2012: Govt spending now porportionately lower than in some Reagan years.

You should not be so righteous and condescending when you are careless with your facts and assumptions.

First, about 42% of the US population is working. Of these workers not all of them are producing something!

Now here's something YOU can learn to rationalize; out of the 314 million Americans, how many are retired? How many are in jail? How many are under the age of 18-21 years? How many are sick or disabled? Etc. etc. etc. and you'll eventually come to a similar conclusion that 'less than 1/2 of Americans actually produce something'. Ludicrous...you say??

If you think I'm wrong about a ratio of government spending and GDP then PLEASE answer this question; If GDP were to drop 10%, do you believe government spending would also drop 10%?

 

Touche', I stupidly used unemployment numbers when I should have been using civilian work force data. Which is about 155,063,000, that's nearly 50% (49.7% based on current population numbers) based on BLS data.

So people go to work, get paid and do nothing in the time they're there?

Umm... maybe? It really depends, the converse is true though, if government spending falls 10% we'd expect a proportional drop in GDP ceteris paribus

 

I said 'people are not producing something'. Do you think the elevator driver is 'producing something'?

If GDP drops 10% do you believe government spending will drop 10%? A yes or no answer works great. My answer is unequivocally NO which again means government spending as a percentage of GDP is not a relevant ratio to consider for anything other than stupid talk.

Government = people = per capita metrics...

 

I expect our conservative friends to avoid this thread like the plague.

 

While you were being so righteous, you either ignore or forgot to look at Iriemon's numbers?? 2012 spending of 22.7% is only less spending than Reagan's in 1982 and 1983. 22.7% is more spending than 1981, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988.

22.7% is MORE spending than 21.7%, 22.4%, 22.2%, 21.2% and 20.9%...as a percentage...oops...

 

Add to that, I believe when Reagan took over, the deficit was something like 6% of GDP and under 3% when he left. Amazing what private enterprise can accomplish when allowed. From a small business perspective Reagan is the only one to even try to slow the growth of regulations. For many of us that was more important than the tax situation. Didn't work out that way, the entrenched bureaucracy seems impervious to change, but at least he tried.

 

Don't know if it's true but Obama now wants to appoint a Business Czar?! We already have a Dept. of Labor, and a Dept. of Commerce, so why another czar of which we have something like 38 of them. In fact Obama has TWO climate change czars and Obama won't even mention climate change??

I don't agree comparing government spending or debt, etc. to the GDP. GDP is created mostly by the private economy while government serves people...therefore use per capita metrics. For example, no quantity of GDP can justify debt spending as long as the taxation cannot cover government spending. If GDP increases yet taxation does not then what's the relationship?

I'm a business, a farmer, but I don't have too many problems with government. I see on 60 Minutes and other news stories how many businesses are worried about Obamacare and how this effects business decisions...how can there possibly be confusion or unknowns? Every business owner should have been told by Obama precisely how Obamacare will effect their business...where is this transparent communication? It is unconscionable to me that government creates a law which creates so much consternation and confusion?? But I think this exemplifies Obama, his adversarial relationships, and arrogance about government no matter the private economy and it's citizenry...

 

He provides a service that other enjoy, he produces utility, just like the concierge or the street musician. Production doesn't have to be widgets.

It's an impossible question to answer with a yes or a no. I could, or it could not. Look at the equation; you simply cannot draw those types of conclusions.

You can't back that up with anything other than speculation.

 

You're just being stubborn now...you fully know that if GDP dropped by 10% that government spending will not decrease...in fact it probably will increase as it goes into hyper-welfare mode.

Maybe you might check 2008 and 2009 when there was negative GDP growth, then check to see what the government spending did? Spending increased!!

Once again, federal spending as a ratio to GDP, is basically meaningless...

 

Nope, I can't know this and you can't know this. We can make assumptions based on past performance, but it's nothing more than that... an assumption.

Ok. So what? You've shown a correlation, not causation.

Since it's a proportion of GDP, it's anything but meaningless. This statement is no different than saying that consumption or investment as a proportion of GDP is meaningless.

 

You can go ahead down your path of believing there is a meaningful correlation between GDP and government spending...I will take a different path.

In 2008 and 2009 the 'causation' was government welfare on steroids. I suggest that every dip in the GDP of some amount, 5%-10%, that government welfare/spending will increase proportionately.

Conversely, if GDP was to increase 10%, why should government spending increase 10%? As before, but in this case, a stronger GDP implies less government welfare, less intervention, etc...

 

So you choose ignorance? Ok... that's always an option I suppose. It is however a statement of objective factor that government spending is (by definition and identity) a component of GDP.

It's possible and it's the remedy that Keynesian types recommend to offset decreased demand.

It doesn't need to and there's no reason it has to. GDP is just a measure of output, nothing more, it certainly doesn't imply anything of the things you're trying to suggest.

 

not for those like Romney, his taxes actually went down

 

You are correct in bold above...I choose to stop ignorant dialogue with you...

 

The only ignorance was you rejecting a very simple mathematical relationship because it wasn't convenient for your argument.