
Okay, Ed, things are just freakin’ peachy, ain’t they?
Reagan’s government grew, IIRC, by an increase in our weakened national defense (thank you Jimmy Carter). Obamugabe’s growth is coming by an increase in the welfare state.
Ed seems to like comparing apples and oranges.
Maybe the right comparison will be Obama's 6th year to Reagan's 4th year in order to account for the greater severity of the recession Obama inherited.
The only thing to remember is that we’re borrowing money to pay interest and principal on our existing debt.
The author claims two things, that Reagan did it(high spending), and that it(high spending) isn't alarming.
The author is wrong on both counts.
Tip O'Neill and his Democrat Congress were a big part of that 22.5% of GDP spending.
Federal debt as a percentage of GDP 30 years ago was in the low thirties. I believe it's now over 100%..
I would guess that the only thing that would "alarm" the author Ed Lotterman, is a tight collar.
That’s a good point. It would be interesting to see that same number including govt contractors. I work for the govt and in my organization contractors outnumber govt employees by at least 3 to 1. For a given project there’s usually a government lead who calls the shots and then there’s a bunch of contractors under him who do the bulk of the work. It actually works really well and we’ve got a good relationship with our contractors who do excellent work. But there’s no doubt that you’re not seeing the whole picture if you’re only looking at the govt side of things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.