If you count state and local spending as well, it was climbing steadily through the 50's, 60's, and 70's, shot up during the 80's, declined from 1992-2000, then shot up again from 2001-2008 and has basically held steady since 2009.

 

If you just count the federal spending, it shoots up during recessions, then declines during expansions. In 2000 it was at the same level as it was in 1968.

 

Total government spending is now at 40% of GDP. The last time it was over 40% was WWII. During the Clinton recession and 9/11 period of 2001 it was 33.33% During the double dip of Bush it was 37.04%. During Carter's stagflation recession of 1980-81 it was in the same 33-34% range. During the oil crisis recession in the 70's it was right about 30%. The late 40's/the 50's/early 60's were spent entirely under 30%, except for 1 year.

 

In other words, multi-generationally high, and still not working.

It's turned into a rock and a hard place situation. I also think administrators make too much and would help cut the fat. But teachers need to be compensated for their service to the community. And if they aren't good at what they do, which is teach, not raise, kids...they need to be let go. Pretty simple.

I think that most people would agree with the words you wrote there. The problems are what each person thinks is fair compensation. When I was a kid the teachers were thought of being paid less but that they had good retirement plans, summers off and so on. Now they make more than the average person in many places AND have a better retirement plan, and when they ask for more, it infuriates many people. Hence the difference in opinion as to what is fair compensation. When it comes to getting rid of bad teachers, the unions would pay lip service to that ideal, but in reality would fight every firing tooth and nail if they can. They would also fight any attempt to pay good teachers more. On one hand I can understand it, as it is hard to evaluate a good teacher strictly on performances. If a kid doesn't want to learn, they are not gonna learn. But the unions would fight any kind of performance measure and instead want to base pay on seniority and education levels. You don't need a masters to teach second grade. Or drivers ed.

Total government spending is now at 40% of GDP. The last time it was over 40% was WWII. During the Clinton recession and 9/11 period of 2001 it was 33.33% During the double dip of Bush it was 37.04%. During Carter's stagflation recession of 1980-81 it was in the same 33-34% range. During the oil crisis recession in the 70's it was right about 30%. The late 40's/the 50's/early 60's were spent entirely under 30%, except for 1 year.

 

In other words, multi-generationally high, and still not working.

So, there has been no time since the 1960's when the economy was "Working"?

 

Otherwise, what definition of "Working" could you be possibly using?

 

Because otherwise, you've pretty well demonstrated that total government spending as a share of GDP really doesn't have much to do with anything in terms of economic performance, other than the basic "Federal spending goes up as a share of GDP when a recession starts because of unemployment benefits, health care for newly unemployed, and the actual shrinking of the GDP".

So, there has been no time since the 1960's when the economy was "Working"?

 

Otherwise, what definition of "Working" could you be possibly using?

 

Because otherwise, you've pretty well demonstrated that total government spending as a share of GDP really doesn't have much to do with anything in terms of economic performance, other than the basic "Federal spending goes up as a share of GDP when a recession starts because of unemployment benefits, health care for newly unemployed, and the actual shrinking of the GDP".

 

Of course that is what you got out of it.

Of course that is what you got out of it.

Do you want me to go the other way?

 

Getting out of the great depression required expansion of government spending from 20% of GDP to >50% of GDP and maintaining that enormous level of spending for 3 years.

 

Our response to a financial industry explosion of similar intensity, with $8 trillion in wealth eliminated in the housing bubble, has been to increase spending at the government level from 35% of GDP to 40% of GDP.

 

Which is, of course, why I keep saying that we need to be spending a lot more. It took an enormous boost of spending to get out of the 1929 wall street collapse, a small boost of spending got us out of freefall, but wasn't enough to drag the rest of the way out.

Do you want me to go the other way?

 

Getting out of the great depression required expansion of government spending from 20% of GDP to >50% of GDP and maintaining that enormous level of spending for 3 years.

 

Our response to a financial industry explosion of similar intensity, with $8 trillion in wealth eliminated in the housing bubble, has been to increase spending at the government level from 35% of GDP to 40% of GDP.

 

Which is, of course, why I keep saying that we need to be spending a lot more. It took an enormous boost of spending to get out of the 1929 wall street collapse, a small boost of spending got us out of freefall, but wasn't enough to drag the rest of the way out.

 

You didn't really look at the numbers, because according to you the levels of government spending were working before they were cut back in the mid to late 30's. The numbers really don't show that.

 

The government spending levels never got over 22% of GDP during the entire Great Depression. Spending never went over 30% until the late years of WWII. The amazing thing is that the levels went from over 50% (1945) to under 25% (1947) in two years. The late 40's was full of recession and depression, right? Because that is what happens when you drastically cut government spending...

Good thing teachers unions don't carry guns.....

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/31/poli...-while-bullying

You didn't really look at the numbers, because according to you the levels of government spending were working before they were cut back in the mid to late 30's. The numbers really don't show that.

 

The government spending levels never got over 22% of GDP during the entire Great Depression. Spending never went over 30% until the late years of WWII. The amazing thing is that the levels went from over 50% (1945) to under 25% (1947) in two years. The late 40's was full of recession and depression, right? Because that is what happens when you drastically cut government spending...

If we boost government spending to 70% of GDP for the next 3 years, I'll be interested to see what happens when we decrease back to 35%. Deal?

Good thing teachers unions don't carry guns.....

 

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/31/poli...-while-bullying

s***ty abuse of power

If we boost government spending to 70% of GDP for the next 3 years, I'll be interested to see what happens when we decrease back to 35%. Deal?

 

So what are we talking about, $5 trillion dollar deficits? Sounds like a win-win economic policy to me.

So what are we talking about, $5 trillion dollar deficits? Sounds like a win-win economic policy to me.

Now that's what we mean by stimulus!

And 'conservative' FOX news can't stop talking about how much they have loved this convention and all the speeches so far. this coverage is terrible.

Edited September 5, 201213 yr by mr_genius

And 'conservative' FOX news can't stop talking about how much they have loved this convention and all the speeches so far. this coverage is terrible.

do you seriously disagree that FOX News has a conservative bias?

do you seriously disagree that FOX News has a conservative bias?

 

They have a liberal bias

They have a liberal bias

yeah i'm not biting.

I wish the republicans would actually spend time focusing on issues that matter, instead of constantly talk about stupid s*** that the hardcore ultra conservative wacko's want to here. It irritates the hell out of me.

 

Come on...figure it out you morons, those guys are still going to vote republican. Irregardless if you aren't a complete ultra conservative yourself. Stupid morons.

I wish the republicans would actually spend time focusing on issues that matter, instead of constantly talk about stupid s*** that the hardcore ultra conservative wacko's want to here. It irritates the hell out of me.

 

Come on...figure it out you morons, those guys are still going to vote republican. Irregardless if you aren't a complete ultra conservative yourself. Stupid morons.

you called people stupid while using the "word" irregardless.

 

you called people stupid while using the "word" irregardless.

 

 

Well done.

you called people stupid while using the "word" irregardless.

 

 

 

Aaaaaand you're banned.

Aaaaaand you're banned.

i know... i was scared as i was about to click send.

I wish the republicans would actually spend time focusing on issues that matter, instead of constantly talk about stupid s*** that the hardcore ultra conservative wacko's want to here. It irritates the hell out of me.

 

Come on...figure it out you morons, those guys are still going to vote republican. Irregardless if you aren't a complete ultra conservative yourself. Stupid morons.

 

Those guys might stay home if they don't like the candidate. Or at least they won't be donating money and organizing even if they still cast the vote.

Those guys might stay home if they don't like the candidate. Or at least they won't be donating money and organizing even if they still cast the vote.

They hate Obama so much that we know that isn't the case. The hardcore people vote. They don't stay home.

They hate Obama so much that we know that isn't the case. The hardcore people vote. They don't stay home.

 

Well like I said, they'll vote, but if they see another terrible RINO candidate who will sell them down the river, they're not exactly going to enthusiastically campaign for him.

“DOING THE RIGHT THING” — BY STOPPING SOMEONE FROM VOTING DEMOCRAT:

 

Bonnie Pollak, a Republican, weighed her options. Should she be loyal to her spouse, respect his legal right and mail the ballot? Or remain faithful to her deeply held beliefs and suppress his vote?

 

“It was a real dilemma,” says Ms. Pollak, 58 years old, a student in a doctoral program who lives in Manhattan. “I decided to do the right thing.”

 

Ms. Pollak threw the ballot away.

 

 

Friends don't let friends, or spouses, vote Democrat.

Did you just endorse voter fraud?