StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

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.

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).

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.

Total:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Meanwhile revenue shows a completely different picture:

that is because the economy is (was) growing!

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Snip"

I told you he was a douche.

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!

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

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.

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

[snip]

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.

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

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."