01-26-2017, 10:07 PM
(01-26-2017, 09:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-23-2017, 06:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-23-2017, 03:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-22-2017, 10:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-22-2017, 04:37 AM)Galen Wrote: ... The real problem with the tax cuts is there is no corresponding reduction in spending which is a problem both major parties have.
While there hasn't been a reduction in spending in absolute terms, any increase in spending pretty much stopped in its tracks after the Republicans took control of the House in 2010. That allowed spending to decline as a percentage of GDP from 25% to 22% in the six years since. Granted that's still way too high.
There is a correlation between spending restraint and Republican control of the House. There isn't any visible correlation with control of the Senate or the Presidency.
Nice selective reading there. The outlays rose to their high against GDP when the GDP dropped in the Great Recession. Here's a chart:
Your chart proves my second statement, about the decline as a percent of GDP. But there's still the first half of my statement, about how it stopped growing in absolute terms independent of GDP:
It's not me that is reading selectively here. I'm just addressing both ways in which people might want to look at it.
Government outlays always rise to offset at least some of the general economic decline during a recession. Some of it is automatic, like unemployment insurance, and some is legislated. Add to that, the decline in revenue due to lower incomes and reduced economic activity, and you get huge deficits. That's a feature of proper government, not a bug.
While automatic spending increases were a small part of it, the main driver of the increased deficits was ill considered pork barrel spending initiatives that delayed the recovery for years by displacing more productive private sector spending.