No comment needed

[makattak]

But I'll comment anyway:

Bush could have done more to deal with government spending.

He was clearly not as bad as some like to paint him, though.

[MillCreek]

Clinton is looking better all the time.

[Monkeyleg]

Yes, Clinton has looked better for about 18 months now. Look at the chart, though. The decline begins in 1994, the year of the Republican takeover of congress.

[mtnbkr]

Look at the chart, though. The decline begins in 1994, the year of the Republican takeover of congress.

Actually, the decline starts in 1992 and continues through Clinton until Bush2.

Chris

[makattak]

Actually, the decline starts in 1992 and continues through Clinton until Bush2.

Chris

1991, actually.

But, if you'll note that G.W. Bush's average would have been just slightly over Clinton's if not for 2008.

[Gowen]

1991, actually.

But, if you'll note that G.W. Bush's average would have been just slightly over Clinton's if not for 2008.

You must also note that GWB also had to rebuild the military after clinton gutted it.  That would make up for the higher initial numbers, but 2008 just blows the whole thing out of the water.  Throwing money at the problem was not the answer.

[kgbsquirrel]

You must also note that GWB also had to rebuild the military after clinton gutted it.  That would make up for the higher initial numbers, but 2008 just blows the whole thing out of the water.  Throwing money at the problem was not the answer.

Since it's congress that actually spends the money, how much of that 2008 was veto-proof spending bills that George the Second wouldn't have been able to obstruct?

[Jamie B]

GWB should have dealt with a lot more.

Not the brightest light that I have seen, and he then surrounded himself with idiots.

[GigaBuist]

Actually, the decline starts in 1992 and continues through Clinton until Bush2.

Chris

-----

1991, actually.

But, if you'll note that G.W. Bush's average would have been just slightly over Clinton's if not for 2008.

Guys, keep in mind that we're looking at it in terms of percentage of the GDP.  Actual spending is only part of the picture.  The state of the economy is the other big part.  What might look like a reduction in spending could actually be an increase in productivity.  This is probably what we're really seeing toward the end of Clinton's administration

And, honestly, I hate seeing graphs like this broken out by administration.  What's more interesting is when there's a split in control and what party is actually in control of Congress vs. the Executive.  The President requests a budget but it's really up to Congress to dole the money out.  We really should be blaming Congress more than the President when it comes to things like this, IMHO.

With all that said, it's more fun to look back through the entire history of the US with such data.  The only stuff I could find last night was from 1940 onward.  Prior to WWII you see about 9% of the GDP being spent at the Federal level.  If my memory serves me correctly prior to 1940 that was pretty normal unless in time of war.  During the height of WWII it spikes up into the 40-45% range.  Afterwards see see it dip back down to below the 19% level that we're comfortable with now but then it remains around 19% (give or take a bit) for decades.

What does this tell me?  Our culture changed after WWII -- it was OK to have a bigger Federal government after that.  And that Democrats and Republicans really don't behave all that much differently when it comes to spending.  We just squabble over the details.

[makattak]

-----

Guys, keep in mind that we're looking at it in terms of percentage of the GDP.  Actual spending is only part of the picture.  The state of the economy is the other big part.  What might look like a reduction in spending could actually be an increase in productivity.  This is probably what we're really seeing toward the end of Clinton's administration

And, honestly, I hate seeing graphs like this broken out by administration.  What's more interesting is when there's a split in control and what party is actually in control of Congress vs. the Executive.  The President requests a budget but it's really up to Congress to dole the money out.  We really should be blaming Congress more than the President when it comes to things like this, IMHO.

With all that said, it's more fun to look back through the entire history of the US with such data.  The only stuff I could find last night was from 1940 onward.  Prior to WWII you see about 9% of the GDP being spent at the Federal level.  If my memory serves me correctly prior to 1940 that was pretty normal unless in time of war.  During the height of WWII it spikes up into the 40-45% range.  Afterwards see see it dip back down to below the 19% level that we're comfortable with now but then it remains around 19% (give or take a bit) for decades.

What does this tell me?  Our culture changed after WWII -- it was OK to have a bigger Federal government after that.  And that Democrats and Republicans really don't behave all that much differently when it comes to spending.  We just squabble over the details.

It wasn't WWII.

Look and see if you can find numbers from 1900 on.

Or 1920 on.

Or 1929 on.

That's where you'll see the change.

[HankB]

Clinton wasn't as good as the economy so much as the economy was good for Clinton - a benefit of a GOP congress that generally acted like a GOP Congress was supposed to.

They quit doing that after Clinton left office. 

Did Bush and the GOP spend too much? IMHO, the answer is a simple "Yes." They WERE fiscally irresponsible.

But take a look at the last two years of the Bush administration . . . and consider that we had both houses of Congress under Democrat control at that time. That's when things took a real turn for the worse.

And as for the projections of a decline in the "spending vs. GDP" ratio for Obama's out-years . . . the only chance of that happening if we get a GOP Congress that ACTS like they did during the Clinton administration. Otherwise the last two blue bars will grow . . .

[MechAg94]

Actually, the decline starts in 1992 and continues through Clinton until Bush2.

Chris

I was thinking that Bush I started the cuts in Defense spending down from Cold War levels.  I imagine that had an impact.  Plus, I believe the economy that was in a slump at the end of his one term was starting to ramp up by the end of 1991.

[MechAg94]

And as for the projections of a decline in the "spending vs. GDP" ratio for Obama's out-years . . . the only chance of that happening if we get a GOP Congress that ACTS like they did during the Clinton administration. Otherwise the last two blue bars will grow . . .

Given all the things the Obama administration keeps doing to tick off voters, I keep wondering if they want that to happen.  I honestly think that a GOP Congress that Obama can blame all his problems on is likely the only chance he has of getting reelected.