Posted: 9/4/2012 5:00:33 PM EDT
|
I view myself as a fiscal conservative, but I am still trying to learn a lot about how our Government was DESIGNED to operate, how it DOES operate, and what checks and balances there are in regards to federal spending. If you can help me understand it I would greatly appreciate it.
I always heard 'Reganomics' were a great period during our history. I currently hear that while Obama has been in office, we have added more to our National Debt than in any other Presidential term. I started looking around and found several graphs like this: 
39 Jimmy Carter 1977- 1981 40 Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989 41 George H.W. Bush 1989 - 1993 42 Bill Clinton 1993 - 2001 43 George W. Bush 2001 -2009 44 Barack Obama 2009 - So the basics to a balanced budget would be spending an amount that is close to what you take in as taxes....right? I'm just talking about this point. Not accruing debt faster than we can pay it off. It seems like after Jimmy Carter left office, and Regan took over office, the bar graph starts going up at a faster rate (if you look at it as a set of stairs, there are taller steps between each year during Regan than the years prior). Then Bush 1 takes over and the steps get bigger, Clinton takes over and they are tiny steps, Bush 2 takes over and they are HUGE, Obama takes over and they are even larger steps than Bush! I understand that it must be hard to balance the budget of such a large 'machine' that is America, but the system is clearly broken if we have over-spent by this much. Jesus, with all the Microsoft excel spreadsheets, and computing power that has resulted in the past 20 years you would THINK that our country would be like...."whoa, dude, we like has no more monies left, we should figure this out". But no, we just keep spending money we don't have as a country. I MEAN 
/rant off ETA by request: Nat Debt as a % of GDP 
AND SPENDING % to GDP 
NOTES: |
|
This thread won't end well. Depending on which of the Reagan cultists replies first, they'll either blame it all on the Democrats, or praise him for "outspending the Soviets" as if that's actually something to be proud of. The simple truth is deficit spending is great. At first. You really can kick start an economy when you spend money you don't have like there's no tomorrow. Like any binge behavior, it will eventually catch up with you, and the longer you wait to treat your addiction, the worse the withdrawal is going to be. |
|
Well, you see the problem all started after WWII when the gov't decided they could spend more than they take in during peace time. Now that the locks on the treasury box were off BOTH parties went on spending sprees it just took awhile for them to realize NOBODY was going to stop them for spending like drunken sailors. The Reps spent monies fighting communists abroad while the Dems spent monies installing communism at home. The party will continue until the math catches up with reality. Then.......  ..... .....  ..... |
|
True...
So Cold War spending during Regan, in my eyes, quite legitimate in that uncertain time. I also am assuming Iraq/Afganistan put a huge bill on our plate. from 2001-now, although Vietnam didn't have such a huge bump. Does anybody have a reliable website that makes interpreting the current budget & spending possible? |
|
The most important check on FedGov spending was the prohibition on direct taxation which was not apportioned. This effectively prevented the FedGov from putting its hand directly in the citizens' pockets and plucking out money.
This "obstacle' was eliminated during the "Progressive Era". It's not a coincidence that the FedGov has grown continuously since that time. |
|
Quoted:
Well, you see the problem all started after WWII when the gov't decided they could spend more than they take in during peace time. There was no war going on from 1933 to 1941. The FedGov spent more than it took in during each of those years. FDR called it the "New Deal". |
|
Quoted: A more telling graph may be the ratio of deficit spending to GDP as a percentage. A raw numbers comparison of the total economies of 1945 and 2008 is going to look very dramatic but mean very little. I agree. Think of it this way. Lets you have 5,000 in debt. If you are in 1970 and making 7,000 a year, you have a pretty big hole to dig out of. If its 2012, and you are making 35,000, its not as bad. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Well, you see the problem all started after WWII when the gov't decided they could spend more than they take in during peace time. There was no war going on from 1933 to 1941. The FedGov spent more than it took in during each of those years. FDR called it the "New Deal". At least there was the pretense that the gov't was controlling spending before WWII. |
|
Serious question:
How much gov spending is good to direct money back into the workforce that makes the weapons, builds the machines that build the machines to keep people working, etc? And how much of that directed money is siphoned off by some fatcat sitting behind a desk that owns/is owned by a politician? It's not always the spending that bothers me. In some cases, that keeps jobs......but who's getting the money? |