Rank and Rate the Presidents

[Guardsman Bass]

In order to establish an American hegemony in the Pacific, TR presided over the tail-end of the slaughter of more than half a million Filipinos who had been under the illusion that after the Spanish-American War they would be free to set up an independent republic under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo.

Yes, the tail-end, meaning that most of it occurred under McKinley's watch (Roosevelt didn't become President until September 1901). He didn't immediately rush to grant Filipino independence, but that just makes him a man of his times in US politics, not exceptionally murderous or thuggish.

Although TR was often reckless and always domineering in politics, he never showed much real courage, and despite some trust-busting, he never took on the great ring of corruption that ruled and rules in this republic.

There were also a number of reform acts (like the Food and Drug Act) that he promoted, so while he wasn't exactly enlightened on foreign policy (although the Panama Canal was a net positive in spite of the shady way they dealt with Colombia in getting the territory), he did make some positive pushes in the domestic arena (and he became more favorable towards trust-busting as time progressed, culminating in his anti-trust rhetoric in the 1912 election).

This is all rather pointless, anyways, since TR isn't usually praised for his foreign policy actions (aside from the Panama Canal), but for his domestic efforts.

[D.Turtle]

Laws including budgets are written and passed by the legislative branch (Congress), not the President; the influence of the executive branch is lesser (some veto capabilities).

For instance, the House was under a Democratic majority during all of your graph except for after the 1994 mid-terms until 2006 (a 12 year period of a Republican majority, including most of the part credited to Clinton on your graph).

That is theoretically correct. Practically, looking at the President is more accurate. However, to get the real perspective, you have to look at who voted for (and passed) the various reforms/budgets implemented under that specific president. The following image summarizes that quite well:

So, basically, the Republicans (with massive support from Democrats) passed the Reagan reforms, Democrats alone passed the Clinton Reforms, Republicans (with some help from Democrats) passed the Bush Reforms.

A more accurate statement:

With spending accelerating a little slower than usual, while with strong economic times for revenues, deficits were low from the mid 1990s through 2001, even a surplus during the latter part of that period. Then, by 2002 or rather especially 2003, the Republicans (who were in control of Congress since the 1994 mid-terms until 2006) lost their fiscal discipline, no longer having an opposite-party president to differentiate themselves fighting against, greatly raising spending again with the start of the Iraq War, etc.

Your own image shows your interpretation to be wrong: The problem after 2000/2001 was not a massive increase in spending, but rather a massive decrease in revenue, mostly because of various tax cuts.

Total:

What are the various colors representing? I'm guessing Spe-f is federal spending, Spe-s is state spending, Spe-l is local spending? What is Spe-x?

[Thanas]

This is all rather pointless, anyways, since TR isn't usually praised for his foreign policy actions (aside from the Panama Canal), but for his domestic efforts.

Are you sure about that? When I was in the USA, people used to remember him more for his big stick policy and the Great White Fleet than with any domestic program. Unlike, say, FDR.

[Guardsman Bass]

This is all rather pointless, anyways, since TR isn't usually praised for his foreign policy actions (aside from the Panama Canal), but for his domestic efforts.

Are you sure about that? When I was in the USA, people used to remember him more for his big stick policy and the Great White Fleet than with any domestic program. Unlike, say, FDR.

I remember hearing about the "Big Stick" in Middle School, but the bulk of what we learned about him in my high school course centered around the domestic issues he dealt with, plus the whole Panama Canal process.

[Tritonic]

The following image summarizes that quite well:

You're neglecting the rest of the picture, with a graph showing only part of 4 selectively-chosen years and not the general spending bills over the twenty year period. I'll add more on that a bit later.

So, basically, the Republicans (with massive support from Democrats) passed the Reagan reforms, Democrats alone passed the Clinton Reforms, Republicans (with some help from Democrats) passed the Bush Reforms.

"Democrats alone passed the Clinton[-era] reforms"? Not living here, I suppose it isn't surprising you have utterly not the slightest idea what happened soon after the 1994 mid-term elections.

Here's part of it: United States federal government shutdown of 1995

The Republicans at the time were the ones refusing to increase spending as fast as Clinton wanted. (As previously pointed out, they some years later lost their fiscal discipline, but, at that time, they were slowing growth in spending, reducing the deficit).

Your own image shows your interpretation to be wrong: The problem after 2000/2001 was not a massive increase in spending, but rather a massive decrease in revenue, mostly because of various tax cuts.

No, the massive increase in spending can be seen on the graph. But let's show it more specifically:

In 2001, federal spending (separate from and not including the rest of the government, state & local) was $1.863 trillion, less than $1.991 trillion federal revenues at the time.

In 2005, federal revenues were higher at $2.154 trillion. However, federal spending was vastly, vastly higher at $2.472 trillion.

Federal spending increased 32.7% over those 4 years. (If adjusted both for inflation and for population growth as a rough guide, it increased 15%, still a massive rate of spending increase when it occurred over merely four years).

Even during the relative low point of federal revenues in 2003, they were almost as much (99.6% as much before considering inflation, a bit less after) as federal spending was in 2000, yet spending was 20.7% greater in 2003 than in 2000, leading to a $380 billion deficit that was exceptionally large for the time (though nothing compared to the deficits of more recent history).

Of course, the massive increase in spending aspect only gets more blatant later on. For 2010, federal spending is about $3.7 trillion, while revenues are $2.2 trillion, leading to the corresponding deficit.*

In short, federal revenues have been hovering around $2 trillion these past few years, while meanwhile spending has gone from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to be $2.5 trillion in 2005, then $3.7 trillion in 2010. Even if such were then adjusted for inflation like in the earlier 2001-2005 example, the conclusion is rather apparent.

That is what one calls a massive increase in spending.

I'm guessing Spe-f is federal spending, Spe-s is state spending, Spe-l is local spending? What is Spe-x?

That part is correct. Spe-x is transfer to state and local governments (from federal, as opposed to federal direct spending).

* (Minor note: The link used for such as the historical 2000-2005 data is accurate there, but, with it being a publication compiled in 2008, I intentionally switched to another source as linked above for the more recent data).

[D.Turtle]

I have to run, so I'll only make a short post, I can go into more detail later.

The important part is not who passes the annual budget. The important pat is who passes major reforms. And thats what the graphic I posted is about: Who passed the large reforms (Tax cuts for Reagan and Bush, stimulus bills for Clinton and Obama).

For the spending/revenue part: Of course spending and revenue go up - that is because the economy is (was) growing! The important part to look at is spending and revenue compared to GDP.


Looking at this graph, you will note that spending between 2000 and 2007 barely went up from about 18% to 20% of GDP. Meanwhile revenue shows a completely different picture:


THAT is what I am talking about when I say that spending wasn't the problem, revenue was.

[Tritonic]

The important part to look at is spending and revenue compared to GDP

Even your own graph illustrates federal spending going from 18% of GDP to 25+% of GDP from 1999 through recently, and meanwhile total government spending went from 32.65% in 1999 to 44.48% in 2010.

However, looking at spending as a percentage of GDP is somewhat misleading, effectively understating the real increase in spending.

GDP (expenditure method) is C + I + G aside from net exports/imports, where C is consumption, I investment, and G government spending. When government spending goes up vastly from unrestrained extra deficit spending, GDP due to the way it is calculated goes up, making the percentage of government spending as % of the total not increase as much as it would otherwise.

Meanwhile revenue shows a completely different picture:

The non-government portion of GDP decreased from 67.4% in 1999 to become 55.5% in 2010, becoming only 82% as much in GDP terms as it was before. Thus, in percentage of GDP terms, the private economy available for taxation to fund the government has relatively decreased:



The private portion of the economy being 0.82 of its prior fraction of total GDP over 1999-->2010 is precisely because of the massive government spending increase. In that context, of course tax revenues decreased when expressed as a percentage of GDP, even though in other terms they've hovered around $2 trillion. (There was also the crash of the stock bubble that peaked in the year 2000, the recession, etc).

that is because the economy is (was) growing!

Actually there has been little increase in the private economy or in non-government GDP in constant-year dollar terms over the past decade, with recent GDP "growth" coming from increasing government spending largely financed by deficit spending.

In the year 1999, there was $8.04 trillion GDP aside from government spending, in current year 2010 dollars (since such was $6.30 trillion but each $1 back then was worth $1.28 in today's terms, due to the difference with inflation).

In the year 2010, there is $8.119 trillion GDP aside from government spending.

Relative to the size of the private economy (which has thus stayed around $8 trillion in today's dollars for the past decade, not grown much), the federal government's tax revenues of $2.2 trillion now are relatively comparable to the $1.828 trillion revenues it had back then, even if the latter figure is adjusted for inflation to be $2.3 trillion. The difference between the stock bubble of the time (raising profits and thus tax revenues too) and the later recession also keeps the figure now from being higher.

However, in sharp contrast is the rise in government spending which has gone from from $3.05 trillion in 1999 to $6.505 trillion in 2010. Even if considered in constant-year dollars, that becomes $3.9 trillion versus $6.5 trillion. The latter is the primary reason we have a $1.6 trillion federal deficit this year (not counting other levels of government), and, like someone maxing out their credit cards for a short-term boost in income at the expense of long-term debts, recent "growth" in GDP is in large part merely an illusion, much of it an artifact of the way GDP is technically calculated.

[D.Turtle]

It is complete and utter bullshit using the figures for 2010 as somehow indicative of a long-term trend.

Looking at the graphs, it is abso-fucking-lutely clear that something happened in 2008-2010 that completely changed the situation before that.

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what happened at that time.

However, it is clear, that up to 2008, there was no strong increase in government spending. Looking at your graphs of total government spending, it increased from a low point of about 32.5% in 2000, increased to about 35% by 2002, and stayed at that level through 2007, only increasing massively after that.

Revenue meanwhile, saw a MASSIVE drop from 2001 to 2002 from about 37% of GDP to a measly 31%. It slowly increased to 37% by 2007. After that it rapidly dropped to about 32.5% of GDP.

So again, looking at the situation from 2000 to 2007, the deficit accumulated during that time was due to dropping revenue, not rising spending.

Of course, if you only look at the endpoints, the situation looks different - but I'll leave it up to you to figure out why government spending might have increased in 2008-2010 while government revenue dropped at the same time.

[EDIT]The percentages cited here are different from the ones in the graphs I posted earlier, because they reflect total government spending, while the graphs I posted only reflected federal spending.

[Simon_Jester]

This is all rather pointless, anyways, since TR isn't usually praised for his foreign policy actions (aside from the Panama Canal), but for his domestic efforts.

Are you sure about that? When I was in the USA, people used to remember him more for his big stick policy and the Great White Fleet than with any domestic program. Unlike, say, FDR.

I remember hearing about the "Big Stick" in Middle School, but the bulk of what we learned about him in my high school course centered around the domestic issues he dealt with, plus the whole Panama Canal process.

I think it depends on context. Thinking back to high school, if I weren't unusually historically literate for my country, I might very well remember TR for the Rough Riders, the Great White Fleet, and so on... instead of remembering his time as a police chief and the "Square Deal" too.

TR's legacy is fairly well balanced between foreign and domestic affairs, so you get people remembering both sides of it. Since battleships and cavalry charges tend to attract more attention than antitrust legislation, the foreign affairs are liable to dominate.

[Tritonic]

So again, looking at the situation from 2000 to 2007, the deficit accumulated during that time was due to dropping revenue, not rising spending.

No, not even during your 2000-2007 period example.

During 2000:
$3.706 trillion government revenues, which were 55% as much as the $6.712 trillion non-government GDP in dollars of the time
--> in constant-year-2007 dollars (1.19x multiplier for inflation):
$4.41 trillion government revenues, which were 55% as much as the $7.99 trillion non-government GDP in 2007-dollars

During 2007:
$5.24 trillion government revenues, which were 57% as much as the $9.15 trillion non-government GDP

That trend in revenues can be compared to government spending, which meanwhile went from $3.24 trillion in 2000 (in dollars of the time) to be $4.92 trillion, going from being 48% as much as non-government GDP in 2000 to being 54% as much as non-government GDP in 2007.

My figures (unlike yours, which not coincidentally lacked references, some untrue) are able to be backed up with references:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php

(Of course, now the figure for government spending in 2010 is actually 80% as much as non-government GDP, in today's dollars $6.505 trillion versus $8.119 trillion, but it was substantially increasing even before then, while the increase is further continued in the 2011 federal budget of $3.8 trillion which corresponds to around $6.9 trillion total government spending in the coming year, etc).

[D.Turtle]

Um, I didn't include additional references, as they were from the same source as the figures I had already mentioned - the exact same sites you just mentioned, so again here are the important graphs:

Total Government Spending:


Total Government Revenue:


Total Federal Spending:


Total Federal Revenue:


And since you still aren't getting it, I'll add a graph showing both spending and revenue (using the numbers provided by those same sites):


If revenue (both federal and total) had stayed at the level of GDP it was in 1999 and 2000, there would have been a surplus all the way through 2008.

It is only with 2009 and 2010 that spending rose massively.

Oh and you can take your accusations of lying and fraud and stick em where the sun don't shine, asshole.

[Einzige]

I love how far backwards Tritonic is willing to bend to give the Republicans a pass on their lack of fiscal discipline. I also love the utterly facetious way in which he pretends this began sometime after the 2002 election. Um hello, Tritonic? Have you never heard the words 'Star Wars' used outside the context of science-fiction?

It all comes down to the basic fact that conservatives don't really give fuck-all about Federal spending, as long as it's on projects or programmes they approve of. You can't be taxed enough to build a missile defense system, but social programmes are a no-go. They're liars and hypocrites and frauds to the last man.

[Tritonic]

Um, I didn't include additional references, as they were from the same source as the figures I had already mentioned - the exact same sites you just mentioned, so again here are the important graphs:

Total Government Spending:


Total Government Revenue:

By showing revenue as a percentage of GDP, when GDP itself is being changed (technically increased, due to the way it is calculated) by the deficit spending, revenue is made to look like it decreased. But such can be looked at in different terms:





Those two graphs combined become:

If revenue (both federal and total) had stayed at the level of GDP it was in 1999 and 2000, there would have been a surplus all the way through 2008.

The very increase in government spending from 1999 to 2008, a factor of 1.75x before considering inflation and 1.37x after considering inflation, changed GDP as previously described.

In that context, when you expect revenue to stay the same percentage of GDP, you're (wrongly) expecting taxation of a 62.9% private (non-government-GDP) economy in 2008 to give the same revenue in such %-of-GDP terms as as taxation of the 67.4% private (non-government-GDP) economy of 1999.

And that's part of the particular issue now, with a remaining private (non-government-GDP) economy which is in 2010 now only 55.5% of GDP. You'd go cheerleading for more and more taxation, expecting revenues to stay the same percent of GDP even as spending increases, but the relative portion of the economy to tax declines as a percentage of GDP, making that not possible ad infinitum.

[Einzige]

Aren't you the moron who thought it was a good idea to spend tens of billions on nuclear-powered greenhouses?

[D.Turtle]

The very increase in government spending from 1999 to 2008, a factor of 1.75x before considering inflation and 1.37x after considering inflation, changed GDP as previously described.

In that context, when you expect revenue to stay the same percentage of GDP, you're (wrongly) expecting taxation of a 62.9% private (non-government-GDP) economy in 2008 to give the same revenue in such %-of-GDP terms as as taxation of the 67.4% private (non-government-GDP) economy of 1999.

Except that the economy also grew. What is important is how much government spending (and revenue) increased in comparison to the economy as a whole - and thats where the comparison to GDP comes in. From 2000 - 2002 government spending slightly increased as a percentage of the economy. From 2002-2007 government spending stayed the same as a percentage of the economy. in 2009 and 2010 government spending massively increased as a percentage of the the economy.

And that's part of the particular issue now, with a remaining private (non-government-GDP) economy which is in 2010 now only 55.5% of GDP. You'd go cheerleading for more and more taxation, expecting revenues to stay the same percent of GDP even as spending increases, but the relative portion of the economy to tax declines as a percentage of GDP, making that not possible ad infinitum.

The numbers for 2009 and 2010 are of course terrible - what with the economy being in a huge recession and the government trying to prop it up through stimulus spending. This however does NOT make a long term trend in increasing government as a percentage of the economy.

Looking at the long-term trend (federal spending):

After WW2 federal government spending very slowly increased as a percentage of the economy until about 1980 - following that, government spending stayed flat or even decreased - as a percentage of the economy.

The same holds true for total government spending (though to a lesser degree):

Again, slow (but higher than federal spending only) increase until about the mid-1980's, and staying flat after that - as a percentage of the economy.

The idea that government spending should stay flat (after correcting for inflation) as a pure dollar amount is frankly so utterly and ludicrously stupid that I'll do you a favor and ignore it.

What I have shown quite clearly, is that the problem the US has or had, was not a ruinous increase in spending, but rather an utterly idiotic and deliberate decrease in revenue. What I would do is repeal the bullshit tax give-aways to the ultra-rich Bush and the Republicans (with some help from "moderate" Democrats) pushed through. What I would do is make sure that my revenues are the same (or higher) than my spending. Since spending stayed steady, it would have simply required keeping my revenue steady as well. Now it would of course require an increase of revenue back to historic levels (about 3% of GDP higher for the federal government):


And as always, using the figures for 2010 is simply and completely wrong for any long-term comparison as the US is currently in a situation almost as drastic as the Great Depression.

[Tritonic]

Again, slow (but higher than federal spending only) increase until about the mid-1980's, and staying flat after that - as a percentage of the economy.

Your graph is a long term trend of increasing government spending (even in your %-of-total-GDP terms which understate it due to the reason previously described). To add an approximate overall trend line:



There was a temporary break in the general trend during the late 1990s, but that was under a combination of factors which are questionable at most to occur again (at the time a Republican congress, motivated to disagree with the President due to him being opposite-party, temporarily displaying strong opposition to the usual rate of spending increase, combined with a particularly strong economic period then). Around 2000 was good from the stock bubble of the time.

What I have shown quite clearly, is that the problem the US has or had, was not a ruinous increase in spending, but rather an utterly idiotic and deliberate decrease in revenue. What I would do is repeal the bullshit tax give-aways to the ultra-rich Bush and the Republicans (with some help from "moderate" Democrats) pushed through. What I would do is make sure that my revenues are the same (or higher) than my spending. Since spending stayed steady, it would have simply required keeping my revenue steady as well.

As pointed out before, adjusted for inflation (in 2010-year dollars), there was $8.04 trillion non-government-GDP in 1999 versus $8.119 trillion non-government-GDP in 2010, but, while revenue has gone from being 54% to 59% of those figures over that time period, government spending has gone from being 50% to 80.1% as much as the private economy. Thus your plan would involve around or upwards of 1/3rd higher total overall taxation than now. Such is even neglecting how Congress would realistically go on a spending spree soon after receiving more money, until back in a large deficit, as that's the way they operate.

And as always, using the figures for 2010 is simply and completely wrong for any long-term comparison as the US is currently in a situation almost as drastic as the Great Depression.

Projected government spending in 2011 is higher than now in 2010 ($6.9 trillion versus today's $6.5 trillion), such as with the federal $3.8 trillion planned budget for the coming year having been announced several months ago back in February. If you seriously think it is going to drastically drop in 2012 (or 2015 for that matter), you're naive. This is approximately the new standard. Like the earlier graph illustrates, the last time there was a really huge cutback in government spending once it rose to a new level was immediately following WWII, under circumstances much different from now. Outside of "growth" in technical calculations of total GDP from government deficit spending, private-sector GDP has been almost flat for the whole past decade, as previously described (actually a bit less now than back in 1999 if adjusted to be per capita as well as for inflation), and don't count on the private sector growing enough in the next decade to compensate for such.

[Temujin]

I would say Teddy Roosevelt hardly fits into a "mean of mediocrity." No real "colossal fuckups" really spring to mind either.

"Snip"

I told you he was a douche.

While I knew TR was a bit of douche, I had no idea he was that much of douche.

That certainly revised my overall opinion of him.

[D.Turtle]

First of all, all your links are useless, since they only point to the generic site, not to whatever you want to show with them.

Secondly, it is disingenuous to use the total government spending graph when talking about a unique situation at the federal level. If a unique federal situation existed, then it should be reflected in the federal spending. Looking at that graph, it is clear there was a slow trend of increasing federal spending up until the 1980s at which point this trend was stopped and even reversed. This only changed with the current Great Recession.

Secondly, your stupid comparison of non-government GDP with government spending is completely, well, stupid, because those same numbers are reflected in the GDP numbers and in the government spending as a percentage of GDP number. The only difference is that your way at looking at the numbers massively inflates the changes that occurred.

As a simple thought exercise, lets take a non-government GDP of $50 with government spending of $25, for a total GDP of $75. My way of looking at it would say government spending is 33.3% of GDP. Your way of looking at it would say that government spending is 50% of non-government GDP.

Lets say that non-government GDP rose to $60, while government spending rose to $40. My way of looking at it would say that government spending rose to 40% of GDP, while your way of looking at it would say that government spending rose to 66.6% of non-government spending.

They both reflect the same thing. Its just that as government spending gets closer to 50% of GDP your way of looking at it massively inflates the change that happened.

Thirdly, you constantly (despite my pointing it out) continue to use the numbers from 2010 to show a general trend. You CAN NOT use them for such a thing BECAUSE OF THE BIG FUCKING RECESSION THAT OCCURRED! To make that clear, I took the GDP numbers from the World Bank (in constant 2000 US$), subtracted from it the total gov spending as a percentage of GDP provided by the usgovernmentspending site in order to have the total non-gov GDP which you are constantly harping on about:

Wow, would you look at that - non-governmental GDP increased!

[Tritonic]

Thirdly, you constantly (despite my pointing it out) continue to use the numbers from 2010 to show a general trend. You CAN NOT use them for such a thing BECAUSE OF THE BIG FUCKING RECESSION THAT OCCURRED!

Even for your Great Depression analogy, when government spending went up to a new level at the time (going from about 12% of GDP to 20% of GDP then), it never went back down below that approximate level again (until later rising), as illustrated in my prior post's graph. Likewise, when it has gone up to about 45% of GDP, of course that's been influenced by the recession, but none of that changes how the coming year's increased 2011 budget and any reasonable projection of the foreseeable future suggests such is not headed towards dropping back down to the 35% which occurred under relatively non-replicable circumstances a decade ago.

<snip graph>
Wow, would you look at that - non-governmental GDP increased!

Let's show non-government GDP per capita for the past decade up through this year:

First, the data, where the first number after the date is a multiplier to adjust for inflation to convert to 2010 dollars, followed by the non-government GDP in dollars of the time (from going here, scrolling to the table at the bottom, and multiplying the year's GDP figure by the percentage of GDP which isn't government spending), divided by population of the time (mid-year July figures for consistency) to get a per capita figure:

2000: 1.26 * $6711.3 B / 282.2 million people = $29970
2001: 1.23 * $6852.7 B / 285.1 million people = $29560
2002: 1.21 * $6944.1 B / 287.8 million people = $29200
2003: 1.18 * $7211.2 B / 290.3 million people = $29310
2004: 1.15 * $7740.2 B / 293.0 million people = $30380
2005: 1.11 * $8241.5 B / 295.8 million people = $30930
2006: 1.08 * $8701.2 B / 298.6 million people = $31470
2007: 1.05 * $9153.3 B / 301.6 million people = $31870
2008: 1.01 * $9080.8 B / 304.4 million people = $30130
2009: 1.01 * $8167.1 B / 307.0 million people = $26870
2010: 1 * $8119.2 B / 309.6 million people = $26220

The last figure in each row is the non-government GDP/capita in 2010-dollars.

Drop in a spreadsheet for convenience(this), and the result shows how the private portion of the economy had very little growth 2000-2007, then declined during the recession.



In fact:




The above (spreadsheet with references) shows the details including how government spending per capita (inflation-adjusted in 2010-year dollars) went from $14,467 per person in 2000 to be $17,144 per person in 2007, before the rise to $21,010 per person now.

[D.Turtle]

Even for your Great Depression analogy, when government spending went up to a new level at the time (going from about 12% of GDP to 20% of GDP then), it never went back down below that approximate level again (until later rising), as illustrated in my prior post's graph. Likewise, when it has gone up to about 45% of GDP, of course that's been influenced by the recession, but none of that changes how the coming year's increased 2011 budget and any reasonable projection of the foreseeable future suggests such is not headed towards dropping back down to the 35% which occurred under relatively non-replicable circumstances a decade ago.

Wow, you really are an ignorant twit. Maybe you should look at those tiny reforms passed by FDR that might have influenced the fact that government spending. And then you might think about what that spending was for. And then you might think about the fact that not all government spending is bad. In fact, the US is the odd country out in a comparison of first world countries and the amount their government spends. As for why the increased budget is not expected to decrease so quickly again, this is maybe, just maybe, caused by the tiny little fact that it takes a while to recover from a recession - especially one as big as the current one. There still are millions of people who do not have jobs (and won't have jobs in the near-term) thereby causing a double effect of lowering non-governmental GDP - because they aren't working and earning money - and increasing governmental spending - because of unemployment benefits, increased use of Medicaid, etc.

Let's show non-government GDP per capita for the past decade up through this year:

[snip]

You don't get it do you?

THOSE EXACT SAME TRENDS ARE SHOWN BY LOOKING AT GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP!

And what is that trend? Governmental spending - as a percentage of GDP - increased slightly from 2000 to 2001 and stayed flat - as a percentage of GDP - from 2002 to 2007. And if you look at a longer trend, you will see that after growing - as a percentage of GDP - following WW2 up into the 1980s, it has since then been flat or falling - as a percentage of GDP.

This is not changed by changing the way of looking at it.

[Tritonic]

Thirdly, you constantly (despite my pointing it out) continue to use the numbers from 2010 to show a general trend. You CAN NOT use them for such a thing BECAUSE OF THE BIG FUCKING RECESSION THAT OCCURRED!

Even for your Great Depression analogy, when government spending went up to a new level at the time (going from about 12% of GDP to 20% of GDP then), it never went back down below that approximate level again (until later rising), as illustrated in my prior post's graph. Likewise, when it has gone up to about 45% of GDP, of course that's been influenced by the recession, but none of that changes how the coming year's increased 2011 budget and any reasonable projection of the foreseeable future suggests such is not headed towards dropping back down to the 35% which occurred under relatively non-replicable circumstances a decade ago.

Wow, you really are an ignorant twit. Maybe you should look at those tiny reforms passed by FDR that might have influenced the fact that government spending. And then you might think about what that spending was for.

As illustrated, increases in spending tend to be lasting, the point made above, and that's so on most categories, almost anything ranging from new programs, to medicare, to raises in the number of federal employees, etc. (Even if unemployment eventually decreased from 10% to older figures like 6%, that's not enough to eliminate the overall primary picture here).

With the baby boomer generation reaching retirement, interest payments rising on the expanding national debt (even under doubtfully optimistic projections from the administration going to reach a $18+ trillion federal debt within 5 years, compared to $8 trillion back in 2005), it'd be harder for Congress to slow expenditures and spending increase even if they actually attempted such. They aren't seriously attempting such anyway, with rather the majority party mainly cheerleading for faster spending increase, basic dogma. (Ironically, your subsequent tangent on wanting more spending serves as an illustration of that point). Spending has been drastically increased approximately across-the-board in recent years, about everywhere ranging from education to general bureaucracy, not just merely in some programs which might optimistically be reduced in future years like unemployment payments. Such makes your prior objection to my graphs including recent history invalid, as post-2007 figures like the 2008-2011 budgets are relevant to the foreseeable future.

THOSE EXACT SAME TRENDS ARE SHOWN BY LOOKING AT GOVERNMENTAL SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP!

As illustrated by the graph in my prior post, total GDP itself is being artificially raised by deficit spending due to the way it is calculated, affecting percentage-of-total-GDP figures. (As an analogy, if an individual maxed out their credit cards, would you treat all that as extra income in the same category as their salary, thus concluding, for instance, that their living expenses decreased as a percentage of total income?)

That's why I keep insisting on rather looking primarily at non-government GDP, where one gets the particularly relevant changes, watching how government spending changes while the remaining private economy (tax base) changes. Such is important, as opposed to just looking at percentage of total GDP figures. For instance, converted to today's dollars (same references as before including details here), the ratio of government spending per capita to non-government GDP per capita was as follows:

In the year 2000: $14467/person government spending versus $29970/person non-government GDP, a ratio of 48.3%
In the year 2007: $17144/person government spending versus $31870/person non-government GDP, a higher ratio of 53.8%
In the year 2010: $21010/person government spending versus $26220/person non-government GDP, a higher ratio of 80.1%

(The last figure is with the recession but see earlier discussion of future years, and also even the ratios of 2000 versus 2007 shown above can be compared too).

[D.Turtle]

Since this discussion is going nowhere, I will end on this point:

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.

Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.

This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.

Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.

Why the tax bite has eased:

• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.

• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.

A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.

The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."

If the US wants to get back into the black, they will have to increase taxes.