Federal spending as a share of GDP hasn’t fluctuated all that much over the past 40 years. Your claims are fantasy. And when they aren’t handed the worst financial crisis since WWII, Democrats preside over consistently lower budget deficits. Their principle is simple: don’t be deadbeat Republican.
That’s primarily due to GOP resistance. There’s a big chunk of the Democratic Party, led by Paul Krugman, who would like to see more European levels of federal spending.
Bullshit. Budget deficits exploded under unified Republican control. It’s true that Democrats tend to favor textbook economics, which involves higher governmental spending in the face of the worst financial crisis since WWII.
And a health care plan which will increase spending as a % of GDP, plus Warren and some other progressives want to increase Social Security benefits, using the very pay-for that was supposed to save Social Security at current benefit levels.
Citing deficits is moving the goalposts. We’re not talking about deficits, we’re talking about increasing DC’s share of the economy over time. It’s a nice racket. While the rest of the country was hurting, DC was growing pretty rich.
Adaher has a habit of making unsubstantiated assertions. Here are the facts. Here are Federal outlays over time as a share of gdp. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/hist01z2.xls
1977 20.2
1978 20.1
1979 19.6
1980 21.1
1981 21.6
1982 22.5
1983 22.8
1984 21.5
1985 22.2
1986 21.8
1987 21.0
1988 20.6
1989 20.5
1990 21.2
1991 21.7
1992 21.5
1993 20.7
1994 20.3
1995 20.0
1996 19.6
1997 18.9
1998 18.5
1999 17.9
2000 17.6
2001 17.6
2002 18.5
2003 19.1
2004 19.0
2005 19.2
2006 19.4
2007 19.0
2008 20.2
2009 24.4
2010 23.4
2011 23.4
2012 22.0
2013 20.8
2014 estimate 21.1
2015 estimate 21.4
2016 estimate 21.4
2017 estimate 21.1
2018 estimate 20.9
2019 estimate 21.3
The Reagan/Bush era boosted spending from the 20% area to the 21-22% range. Clinton dropped it to 17.6%. Unified Republican control and pointless wars increased it back to 20.2%. Then we had the Great Recession and automatic increases in food stamp spending, etc. But by 2013 we were back to 20.8%. Health care reform will put us back in the 21% range - below Reagan’s peak of 22.8%.
Adaher reports feelings, not facts.
What I reported is that Democrats want to increase the federal share of spending. The president has been asking for $200 billion more than the Republicans have given him for the last three years. Love that 2013 number, 20.8%. Good chance we’ll get that back under 20% in 2014.
The Democrats have never left “tax and spend” behind. The Clinton years were an aberration, not the norm, and the party decisively rejected Clintonism in 2008 in favor of massively increasing spending.
Besides, I made that comment in regards to Liz Warren’s view of the “social contract”. Do you dispute that Liz Warren wants to massively increase the size and reach of the federal government? or at least that the vast majority of her supporters love her because they expect that this is her view? Otherwise, what makes her special?
BTW, that’s twice that you’ve refuted a claim I didn’t make, Mr. Factual.
Massively increase the size and reach of the federal government is a nonsense phrase.
Particular policies, talk about those, not ideological gibberish that sounds good to the uninformed.
She wants to spend more money. She wants to regulate more. She wants to raise taxes. A lot. That would be “massively increasing the size and reach of the federal government”.
Or, “tax and spend”, if you will. It is so good to be able to bring that effective old attack back from the dead. Clinton made it hard for us to use that line, but now that Obama is President and liberals are all whoozy over Liz Warren, it’s back in style.
Specifics, if you don’t mind.
How much is a lot? How much is massively? How much is more money?
The nice thing about snappy lines, is they don’t have to comport with reality for you to use them.
Such as the snappy line, “What I favor is a net spending cut.” Remember that one? We’re still waiting, although thanks to GOP intransigence he may be forced to keep that promise yet.
But I’ll humor you. Why do you like Liz Warren? I’m sure it’s not because she’s a small government conservative, or even because she’s a mainstream liberal. Snappy slogans may not be 100% accurate, but they are accurate enough. The “tax and spend” attack hurt Democrats badly because that’s exactly what they did from 1933 until 1980, and resumed doing in 2009 and 2010. Objecting to snappy slogans is simply a way of trying to hide from the truth by focusing on minutiae and details. Try to muddy the waters.
So let’s be clear about her Social Security plan: it would increase taxes a very great deal, also increase spending a great deal, and do nothing to shore up Social Security’s finances. She’d have to go back for another tax increase in a decade or two to make her plan work. Classic tax and spend.
You know how we should get back under 20%? By returning our economy to full productivity. There’s plenty of people out there in need of work, and plenty of work that needs doing.
I can tell you the reason why the two haven’t been put together in three simple letters: G-O-P.
We could all be richer than we are, and avoid wasting a huge chunk of so many lives, but the GOP doesn’t want to do anything to get our economy back on track, because they want people to blame Obama for it.
No, you didn’t pay for your 1982, 1984, 1986, 1996, or the 2001 tax cuts. Those tax cuts were put on credit. It’s time to pay the piper. And why shouldn’t you pay? I don’t know if you’ve noticed but your roads are crumbling and your education system is so underfunded that you have to privatize it. You haven’t raised the gas tax since 1986. The responsible thing to do is to increase gas taxes, reverse unpaid for tax cuts, and use that money to fix your roads, improve your ailing primary education system, and, most importantly, pay down the debt*.
- Honesty
- By the way, did you know George Washington was against the accumulation of peacetime debt? Just thought I’d share.
There are many good reasons to support more taxes. Problem is, the government has proven again and again that they won’t use the tax money for what was promised, or that the extra spending will be effective.
How many states have approved lotteries on the condition that it would improve education? How many states have seen improved education outcomes?
Spending has risen faster than the level of inflation consistently over the decades. Why are our roads in disrepair? The government has been constantly seeing its income increase while Americans’ incomes remain stagnant.
How many states have used lottery money to actually increase the total amount spent on education instead of as a replacement for other revenue? Florida damn sure isn’t one of them.
True. States routinely put tax increases on the ballot, promising to use the money for this or that, but almost always reneging on that promise. Voters have caught on, which is why a recent California tax increase “for the children” failed.
In a rare piece of good legislation from a terrible legislature, Tennessee is now using lottery revenues to provide free community college tuition for any high school graduate in the state. (Sorry, not Warren related, but I don’t get the opportunity to say nice things about TN politics very often).
That would be a completely different discussion from a state lottery.
25-30% of the federal government? More like 20-22%, with the high end being during Republican administrations such as Reagan, setting aside financial crises. “Just” another 2-3%? More like closer to 1%. Your characterization was piss poor- as shown by the data presented.
Try harder.