That other chart is outdated.
.
.
Republicans Sell Us Out --Again. Why Do We Need Them?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Which one?That other chart is outdated.
Ah, and therein lies the Keynesian crux - as a percent of GDP. Try looking at total spending dollars. When you make the statement "Obama has been a low discretionary spender by historical standards" that implies total dollars, not as a percent of GDP. Plus, the government can change the GDP calc any time they want (and they do sometimes), making the comparison worthless unless previous years are recalculated.
You have to take into account the size of the population and economy (and world security situation). If a perfectly virtuous government was only spending what we all agree it should be spending, we would rightly expect the expenditures to rise as we grow.
The one above yours.
Says who? You? So you think as we grow in size, the percent should remain constant for all expenditures? That's what I mean - Keynesian economics will use every trick in the book to justify spending more.
Our current conversation (you and I) started with you saying "Obama's tax increases and spending cuts?" I asked what spending cuts you referred to, and your resulting reply is a chart of discretionary spending (only) as a % of GDP.
As usual, you can count on Spike's exceptional contribution to the topic.
Yeah, that chart is completely outdated. It's missing a whole 12-24 months out of the last 55 or so years.
That is correct, since Obama is not responsible for non-discretionary expenditures. His tax increases and low spending during this recession indicate he's not very Keynesian at all (remembering the stimulus). So your "yeah, it's worked so well so far" jibe is nonsense.
Everyone who doesn't think one should evaluate their income based on today's cost of living, please say "aye".
We evaluate our income based on total dollars. Cost of living lets us know how well we're doing in terms of paying the bills, but if someone continues to spend more as their income increases (as a percentage of their income) they are still spending more. Only in your weird world would someone who spends less as a percentage of their income next year, but still spends more in absolute dollars be "cutting spending".
Additionally, if Obama had his way, he would have spent a lot more than he was allowed to get away with.
all I know is the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea in very good times, totally anti Keynsean