Not being one who trust others numbers here are a couple of charts generated from the WH's own budget numbers from here:

 

Historical Tables | The White House

 

 

 

 

Objective observations:

 

1. Overall spending is going up a lot faster than 1.4%. Not sure what the 1.4% is.

2. The 'stimulus package' of 2009 spiked Treasury spending for what at this time looks like a one time event.

3. The 2009 stimulus relied on additional borrowed spending. That increase in borrowed monies shows up in out years as sharply increased Treasury spending. That spending is interest.

4. The increase interest would occur anyway as long as there is deficient spending so the jump in the out-years can not be all attributed to the stimulus. But the 2009 stimulus accelerated interest spending in out years.

5. HHS spending sharply increases in out years. Some of this is definitely due to the AHCA (Obamacare).

 

Comments:

 

The two elephants in the room that will grow and explode the room are: a) Interest on debt and b) HHS spending due to AHCA/Obama. Both were going to 'get worse' but the apparently failed stimulus and AHCA accelerate the curves. These are the two elements of federal spending the will cause the bankruptcy of the US.

 

Social Security and Medicare were already on a bad path and they continue to get worse - regardless of administration policy or small changes. The increases slated for these can be 'blamed' on any administration.

 

There is no easy answer. Repealing AHCA may bend the HHS curve downward somewhat. But HHS spending is still going to be a problem. Social security spending will be a problem - regardless of administration and the overall debt and associated interest in the future will be a nightmare. There is no 'unspeading' the stimulus. In business vernacular it is 'sunk cost'. Meaning discussing it and whether it worked or not is interesting - but useless. We as a nation spent it and can not get it back. The politicians can play blame games with it. But it is now on the books and its impact will have to be dealt with.

Remember that spending IS the problem.

 

Regardless of tax policy tax revenues have been around 18% and never more than 20% of GDP. Spending is now much greater than that number. That is tolerable in the short term but not ongoing.

 

An Objectivist Individualist: Federal Spending and Revenue

 

Some how, some way federal spending must return to below 20% of GDP.

 

GDP has 'slowed' in recent years. Based on tax receipts - now much lower than 18% of 'stated GDP' I have serious concern that GDP has been over stated - even with the modest rise. Social security receipts are good measure of GDP. Until recently those receipts never decreased just like GDP never decreased. But using the WH's own numbers in the link above Social Security receipts have go down for the first time in history. And this is not due to the 2% cut as it was made up for - through borrowing!

Question: Is the spending up over the last 10 years or so because of the interest on the debt?

 

It stands to reason that as the debt balloons, the amount to pay it back has to increase even more by the interest owed. In other words, how much is actual spending and how much is spending on debt?

 

Maybe I misread the earlier sites on that comparison.

Question: Is the spending up over the last 10 years or so because of the interest on the debt?

 

It stands to reason that as the debt balloons, the amount to pay it back has to increase even more by the interest owed. In other words, how much is actual spending and how much is spending on debt?

 

Maybe I misread the earlier sites on that comparison.

 

The rise in the yellow line in the graph above is mostly interest. That is what Treasury spend mostly is. Notice it bends over and goes down or at least levels out during the later part of the 'Clinton-years' with the surpluses. It will also vary with the interest rate paid on the bonds sold to finance the debt. In the past few years the Fed has bought most of the bonds. Hence why the Fed rate is so critical now and why Bernanke gets drug into Congress so much.

 

The scary part is how that yellow line jumps in the out-years. Like a credit card payment payment with lots of expensive interest.

The rise in the yellow line in the graph above is mostly interest. That is what Treasury spend mostly is. Notice it bends over and goes down or at least levels out during the later part of the 'Clinton-years' with the surpluses. It will also vary with the interest rate paid on the bonds sold to finance the debt. In the past few years the Fed has bought most of the bonds. Hence why the Fed rate is so critical now and why Bernanke gets drug into Congress so much.

 

The scary part is how that yellow line jumps in the out-years. Like a credit card payment payment with lots of expensive interest.

 

Thanks.

Question: Is the spending up over the last 10 years or so because of the interest on the debt?

 

It stands to reason that as the debt balloons, the amount to pay it back has to increase even more by the interest owed. In other words, how much is actual spending and how much is spending on debt?

 

Maybe I misread the earlier sites on that comparison.

 

Don't forget how the actual interest rate has an impact on the amount of interest paid. Lower rates makes high debt more affordable. However, if the interest rate goes up on a lot of debt, it could be disasterous. Ironically, the US is benefitting in some regards from the economic instability in Europe, with creditor countries (think China here) wanting to put their cash in US govt debt because of our relative stability (thus keeping the rate of interest on US debt low).

I thought the article explains better....

 

Which President Is the Biggest Spender, Part II - Forbes

 

Thanks Hammer. It does put the issue in a more clearer perspective.

 

And for those folks out there still whining about the bailout of the banks, I will repeat the fact that the banks have actually repaid more than they borrowed (yes borrowed, not were given) under TARP. TARP turned out to be a very good investment for US taxpayers.

How are we able to spend all of this money that we DON'T have at a rate that is UNSUSTAINABLE?

 

 

 

 

 

End the Fed.

Congress spends the money. The President can encourage, sign or veto, but only a bill that is developed and passed. GWB had a spend-happy Democratic majority as did Obama for his first two years. That is why we have the deficit IMO.

Congress spends the money. The President can encourage, sign or veto, but only a bill that is developed and passed. GWB had a spend-happy Democratic majority as did Obama for his first two years. That is why we have the deficit IMO.

 

:lol: Only in the last 2 years. The first six were GOP led branches that spent just as much. Might add it was Bush's Admin that pushed the first bailout/loans through in 2008. There's plenty of blame to go around for both parties. :thumb:

There is one huge problem that has IMO led to Reagnomics being a problem instead of a solution - the reduction in the size of government never seems to happen. Taxes get reduced and it seems like everyone thinks that government will shrink on its own. That never happens. In fact, the size of government seems to increase just as much if not more under Republican led administrations than Democrat led even though they reduce taxes. It doesn't happen by osmosis. We add agencies and programs but never get rid of any. Some of these government programs/agencies should become obsolete over time and be cut.

Wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.

There is one huge problem that has IMO led to Reagnomics being a problem instead of a solution - the reduction in the size of government never seems to happen. Taxes get reduced and it seems like everyone thinks that government will shrink on its own. That never happens. In fact, the size of government seems to increase just as much if not more under Republican led administrations than Democrat led even though they reduce taxes. It doesn't happen by osmosis. We add agencies and programs but never get rid of any. Some of these government programs/agencies should become obsolete over time and be cut.

 

Wait, that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Correct analysis, but wrong President.

 

The objective data says that it was GW that tweaked up the rate of spending while also cutting taxes.

 

 

 

 

 

The line is pretty linear - until 2001/2. If you look the spending also edges up more between 1989 - 1993 H's years. This is why the Bush's are often bashed on lack of fiscal conservatism. Neither seems to have been focused on it.