Christine O'Donnell Defeats Mike Castle

[Hauldren Collider]

When?

The 80s, for example.

[Al B. Sure!]

The 80s, for example.

Not really. Federal spending as a % of GDP under the Reagan administration was higher than under Carter.

[Al B. Sure!]

Check it HC... this is federal spending on Welfare as % of GDP:

Year GDP-US Welfare-fed
1970 1038.3 0.87 a
1971 1126.8 1.31 a
1972 1237.9 1.47 a
1973 1382.3 1.21 a
1974 1499.5 1.35 a
1975 1637.7 1.97 a
1976 1824.6 2.31 a
1977 2030.1 1.96 a
1978 2293.8 1.67 a
1979 2562.2 1.53 a
1980 2788.1 1.97 a
1981 3126.8 2.03 a
1982 3253.2 2.10 a
1983 3534.6 2.29 a
1984 3930.9 1.78 a
1985 4217.5 2.01 a
1986 4460.1 1.66 a
1987 4736.4 1.58 a
1988 5100.4 1.53 a
1989 5482.1 1.51 a
1990 5800.5 1.58 a

[Al B. Sure!]

Federal spending as % of GDP on Education decreased under Reagan:

Year GDP-US Education-fed
1970 1038.3 0.92 a
1971 1126.8 0.96 a
1972 1237.9 1.09 a
1973 1382.3 0.99 a
1974 1499.5 0.90 a
1975 1637.7 1.04 a
1976 1824.6 1.09 a
1977 2030.1 1.09 a
1978 2293.8 1.22 a
1979 2562.2 1.23 a
1980 2788.1 1.19 a
1981 3126.8 1.11 a
1982 3253.2 0.87 a
1983 3534.6 0.79 a
1984 3930.9 0.73 a
1985 4217.5 0.73 a
1986 4460.1 0.72 a
1987 4736.4 0.66 a
1988 5100.4 0.65 a
1989 5482.1 0.69 a
1990 5800.5 0.69 a


Total Federal spending went up though...

Year GDP-US Total Spending-fed
1970 1038.3 18.84 a
1971 1126.8 18.65 a
1972 1237.9 18.63 a
1973 1382.3 17.78 a
1974 1499.5 17.96 a
1975 1637.7 20.29 a
1976 1824.6 20.38 a
1977 2030.1 20.16 a
1978 2293.8 20.00 a
1979 2562.2 19.67 a
1980 2788.1 21.20 a
1981 3126.8 21.69 a
1982 3253.2 22.92 a
1983 3534.6 22.87 a
1984 3930.9 21.67 a
1985 4217.5 22.44 a
1986 4460.1 22.21 a
1987 4736.4 21.20 a
1988 5100.4 20.87 a
1989 5482.1 20.86 a
1990 5800.5 21.60 a

[Al B. Sure!]

So you can better visualize it... federal total spending as % of GDP...



As you can see, the sudden big increase post-Vietnam was at the start of Ford's presidency (1974-77). Carter actually curtailed spending (he was all about fiscal responsibility, remember), but it increased dramatically at the end of his term and going into Reagan's first term. Around re-election time, there's a dip, but spending still remained well above pre-Reagan levels.

I am not sure how much of an effect inflation had on this, however.

[Al B. Sure!]

Interestingly, it's often posited that Reagan cut social spending but increased military spending... this appears to be exaggerated:

[Hauldren Collider]

Not really. Federal spending as a % of GDP under the Reagan administration was higher than under Carter.

That was military spending; I am referring to entitlements.
PS tax revenue went up. Yes there was a deficit but it was to get the soviet union to try to outspend us and die.

Also your posts of random statistics are both annoying and irrelevant.

[Al B. Sure!]

That was military spending; I am referring to entitlements.
PS tax revenue went up. Yes there was a deficit but it was to get the soviet union to try to outspend us and die.

Also your posts of random statistics are both annoying and irrelevant.

Are you high? Annoying and irrelevant... did I say ANYTHING about deficits? Why bring up deficits?

I just showed that non-military spending saw an increase during Reagan's presidency and that military spending increases were not that significant and considerably lower than Vietnam era.

[Al B. Sure!]

Federal spending on Welfare/Unemployment compared to Defense:

As % of GDP:


In Billions 2005 $:




What do you want to see? Which 'entitlements' do you think relevant?

Healthcare:



I already pointed out that federal spending on education declined during Reagan's presidency as did transportation, but as you can see, many entitlements saw increases.

[GePap]

Why would Americans cut entitlements? Last time I checked, those entitlements go into the bank accounts of Americans.

People may contemplate cuts to future entitlements (as they did by cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age) but cut their own? Haven't seen that happen.

In terms of the coming elections, the Republicans will win the House - they will probably win more seats this year than in 1994. The Senate though, the Dems are now odds on favorite of keeping control.

And it really does scare me that anyone could think that Ms. O'Donnell is someone who should be a US Senator.

[DriXnaK]

I think what's more scary is that someone like you can even exist in this country Gepap. You are the poster child for what is wrong with the academic system. We should simply abolish 90% of the academic system, leaving only what is truly useful which is science. Science and the other technical areas are the only worthwhile pursuit in academia, the rest of you should be working toll booths, which is about all you're really capable of.

[DriXnaK]

Also, I'd like to point out that 50% of the population works for the government and is therefore married to entitlements while the other 50% of the population pays for those entitlements. What little is left over for us private sector paupers is eaten away at and cut first in order to continue to create the socialist state that fuels the democratic machine. The solution is simple though: Simply force the deadbeat half of the population into submission and all will be well in this country.

[Thoth]

Nonsense.


The simple solution is for the "not haves" to throw mixtures of 1/3 fertilizer 2/3 gasoline bombs at the "haves".


If that fails, remember: Windex + Chlorox = Mustard Gas

[DriXnaK]

Or you could just do something with your life instead of expecting everyone to do something for you. Then again, you'd have to have talent and ambition, something socialists don't have. Do you by chance work in academia?

[Thoth]

?? Since when has throwing fragmentation grenades at the establishment been "expecting everyone to to something for you"?

Removing the establishment ain't the free and easy utopia it's portrayed to be.