It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government

LadyJazzer wrote: Here are Reagan's numbers:

Cherry picked by liars using figures. Tell us LJ, why only the first 3 years? Why don't "Reagan's numbers" include what happened after 1983? We know the answer to the question, don't we. If the liar who compiled that chart had used figures for his entire presidency the results would be quite different than what the liar who compiled that chart is attempting to tell you they are, that's why only the first 3 years are used.

Perhaps numbers from the first 3 years of Reagan are used to correspond to the first 3 years of Obama. It makes no sense to compare 8 years of one president to 3 years of another. We can do the comparison again after Obama's 8 years.

posteryoyo wrote: I am curious, since you have the data, what if we compare Reagan's 1985 budget of 2+ trillion (2011). Sources I found had the 1985 US expenditures at 1.5 billion which is over 3 billion today so then we are at 3.86/3 = just under a 30% increase.

What would be cool would be to fill out this table:...oh I did.

Year budget in 2011 dollars
1982 2.75 trillion
1983 2.87 trillion
1984 2.90 trillion
1985 3.12 trillion
1986 3.21 trillion
1987 3.29 trillion
1988 3.36 trillion
1989 3.49 trillion

I'm thinking your numbers are a bit off here yoyo. When I use the CPI Inflation calculator ( http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ) and punch in the numbers, what I come up with is federal spending in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion in inflation adjusted dollars for 1989.

The GDP of the US was $5.4851 Trillion in 1989 ($10.01 Trillion in 2011 dollars) and the federal spending was 20.86% of GDP for that year or $1.144 Trillion ($2.089 Trillion in 2011 dollars) That would make the $3.86 Trillion (and climbing) Obama Budget 3.86/2.089 or 185% of what the highest Reagan budget was in inflation adjusted dollars. As far as where I am getting my figures, they can be found here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/dow ... =c&local=s

If you want to express it in terms of GDP, the only metric by which an apples to apples comparison can actually be made, Obama's federal government spent 23.75% of GDP in 2010 compared to Reagan's 20.86% of GDP in 1989 - a nearly 14% of GDP increase by Obama over Reagan. The federal government today spends 14% more, 14 more out of every 100 dollars the economy generates, than it did during the Reagan years; years that the left was decrying as out of control spending I might add. I, myself, would be quite happy with a return to the levels of the FDR era - roughly 11% of GDP at the height of his "New Deal" spending spree. Of course, most of the money for that spending spree came from his stealing the wealth of the common citizen by confiscating their gold at roughly $20/ounce and then declaring the value of gold to be $35/ounce once it was in the federal coffers, but why dredge that up when we don't have to.

As a side note, I wish to point out the significant devaluation of the dollar over the last 30 years as shown by these figures as the basis for our currency has been shifted from specie to debt instruments. Gold was $35/ounce from the day FDR revalued the seized wealth of the citizens of the States right up until Congress granted President Nixon the authority to suspend repayment of the federal debt with federal gold reserves. From 1933 to 1971 the growth in GDP was a true increase in the wealth of the citizens of the States. From 1971 onward the growth in GDP represents a growth in the amount of debt that exists within the union since the value of our currency is tied not to specie, but to the declared value of various debt instruments such as home mortgages and government debt notes.

archer wrote: Perhaps numbers from the first 3 years of Reagan are used to correspond to the first 3 years of Obama. It makes no sense to compare 8 years of one president to 3 years of another. We can do the comparison again after Obama's 8 years.

Why then are 4 years of Carter used compared to 3 for Reagan? That's the whole point archer - the liar is using figures to try and convince you reality is something different from what it actually is.

pssst - LJ

Your source is a few steps removed from reality (a common conundrum in Washington, DC).

The Congressional record is not a peer-reviewed (i.e. objective) source of information.

The CR is merely a transcript of official gatherings of our big-mouth red tie cult. (politicians)

Let's imagine Mr. Frank said "purple is the best color"

---

it get printed exactly how he said it.

It doesn't make it true or accurate.

I'm unaware of any reputible statistical source that would calculate a percentage change in a percent change of an indexed metric.

(percentage change of the percent change of the real GDP) (which depends on nominal GDP and an estimated deflator).

Thank You Printsmith for your truthful observations.

I think most of us could see the lies here- yoyo assumes that the 400% increase in federal spending since 1985 is all due to inflation.

Anyone who thinks this government has not grown out of control is a lyer- to themselves and to the rest of us. Remember- Reagan did not like the size of government in his day- he thought it was out of control then and needed major reform- now the size is 400% larger- and few people give a damn.

They will search the world over for excuses for why our economy just can't get going and is stalling out or in recession- unable to create jobs for Americans- and bury their heads in the sand with regards to the massive overhead our economy must overcome by paying government in the form of regulations, restrictions and taxes that didn't even exist back in 1985.

Smaller government will result in a more prosperous America fo all of us.

Smaller government will result in a more prosperous America fo all of us.


After we dust ourselves off from the impending recession.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Smaller government will result in a more prosperous America fo all of us.


After we dust ourselves off from the impending recession.

True- I will not deny that there will be pain. The same kind of pain that a baby goes through when it's weened away from mommies teat.

The same kind of pain that a teenage girl goes through when dady tells her she can't have everything she wants for free!

And please don't tell LJ she will want to distribute our hard earned prosperity to those less likely to work for it.

This government is like a girlfriend who has a habit of buying $600 shoes with my credit card- the breakup will be ugly, but the faster I get rid of her the better off I am in the end!