Posted on 05/08/2012 10:22:19 AM PDT by Purrcival
FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration. Spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama. But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Is this a tacit admission that inflation has been running much higher than the official 1-2% ?
GDP is typically considered to be Y=C+I+G+NX. Or GDP= Consumer spending + Investment+ Government Spending + Net Exports. G is typically all spending done by governments that is not wealth redistribution. So even if it uses borrowed or printed money food stamps, welfare, and I'm not sure about unemployment insurance. The problem of course is that these programs are not simply the wealth redistribution economist consider them to be; they run deficits and run up the national debt like other government spending. So if we count those back in as government spending this article's claim is hogwash.
I'm not even sure it makes sense the way they are calculating it. The only way G decreases is if enough states and municipalities have cut spending due to budget problems and decreased tax revenue. I'm dubious these cuts would out weight the increases by the federal government. Does anyone know how much California and other near bankrupt states have actually had to cut back their spending?
Well, he may be TECHNICALLY correct. It all depends on how he is defining “federal government spending”.
Just like the unemployment rate is “only” ~8%. Statistics are all about how you “define” certain things and what data you use, etc.
It’s a lie because they lump all gov’t together. They admit even under Obama federal spending as increased, just at a slower rate.
Unbelievable.
The slight of hand flew right by you. They’re not talking about “federal government spending” (the piece admits that went up, just at a slower rate) they’re talking about the total spending of all levels of gov’t taken together being down.
Hmm.. well my original statement still stands because I’m curious as to what they consider “spending”.
I will admit I did not read the entire article because I can infer as to what the overall point will be.
...../and he created 4² million private sector jobs....and and he is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a load of.......
Enforcement has gone a bit down in my local areas, but sheer regulation increase and encroachment means that the government has a de-facto hand in every freaking private budget out there and control over it.
This article is complete horse crap indeed. The government has lost all cautiousness it was intended to exercise. It can overnight decide to take everything over under any pretext already in the books.
I’ve always been impressed by her opposable thumb, which she is showing off there. I prefer those on a girl.
Thanks for all of the replies. The only reason I posted this is that I’m in a debate with my nephew, who’s a Sophomore in college. He posted a link to this article on Facebook with a snarkey comment like, “And here I though Obama was supposed to have increased the size of government”. He got mad when at my initial response: “BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAA! In what alternate universe does this even BEGIN to be true? When I finish reading (and chuckling over) this article, I’ll be tempted to contact the author and ask him to step outside and tell me what color his sky is and how many suns does he see.” He accused me of making an ad hominem attack. I told him that was my INITIAL response, but it really appeared to irritate him that I was not just swallowing this gem from The New York Times. I gave him one of the links in this thread, and he dismissed it as being from a “right-wing blog”.
Looking for all the ammo you can give me.
Thanks!
And you have to define "smaller".
Have comfort in the fact that in 30 years, he'll be 'splainin' stuff to his nephew....and to "think of me".
First off this is a Forum with input from thousnad s of knowledgeable, motivated conservatives, not a one-person or even a group blog.
That is a huge and substantial difference, and easily nullifies his dismissal.
Generally speaking, government figures such as those deployed by the Communist Times are well known to be easily manipulated and can be made to say anything one wants them to. To be more specific, would require a fairly deep analysis, including the specific source data that generated those self-serving charts.
Sorry, not much red meat there.
Ubama is killing the states. He wants to consolidate all power under him.
Public private partnerships, and ‘contractors’ keep the government large. It also keeps information from the public and the corrupt government agendas under the radar.
All one has to do is follow the links. There probably is a mountain of evidence in his archives.
Simple. Tell him to take an Intermediate Macroeconomics class. He’s a sophomore in college, he should be able top handle it. Once he does, he’ll realize that spending ain’t just spending!
Check out this. Don’t understand it myself but...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110405114641AAlXGRl
Oops wrong thread.
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.