I read this article on Saturday, “Would You Accept Clinton Tax Rates If Combined With Gingrich Spending Levels?”; and thought I would pass it around in case any missed it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/would_you_accept_clinton_tax_r.html
What I saw that I hadn’t heard before and thought I would pass along was this:
“Consider that total Human Resource spending in 1999 -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- was only $1.1 trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that's $1.5 trillion today compared to the projected $2.5 trillion for fiscal 2011.”
>>That was the last Gingrich budget. Tells you just how far congress has gone in 10 years.
What I really thought was interesting though was this: “Despite the other obvious factors involved in the '90s expansion -- loose monetary policy early in the decade, the end of the Cold War, and a once in a lifetime technological boom with associated stock bubble -- this period also witnessed unusual fiscal restraint in Washington, as total federal spending only grew by 42 percent.
Compare this to the '80s when outlays rose by 115 percent, which was actually down from 184 percent in the '70s. Spending grew by 107 percent in the '60s, and more recently, 117 percent in the '00s.
This means federal expenditures during the '90s increased at the slowest pace in the last five decades. Putting even a finer point on this, spending in the '90s grew at less than 1/3 the rate of the average of the other four decades -- demonstrating that the four decade mean increase was three times the '90s.
But there's more. The only other decade in the previous century with less spending growth was the '20s when Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge actually reduced the budget by almost 50 percent while also cutting taxes.”
>>Two points here:
- Since the 1960’s, there was not one decade other than the nineties were spending did not grow over 100%. Now, you tell me were most people can go decades increasing their spending by over 100% and not have to file for bankruptcy.
- in the 90’s, spending still grew by 42%. Now, today; even with the unprecedented acceleration of spending(not including defense) since basically 2006; if the people could hold the government to somewhere between 25 to 50% for ten years; you have to like the chances that the US will have a very good period of economic growth.
And one last point from here: “The Clinton administration bragged that it was retiring Treasury securities with its surpluses, yet the data show that despite reporting $559 billion worth of so-called black ink from 1998 to 2001, the total outstanding debt in those years still rose by $394 billion.
That's right: there was not one year under Clinton that the total outstanding debt declined. The last time this happened in America was 1957 before most of the current citizenry were born.”
>>So, there has not been one year in over fifty where the US has actually retired any debt. So, it’s really the norm for the US to just keep on raising the debt and not being responsible. I’m giving the republicans a break with their drop in the bucket 38 billion as no one has done a thing in a very long time. By comparison, just imagine what could happen in 10 years under the Ryan budget given what the US did 10 years ago still heaping on more debt, albeit a little less than usual.