About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm reading a book called: The Atlas of Economic Indicators.

My copyright date on the book is 1991. On page 33, while talking about the "G" (government) in the formula: GNP = C + I + G + (X - M), the book says that total government spending is 17% of GNP, and that spending by the federal government is 42% of that 17% -- which is 7.1% of GNP.

The book says that entitlement spending is 45% of that 7.1% -- which is 3.2% of GNP.

The book says that defense spending is 25% of that 7.1% -- which is 1.8% of GNP.

The book says that discretionary spending is 16% of that 7.1% -- which is 1.1% of GNP.

The book says that spending on interest payments is 14% of that 7.1% -- which is 1.0% of GNP.*

*Of special note is that liberal democrats say that if the federal government "shuts down" then those interest payments -- which were 1% of GNP in 1991 -- will not be able to be paid out.

According to the BEA, our current GDP is $15,018,100,000,000 ($15 Trillion). Now, if we extrapolate numbers from 1991, we would be spending:

1) $1,065,000,000,000 ($1 Trillion) on federal government, overall

2) $480 Billion on entitlements

3) $270 Billion on defense

4) $165 Billion on discretionary spending

5) $150 Billion on interest payments

My question is: What are the actual amounts we are spending on these 5 things?

Another way to put the question is: What has changed, from 1991 to 2011, regarding the relative proportion of GNP/GDP allocated toward our federal government?

Ed

Post 1

Monday, July 18, 2011 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
the book says that total government spending is 17% of GNP
 . . . . .
What has changed, from 1991 to 2011, regarding the relative proportion of GNP/GDP allocated toward our federal government?
Some of the numbers you show look way off. You can see the following numbers here, using the links, or easily calculate them.

                                             1991  2011
                                               $billions 
all govt spending                    2230   6163
   federal                                1324   3819
  state, local                           1060   2881
GDP                                     5800 14508
   
all govt spending/GDP         38.4%  42.5%
federal govt spending/GDP  22.8%  26.3%
federal /all govt spending     59.4%  62.0%

The site doesn't show GNP, which is slightly larger than GDP.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/18, 6:57am)


Post 2

Monday, July 18, 2011 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Thanks for the input.

Maybe the book was using an average of the previous 20 or 30 years (before 1991). There is a complete pie chart in the book with portions that add up to 100%, so if they were wrong on the government portion, then they also have to be wrong on at least one other portion. Consumer spending was tallied at 58% of GNP, instead of the two-thirds of GNP (which the authors said was a common, but wrong, assumption of economists). This, they explained, is because some of the consumer spending is on the purchasing of foreign goods.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, this page (which can be reached with two clicks starting with the page I linked above) shows government spending as a percent of GDP year-by-year since 1950.  The lowest number is 22.38% for 1951. The lowest number is 26.96% after 1960 and 29.78% after 1970.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Merlin.

I was under a sneaking -- break: Is it "sneaking" or "sneaky"? -- I was under a sneaking suspicion that statists were fudging the numbers.

I was listening to NPR and an "expert" said that government spending hasn't grown as a percentage of GDP. If you tell the public that government spending has always been high, then they won't harp you about spending over 40% of GDP on government programs.

This is a tactic used in the Orwell novel, 1984. The public was told that the price of chocolate has never been this low before, and that the economy is doing better than ever. And that there is no reason to suspect a burgeoning Leviathan government is eating up all of the economic incentive to make life better for mankind (so we don't need any more capitalism than we already have).

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/19, 5:53pm)


Post 5

Friday, July 22, 2011 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Taken from Obama's 2012 budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------2010 actual--------- 2011 Est. --------------2012 Est.

Federal government overall (millions)
Entitlements
Soc. Sec. ------------------------------------------755,946 -------------803,511 ---------------817,144
Medicare ------------------------------------------446,000 -------------488,000 ---------------485,000
Medicaid ------------------------------------------273,000 ------------ 276,000 --------------- 269,000
TARP ------------------------------------------- –110,000 ------------ –28,000 ---------------- 13,000
Other mandatory pgms ---------------------------- 644,000 ------------716,000 --------------- 612,000
Total Mandatory pgms -------------------------- 1,954,000 ---------- 2,194,000 ------------- 2,140,000

DOD Overseas Contingency Operations -----------162,265 ------------ 159,082 --------------- 117,585
for Iraq, Afganistan & Pakistan -----------------------5,085 ---------------5,387 ------------------ 8,703
Defense budget overall----------------------------- 666,715 ------------ 739,665 --------------- 707,467

Discretionary spending ------------------------- 1,306 [000]----------- 1,416,000 ------------- 1,340,000

Interest payments ----------------------------------196,000 ------------ 205,000 ----------------240,000

What caught my eye is that, from 2011 to 2012:

--Obama has both Medicare and Medicaid going down, not up.
--Obama has TARP as a "profit" for 2011, but as a "cost" for 2012.
--Obama has Total Mandatory programs going down, not up.
--Obama has "State Department and US Agency for International Development for Iraq, Afganistan & Pakistan" sky-rocketing in 2012.
--Obama has Discretionary spending going down, not up.

Any comments so far?

Ed

p.s. I think I screwed up with 2010 Discretionary spending.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/22, 7:04pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, July 22, 2011 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The most interesting statistic I heard today had to do with cutting spending - now - by 40%, which would pretty much balance the budget in shot - of course, mention of this idea brings howls of protest from both the democrats and republicans as too severe, too radical, extremism. But it would only take us back to the expenditure level of 2007!

Post 7

Friday, July 22, 2011 - 10:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The best related idea coming out of congress that I ever heard was to cap federal spending at 2006 levels. It never got traction.

Ed


Post 8

Friday, July 22, 2011 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It drives me nuts! If we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, then cut spending back to when were spending 60% of today's expense level.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

The entire concept of normalizing government spending to GDP is 'sneaky' politics: GDP includes government spending.

It is also a fundamental political question: does this nation exist to support its government, or is government simply a necessary function, like plumbing, that must be paid for?

Like Rand wrote in passing in 'We The Living:' No matter how much we need plumbing, do we exist for the plumbing? Do we live for the plumbing, and are we ruled by plumbers, just because we say we need plumbing?

Twenty years ago, when I built my home, I had a certain income, and I spent a certain % of that income on plumbing.

As my income grew, I still needed plumbing, but I did not set as a reasonable goal that I should every year spend the same % of my income on much needed plumbing. Yet, I need it just the same.

Of course, if the plumbers had their way, I would pay them the same or even an increasing % of my income for the plumbing. In fact, if I let the plumbers generate economic analysis and also set the yearly amount I spend on much needed plumbing, I am certain that human nature would arrange for them to present me data showing that under their careful running of my household budget, the % of my income devoted to much needed plumbing has remained constant.

Unless, of course, one of these plumbers was a community organizer, in which case he might even throw such arguments totally out the window and just charge my 25% of my income for plumbing after decades of spending a flat 20% of my income on much needed plumbing.

Now imagine what happens when those plumbers have no local competition at all.

JFK = 100B at peak of Cold War.

CPI/Inflation adjust: x 7.5 = 750B

Population adjust: barely x2 = 1500B

On what basis "constant % of GDP?" to justify today's 3800B above and beyond JFK's America at the peak of the Cold War?

By falling for the GDP normalization, government has squeezed an extra 2.3 trillion/year out of this nation.

Using their own GDP scam, an extra 16% of our present GDP above and beyond what simple inflation and population growth would account for. (Not 16% of JFK's America GDP! We can't compare "% of GDP" as a normalizer of government spending across time when GDP itself includes government spending!)

It is political subterfuge, a numbers scam to justify an ever accelerating burden on the population.

It is favored by the plumbers; why do we let them get away with it?

Because 'world class economists' -- like Paul Krugman -- say it is a reasonable thing to do-- from the "The Dept of Political Economy" at Princeton U, for christ sakes, of all places?

That is freedom eating B.S. -- politics waged as pseudo science by politicos with agendas, especially 'world class economists.'

And, the great middle of 'undecideds,' as Steve laments, are woefully ill equipped to stand up to the sophistry foisted by PhD politicos in these over-run choke points of left wing indoctrination.






(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/23, 10:13am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, July 23, 2011 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well said, Fred!

Progressives grease the wheels of their 'progress' with deception - it is their primary political tool. It is omnipresent. We should never forget that every single item they argue for is really about central control. When we forget that, we will be fooled into debating their false arguments. We will be mired in the mud of their altruistic arguments, or greater good arguments, or Krugman-crazy economic arguments, or just plain lies - but in all cases those are just the smokescreen put into place to facilitate a change that increases central control. They are unrelenting like that.

This is the rule of thumb that rarely fails: If a progressive is arguing for it, it is being done to increase central control (or to keep them in power so that they can continue to increase central control).

They may get hard-ons over redistribution of wealth, green things, and so-called 'social justice'.... but when push comes to shove they'll set anything aside to increase central control. It is how they are wired.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd go back even farther than 1991 for an illuminative comparison, and often have and will do it once more below, but will add a telling anecdote that others can easily confirm with their own experiences.

Andrea Mitchell just sneeringly asked, "Why does this nation have a debt ceiling?" She hasn't obviously looked at its historical rate of growth, and the clear signs that it is totally out of control and overwhelming the nation. She needs to be selling Avon somewhere to her family and friends, not commenting on national TV on the economies.

JFKs spending was about 100B, fully half of which was defense, at the peak of the Cold War, in a nation barely half our present size and that AMerica also funded Social Security.

We can CPI/inflation adjust that by x7.5 = 750B.

We can population adjust that by barely x2 = 1500B.

And then we can compare with the present out of all control 3800B of federal spending.

I have a distinct childhood memory of the early 60's. I lived in a high density neighborhood of lower/middle class factory workers. They were called 'row homes' back then, not 'town houses.' Tons of kids in that neighborhood.

One of them, like many of them, had a father who worked at 'the Steel.' (Bethlehem Steel.) He wasn't a skilled worker, he was a janitor. He swept the floors.

He had a wife and two kids, one of them, my friend 'Howie,' a year younger than me. I can distinctly remember being in his house, his kitchen, with his mother and father, on the day that his father first came home with a weekly paycheck in excess of $100. His father was ecstatic. He held the check in one hand, arm out in front of him, with his other arm around his wife's shoulders. She was crying, she was so happy. They were looking at that check as if they'd just won the lottery. He had a good job, he lived in a comfortable, clean house, in a decent neighborhood near a public school, with a playground full of happy kids, and they were providing for their family.

He lived in a nation that, at the peak of the COld War, spent about 100B a year in federal spending, with fully half of that being defense.

Scan ahead to 2011. His federal government, by way of our broken political process, gave itself a factor of 38 increase in spending. The population has barely doubled, but the federal budget has grown by a factor of 38. We can account for a rate of growth to 1500B, but not 3800B.

Ignore the fact that most of that accountable rate of growth is government induced endemic inflation, itself a broadbase regressive tax on the entire nation, including Howie's janitor father.

I want to hear modern day anecdotes of janitors in America, standing in their kitchen with their family, looking at their weekly paycheck for $3800/week with tears in their eyes.

But there are no such stories. In fact, increasingly, that guy doesn't even have a job, much less, a job paying him $100/week, much less, a job paying him $3800/week.

And yet, Howie grew up in an America where he and his would be taxed/borrowed from to pay for a 38 increase in federal bloat.

What happened to his America? The one where that guy had a prayer of providing for his family? Of being as happy as I saw his father being, in that kitchen, with his family(and even, local crumb cruncher)watching him celebrate his huge windfall -- a takehome check in excess of $100/week in the early 60s?

Howie grew up in an America that sent 12 men to the moon ... for 0.002 trillion per year over ten years, adjusted to maybe 0.03 trillion/year in 2011. Howie was inspired by that America.

Point to what our current children are inspired by that this bloated federal government does that justifies the extra 2.3Trillion a year our federal government reidstributes/extracts from the private economy above and beyond what JFK's America did at the height of the Cold War? (3800B vs. 1500B?>)


I asked this very question to my now 23 year old son just a year or so ago, as he was leaving university, and he just stared at me with no answer.

It was a shameful moment for me.

We get the government we tolerate, and we also deserve what we tolerate. I can't apologize to my own son nearly enough for tolerating so much for so long.

3800B vs 1500B: that is the clear difference between the early 60's and 2011. That is what has killed the engines of our once beast building economies.

How long will America tolerate this internal all front attack on not only prosperity, but freedom? They are the same thing.



Post 12

Sunday, July 24, 2011 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to hear modern day anecdotes of janitors in America, standing in their kitchen with their family, looking at their weekly paycheck for $3800/week with tears in their eyes.

But there are no such stories. In fact, increasingly, that guy doesn't even have a job, much less, a job paying him $100/week, much less, a job paying him $3800/week.
What an excellent way to put it, Fred!

Ed


Post 13

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This describes the gimmicks being used - the reality is that it is clearly a spending issue:

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2011/07/14/its-a-spending-problem/

Post 14

Friday, July 29, 2011 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rush Limbaugh said that if we freeze federal spending then the CBO would score that as a $9.5 T cut (over 10 years). Another way to say this is that we are projected not just to continue spending what we do now, but an extra $9.5 T on top of what we already spend now. It is a changing baseline ("moving goalposts").

If you are projected to increase your spending by $9.5 T over 10 years, then cuts of a couple trillion here and there are essentially meaningless. They are not cuts in the literal sense of the term.

Ed

Post 15

Friday, July 29, 2011 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From Kurt's link:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2011/07/federal-spending-percent-2-300x221.gif

Graph showing that revenue has been about 18% of GDP for the last 60 years, while spending has gone up by 50% (from 14-18% of GDP in the early 1950s to 24-25% of GDP today).

Ed



Post 16

Friday, July 29, 2011 - 7:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rush Limbaugh said that if we freeze federal spending then the CBO would score that as a $9.5 T cut (over 10 years). Another way to say this is that we are projected not just to continue spending what we do now, but an extra $9.5 T on top of what we already spend now. It is a changing baseline ("moving goalposts").

If you are projected to increase your spending by $9.5 T over 10 years, then cuts of a couple trillion here and there are essentially meaningless. They are not cuts in the literal sense of the term.
I believe the correct amount is about $9.0 trillion using the numbers here. Regardless, his claim is ambiguous. What he apparently means is that spending over the 2011 amount summed for each of the next 10 years is $9.0 trillion. Equivalently, sum spending over the next 10 years and subtract 10 times 2011 spending. It is not that spending in 2021 is $9.0 trillion higher than spending in 2011; it is about $2 trillion higher per the same source.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/29, 7:20am)


Post 17

Friday, July 29, 2011 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is not that spending in 2021 is $9.0 trillion higher than spending in 2011; it is about $2 trillion higher per the same source.


Yes. But that does mean that the debt is $9.0 trillion higher. And that a $6.0 trillion cut over those ten years would still mean the debt went up from $14.39 trillion to $17.39 trillion.

On Stossel's show last night he listed a series of immediate spending cuts that could be made that took us to an immediate surplus if implemented for the next near. Those combined with minor changes in Social Security and Medicare and the increased revenues from the resulting economic expansion would actually let the country pay off the debt in a reasonable time.

Of course you have to be willing to cut entire departments, like the dept. of education, of commerce, etc.
---------------

My understanding, and I might be wrong, is that when the CBO scores proposed legislation they do have a "moving goal post" type of budget - that they set each year's budget at a fixed percent increase over the previous years - 7% was the number I heard. This is the amount spent (total of all checks printed, in effect), irrespective of whether it was funded by deficit spending or not.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/29, 10:46am)


Post 18

Friday, July 29, 2011 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes. But that does mean that the debt is $9.0 trillion higher.
True, approximately. Per the link in post 16 the amount is a little less than $8 trillion due to small surpluses at Social Security and the post office.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, August 2, 2011 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Rush Limbaugh said that if we freeze federal spending then the CBO would score that as a $9.5 T cut (over 10 years). Another way to say this is that we are projected not just to continue spending what we do now, but an extra $9.5 T on top of what we already spend now. It is a changing baseline ("moving goalposts").

If you are projected to increase your spending by $9.5 T over 10 years, then cuts of a couple trillion here and there are essentially meaningless. They are not cuts in the literal sense of the term.


That's amazing, isn't it? It is like watching crack addicts plan their own rehab.

Paul Ryan also had an apt analogy for the current charade, something like:

1] Let's pass legislation to cover the moon with 2 feet of yogurt, costing tens of trillions of dollars.

2] Let's cancel the program, and then claim that we have cut trillions of dollars.

The baseline for the next ten years is starting out with Obama having jacked federal spending to record levels.

Here are some more bogus cuts:

1] We won't be waging the Spanish American war in the next ten years: score that as a cut.

2] We won't be waging WWI in the next ten years: score that as a cut.

3] We won't be waging WWII in the next ten years: score that as a cut.

4] We won't be waging the Korean conflict over the next ten years: score that as a cut.

5] We won't be waging the Vietnam conflict over the next ten years: score that as a cut.

6] We won't be waging Gulf War I over the next ten years: score that as a cut.

7] We won't be waging Gulf War II over the next ten years: score that as a cut.

8] We won't be in Afghanistan over the next ten years, even if we are: score that as a cut.

9] We won't be supporting bombing missions in Libya over the next ten years, even if we are: score that as a cut.

Out of 3.8 trillion in 'continuing resolution' spending, 2.1 trillion of that is entitlements. We've become a dark, fearful nation, craving our free government bandaids, even if it hoses over our kids.


What-did-our-grandparents-do-with-their-end-of-life-decisions?

Did they sign up to be a cash-cow, to be ridden like a cash producing pony by a system only too glad to throw up its hands and shuffle the barely breathing carcasses from procedure to medicare rehab mill, all the while funding Taj Mahal medical centers with hundreds of Mercedes in the parking lot?

All in the name of another 6 months of the most miserable stage of anyone's existence, to face the unavoidable and inevitable far from home, when, even with a written advanced medical directive, all they really want is morphine and dignity in their bed, at home?

Is that what our grandparents did?

Our tribe has lost its collective mind. Because whatever our middle class grandparents generation did, they did it having worked their entire lives with only a 2% payroll tax, not 15% payroll tax on their earnings. Uh-oh.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.