Federal Spending in Handy Graphic Format

**Lemur** · 10-18-2006, 22:40

Check out the link, Pape, if you're interested. Some of their graphs are indexed for inflation. They're not trying to pull a fast one -- quite the opposite.

**Papewaio** · 10-18-2006, 22:55

I should have read the Y column on the graph... it is adjusted.

Anyhow I was surprised to see that corporate taxes are quite high at 35%.

**Xiahou** · 10-19-2006, 01:18

To the "conservatives in the Backroom: Isn't having the state control a large swath of spending, I don't know, bad?

Gee, let me think about that one.......

Yep, it's bad.
Got a graph for non-defense spending?

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Anyhow I was surprised to see that corporate taxes are quite high at 35%.

I agree- our corporate taxes are quite high and probably should be lowered somewhat. Don't try telling that to the "Bush only gives tax-cuts to the rich" crowd.

**Tribesman** · 10-19-2006, 01:26

Yep, it's bad.
Got a graph for non-defense spending?

Does it make you happy that your government is wasting truckloads or your money playing silly buggers in a sandpit for no return ?

**Lemur** · 10-19-2006, 02:30

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Got a graph for non-defense spending?

Your wish is my command. Don't know if it's going to make you happy, though ...

**Xiahou** · 10-19-2006, 03:37

Originally Posted by Lemur

Your wish is my command. Don't know if it's going to make you happy, though ...

Well, it's not that it'll make me happier- it's that I think it's a more accurate picture. Like it or not, we are in a war with 130,000 soldiers deployed in Iraq and thousands more in Afghanistan. Supporting these troops is going to take a substantial amount of spending.

However, I'm perfectly willing to call out our Congress on their discretionary spending excesses as well as with their creation of new, expensive entitlements and their total inability and unwillingness to deal with the balooning costs of existing entitlements.

**IRONxMortlock** · 10-19-2006, 04:20

So govt. spending is $22,000/household in total but without defense spending factored in it's $4,000/hh?

That means defence spending is $18,000/household in the US? More than 4 times what is spent on all other things? Am I reading that right?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-19-2006, 15:51

Originally Posted by Lemur

Your wish is my command. Don't know if it's going to make you happy, though ...

Nice statistic to play with.

If we assume the usual lag in administration budgetary impact (e.g. elected 1920, other chap's election year budget 1921, new admin's in 1922), then this graph clearly demonstrates that the worst offender was:

James Earl Carter! "I'd lahk tuh be your Prezedit."

A (sadly not-too-surprisingly) close second:

George W. Bush! "My drug program's bigger than yours, see!"

...now, how in the name of all that is GOP did George lay claim to the Reagan mantle? Oh yeah, McCain managed to unite all the religious conservatives against him during the primaries and Bush...threw money around like a drunken sailor (theme here anyone?). But even that wouldn't have been quite enough to get Georgie in if William Jefferson had kept his genetic calling card off the blue dress. History hinges on small things at times.

All 3 stretches where the Executive and Legislature were controlled by one party feature increased spending....regardless of party.

Tribes':

Will you chill out already. If there is a person left in the org -- including the juniors -- who has not already heard you griping about Iraq, I would be more than a little surprised. To summarize:

You think Iraq was a mistake from the start, doomed to fail, and that the USA could pour resources and material into the situation from now until I am a great grandfather (oldest is 11) and the result would still be a civil war with Iran claiming more influence and power. According to you we have no hope and are idiots for continuing.

I assure you that your own version of Carthago Delenda Est has been heard. Now, will you kindly stop adding a jibe along these lines to every political discussion thread that connects to the USA? I assure you that we all will take your repeatedly expressed view as a "given" underlying all of your subsequent posts.

**drone** · 10-19-2006, 16:03

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

All 3 stretches where the Executive and Legislature were controlled by one party feature increased spending....regardless of party.

And this is why you want gridlock. To get anything done, both sides need to be civil, and it keeps the outrageousness down to a minimum. Giving one party the keys to the gun safe AND the liquor cabinet is never a good thing.

**Lemur** · 10-19-2006, 17:00

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Tribes':

Will you chill out already. If there is a person left in the org -- including the juniors -- who has not already heard you griping about Iraq, I would be more than a little surprised.

If we are going to ask Tribes to lay off the Iraq theme, it's only fair to ask DA to lay off the Everything Evil Is From Liberals theme. Quid pro quo for our extremists.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-19-2006, 17:34

Originally Posted by Lemur

If we are going to ask Tribes to lay off the Iraq theme, it's only fair to ask DA to lay off the Everything Evil Is From Liberals theme. Quid pro quo for our extremists.

Feel free to ask him, you're right as to the parity thing. I suspect both of them will accede to the requests in exactly the same degree.