Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What the hell is going on over on the other board? Would someone PM me to explain?

our government doesn't need to reduce?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

There's no need to PM. People decided to open their sock drawers to fuck around because of the return of two former posters.

the onliest reason I did is because notfrommensa was a really cool name and I've never gotten any love from it.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We are a rich country, and yet we spend less on/through our goverment than most other developed countries.

We spend much, much more than any other country. We spend a lower percentage of GDP, but our government GDP-equivalent is greater than the GDP of any country other than Japan or China.

Given the size of our economy and our population, this is as should be. But it is not necessarily evident that it should be as much more as it is.

Also, does that OECD table include state/local budgets, or is it purely federal? Would the ranking change if total government expenditures were included?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

We spend much, much more than any other country. We spend a lower percentage of GDP, but our government GDP-equivalent is greater than the GDP of any country other than Japan or China.

Given the size of our economy and our population, this is as should be. But it is not necessarily evident that it should be as much more as it is.

Also, does that OECD table include state/local budgets, or is it purely federal? Would the ranking change if total government expenditures were included?

Your clarification about amounts and proportions is correct, and what I meant to be saying.

I thought the OECD numbers included state and local spending, but perhaps that's wrong.

eta: That chart shows US government spending as closer to 40% of GDP than 30%. IIRC, federal spending is in the neighborhood of 20%.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Your clarification about amounts and proportions is correct, and what I meant to be saying.

I thought the OECD numbers included state and local spending, but perhaps that's wrong.

eta: That chart shows US government spending as closer to 40% of GDP than 30%. IIRC, federal spending is in the neighborhood of 20%.

translation: I'm moving someplace that uses the metric system.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

We spend much, much more than any other country. We spend a lower percentage of GDP, but our government GDP-equivalent is greater than the GDP of any country other than Japan or China.

Given the size of our economy and our population, this is as should be. But it is not necessarily evident that it should be as much more as it is.

Also, does that OECD table include state/local budgets, or is it purely federal? Would the ranking change if total government expenditures were included?

I did a quick look at the OECD site - I didn't see that chart itself, but you can select specific data, and that chart looks like it includes state/regional government spending as well as central government spending - the percentage for the US came to just over 26% on that metric - about the same place as Korea and below just about everyone else in the OECD but Mexico.

It shouldn't be surprising. Governmental services are quite modest in the US compared to other developed countries.

But it does bear out Ty's point: it is hard to take seriously the screams that the sky is falling because of US government spending when the entire rest of the developed world has government spending that hovers around 50% higher as a percentage of GDP.

Now if someone wants to run some charts based on debt as a percentage of GDP, we can talk about whether the sky is falling because of the debt.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Fantastic! I cite Godwin's Law and here you go and violate it, not more than five posts later.

Sorry, but Glenn Beck has shattered that taboo.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't want to change it. My whole point is that our current level of government spending is entirely sustainable.

I don't agree with this.

OTOH, if we weren't paying the interest on the Reagan, Bush, and Bush debt, then I might agree with it. (Can we cut that item by 10%?)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't agree with this.

OTOH, if we weren't paying the interest on the Reagan, Bush, and Bush debt, then I might agree with it. (Can we cut that item by 10%?)

I think we ought to just disavow the Bush debt.

We can give China the address for Bush's ranch and tell them to collect from him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think we ought to just disavow the Bush debt.

We can give China the address for Bush's ranch and tell them to collect from him.

say what you will about clinton, but the whole "ignoring terrorism growing around the world" can really keep the budget down. PLUS, if you let extremists into the country freely you generate tax dollars from things like flights school etc.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Compared to other OECD countries, we don't spend much.

I have failed to stp so perhaps you have mentioned, but we are also 34th of 38 OECD countries in terms of total tax burden (state federal and local). Agai. I do nt understand where sebby is getting he idea that we keep taxing more.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No. I'm not saying the European model is superior. I don't think we should escalate government spending to keep up with France or Sweden. I do think that people are wrong when they say things like, our current level of spending is unsustainable,* or that we need to start making across-the-board spending cuts. We are a rich country, and yet we spend less on/through our goverment than most other developed countries. The status quo is entirely sustainable. It involves trade-offs that some people -- like me -- might not want to make, but that's a different question.

* I think that is pretty much the statement that started me off on this tangent.

the only thing that makes sebby's point not laughable is his extremely negative economic outlook. Assume 5 years of little or no growth and maybe we need cuts of the magnitudehe advocates. Of course, those cuts would only add to the drag on the economy.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

the only thing that makes sebby's point not laughable is his extremely negative economic outlook. Assume 5 years of little or no growth and maybe we need cuts of the magnitudehe advocates. Of course, those cuts would only add to the drag on the economy.

We either need to cut spending or raise taxes. Unless one adopts an (unreasonably) optimistic economic outlook. The deficit/debt are a real problem, now, and are going to be a bigger problem.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

the only thing that makes sebby's point not laughable is his extremely negative economic outlook. Assume 5 years of little or no growth and maybe we need cuts of the magnitudehe advocates. Of course, those cuts would only add to the drag on the economy.

Where's the growth coming from? Show me an economy. Show me anything sustaining growth.

1. Housing? Dropping like a stone once the tax credit effect abates.

2. Wealth Effect Among the Investor Class Accruing from Rosy Corporate Earnings? About to run into the limitations of what can be accomplished via cost-cutting, productivity increases and an uptick in exporting related to dollar weakness.

3. Domestic Consumption? See #2. Also note the fact that the upper middle class and wealthy cannot provide all the needed consumption alone, which is what's going on right now. (Seen Wal Mart's numbers lately?) See also #4.

4. Employment? Unemployment above 10% through 2012 at least. Real unemployment in excess of 15%.

5. Bubbles on the Horizon? None left but equities. And as corporate earnings sag because 1-4 above, that sags with them.

6. Another Stimulus? Not happening. Forget that magical solution.

As to the drag on the economy you note, yes, in FantasticLand where spending occurs without taxes levied to pay for it, which damage an already on-life-support private sector, cutting back on spending would hurt the economy.

Run a business? Tried to re-up a credit line lately? You're naive, rotely academic, and your head's up your ass. Stay in the shallow water.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

We either need to cut spending or raise taxes. Unless one adopts an (unreasonably) optimistic economic outlook. The deficit/debt are a real problem, now, and are going to be a bigger problem.

Don't even respond to him. He just wants to get Ty's back in any argument. No one but a goddamned idiot would say the growth needed to pay for that spending is forecast or even possible.*

It's fucking ridiculous to even have the debate.

*Ty didn't say that. Adder thinks it's something supporting Ty's position in yesterday's discussion.