• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the federal government too big and if so, what should we do?

Is the federal government too big and if so, what should we do?

  • It's too small! We need to expand govt healthcare, infrastructure and buying failing companies.

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • It is just about right. Govt provides essential services that for-profit companies can't.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • It is too big. Reduce the deficit by reducing military and limiting entitlement eligibility.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • It is TOO BIG!!! Entitlements to the states, reduce military, elim. Departments. Target: 25% GDP.

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • It is TOO BIG!!! Entitlements to the states, reduce military, elim. Departments. Target: 10% GDP.

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Total voters
    22
reefedjib

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Let us look at the REAL problem....

Here is a chart of Government Spending as a percent of GDP, since 1900, with Healthcare and Welfare split out. Notice that in 1900, Gov't Spending was less than 4% of GDP - in 2008 it exceeded 40%. I really don't care who was in office, the trend since the Great Depression is clear...due to the Great Deal etc, as well as just uncontrolled spending in general...around 13% in 1930...over 20% 3 years later...ignoring wars, over 30% around 1968...finally over 40% in 2008. 40% ****ing percent of our economy is Government Spending!!!

Significant increases to Welfare and Healthcare since 1950. Note that this is a percent of GDP, which has exploded since 1950. So the percent of GDP in government spending has increased on top of a growing GDP.

usgs_line.php



Here is the raw numbers for the growing costs of Pensions, Healthcare, Education and Welfare. All exploding since 1950.

usgs_line.php


We are on the wrong track and breaking this country, which was founded on private economic activity. The government is adopting too many social programs, but even beyond that, is growing too large. And it is getting worse. Something must be done but the Congress, House and Senate, are getting ready to enter a bunch of bull**** rhetorical combat to cut the deficit and yet defend home programs. It all needs to be reduced. Even the Tea Partiers are not going far enough.
 
I think Americans have let their government get out of their control. I don't think they answer to the people anymore.
 
Last edited:
If federal government does 40% of the spending, what the hell is state government doing?
 
Arcadius said:
I think Americans have let their government get out of their control. I don't think they answer to the people anymore.
Click to expand...

You are aware without all that spending the people of this nation would be third worlders?
 
kaya'08 said:
If federal government does 40% of the spending, what the hell is state government doing?
Click to expand...

8-10 percent of the spending. so half our money goes to the government. so much for being one of the few nations that has low taxes.....
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
You are aware without all that spending the people of this nation would be third worlders?
Click to expand...

Where does this claim come from?

According to this site, backed up by references:

There are approximately 154.4 million employed individuals in the US. Small businesses are the largest employer in the country representing 53% of US workers. The second largest share of employment belongs to large businesses, who employ a total of 38% of the US workforce. A total of 91% of Americans are employed by the private sector. Government accounts for 8% of all US workers.
Click to expand...

So, if government only employs 8% of the workforce, and represents 40% of GDP, where the **** is all the money being spent? More pertinent to your post, how does a reduction in employment of 8% of the workforce translate to third-world status? I think you are talking out of your ass.
 
reefedjib said:
Where does this claim come from?

According to this site, backed up by references:



So, if government only employs 8% of the workforce, and represents 40% of GDP, where the **** is all the money being spent? More pertinent to your post, how does a reduction in employment of 8% of the workforce translate to third-world status? I think you are talking out of your ass.
Click to expand...

+1 I was:D
 
Government jobs are still needed to keep the economy going. Later, when jobs stabilize, they can cut back.

ricksfolly
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
You are aware without all that spending the people of this nation would be third worlders?
Click to expand...

I just think our economy shouldn't rely so much on government spending. One of the many tools of control is need. But that's just my grand philosophical wisdom. Economics isn't exactly one of my strong suits.
 
:prof If the government doesn't get smaller after 4 hours you have to see a doctor.
 
ricksfolly said:
Government jobs are still needed to keep the economy going. Later, when jobs stabilize, they can cut back.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Akin to saying parasites are needed to keep the host organism alive.......
.
.
.
.
 
reefedjib said:
Let us look at the REAL problem....

Here is a chart of Government Spending as a percent of GDP, since 1900, with Healthcare and Welfare split out. Notice that in 1900, Gov't Spending was less than 4% of GDP - in 2008 it exceeded 40%. I really don't care who was in office, the trend since the Great Depression is clear...due to the Great Deal etc, as well as just uncontrolled spending in general...around 13% in 1930...over 20% 3 years later...ignoring wars, over 30% around 1968...finally over 40% in 2008. 40% ****ing percent of our economy is Government Spending!!!

Significant increases to Welfare and Healthcare since 1950. Note that this is a percent of GDP, which has exploded since 1950. So the percent of GDP in government spending has increased on top of a growing GDP.

usgs_line.php



Here is the raw numbers for the growing costs of Pensions, Healthcare, Education and Welfare. All exploding since 1950.

usgs_line.php


We are on the wrong track and breaking this country, which was founded on private economic activity. The government is adopting too many social programs, but even beyond that, is growing too large. And it is getting worse. Something must be done but the Congress, House and Senate, are getting ready to enter a bunch of bull**** rhetorical combat to cut the deficit and yet defend home programs. It all needs to be reduced. Even the Tea Partiers are not going far enough.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find anywhere that answers this question:

Are these numbers adjusted for inflation?
 
Thanks to FDR raping the tenth amendment with the help of a bunch of cowardly jurists who ignored 130 years of precedent, we have idiots who believe "the general welfare clause" empowers congress to do whatever it wants and the commerce clause was designed to ban medical marijuana grown in your own city or that congress can ignore the second amendment
 
Sell Obama's unused--still in original wrapping--Budget scalpel.......trade in the Republican's Budget axe.......and send in the Tea Party with their budget chainsaws.

The government was too big 70 years ago......and its been growing ever since.
.
.
.
.
 
Badmutha said:
Akin to saying parasites are needed to keep the host organism alive.......
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Actually, in biology, this would be called coevolution. Both the parasite and the host could be essential for the other's survival.
 
Arcadius said:
I think Americans have let their government get out of their control. I don't think they answer to the people anymore.
Click to expand...

Congress is being run by lobbyists and big business now. The cost of running for office is way too high for Congressmen to raise enough money on their own, so they all have to make shady deals.

ricksfolly
 
whysoserious said:
I couldn't find anywhere that answers this question:

Are these numbers adjusted for inflation?
Click to expand...

Dunno. I don't think it matters in the first graph as that is a percentage of GDP, year to year, not a dollar value that is susceptible to inflation. I don't think the second graph is so adjusted, but let's say inflation is 10% (???) year to year, the second graph would still show MASSIVE increases in expenditures for Pensions, Healthcare, Education and Welfare since 1950.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, in biology, this would be called coevolution. Both the parasite and the host could be essential for the other's survival.
Click to expand...

It may be, but it is also called symbiosis:

Symbiotic relationships include those associations in which one organism lives on another (ectosymbiosis, such as mistletoe), or where one partner lives inside the other (endosymbiosis, such as lactobacilli and other bacteria in humans or zooxanthelles in corals). Symbiotic relationships may be either obligate, i.e., necessary for the survival of at least one of the organisms involved, or facultative, where the relationship is beneficial but not essential for survival of the organisms.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is symbiotic, as the private economy may very well be able to survive without the gov't, but the gov't cannot survive without the private economy. Otherwise it is parasitism:

The harm and benefit in parasitic interactions concern the biological fitness of the organisms involved. Parasites reduce host fitness in many ways, ranging from general or specialized pathology (such as parasitic castration), impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behaviour. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for resources necessary for the parasite's survival: (i.e. food, water, heat, habitat, and dispersal).
Click to expand...

I think the jury is still out whether it is symbiosis or parasitism. Certainly in the case of the Roman Empire it was parasitism - the host did not survive.
 
reefedjib said:
It may be, but it is also called symbiosis:



I don't think it is symbiotic, as the private economy may very well be able to survive without the gov't, but the gov't cannot survive without the private economy. Otherwise it is parasitism:



I think the jury is still out whether it is symbiosis or parasitism. Certainly in the case of the Roman Empire it was parasitism - the host did not survive.
Click to expand...

Depends on the society. In our case I would say that symbiosis MAY fit better than coevolution. Both government and private economy can survive without the other, but in VERY different forms.
 
I noticed you got this from an extremely partisan site. I did a bit of research and your numbers appear to be very off. For instance, government spending went down and tax revenue went up during the Clinton Administration:

fig-1.gif


And the percentages are not even close either. My chart comes from the House.gov, yours comes from some site that has Tea Party links.
 
whysoserious said:
I noticed you got this from an extremely partisan site. I did a bit of research and your numbers appear to be very off. For instance, government spending went down and tax revenue went up during the Clinton Administration:

fig-1.gif


And the percentages are not even close either. My chart comes from the House.gov, yours comes from some site that has Tea Party links.
Click to expand...

"extremely partisan website"? proof? Tea Party links? Does that make it partisan? Does it make their numbers invalid? Of course, charts don't really show the numbers. We'd have to go here: US Budget Breakdown for FY12 - Charts

Note that they are combining Fed, Fed transfer - whatever the hell that is (SSN stealing?), State and Local spending.

GDP '11 = $15,079.6 Billion
Fed Spending = $3,818.8 Billion = 25% of GDP
Fed Transfer = -$664.2 Billion = -4.4% of GDP
State Spending = $1,490.3 Billion = 10% of GDP
Local Spending = $1,870.4 Billion = 12.4% of GDP
Total Gov Spending = $6,515.4 Billion = 43.2% of GDP

EDIT: So i mislabeled the poll as federal spending when the graph I showed was combined government spending.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Let us look at the REAL problem....

Here is a chart of Government Spending as a percent of GDP, since 1900, with Healthcare and Welfare split out. Notice that in 1900, Gov't Spending was less than 4% of GDP - in 2008 it exceeded 40%. I really don't care who was in office, the trend since the Great Depression is clear...due to the Great Deal etc, as well as just uncontrolled spending in general...around 13% in 1930...over 20% 3 years later...ignoring wars, over 30% around 1968...finally over 40% in 2008. 40% ****ing percent of our economy is Government Spending!!!

Significant increases to Welfare and Healthcare since 1950. Note that this is a percent of GDP, which has exploded since 1950. So the percent of GDP in government spending has increased on top of a growing GDP.

usgs_line.php



Here is the raw numbers for the growing costs of Pensions, Healthcare, Education and Welfare. All exploding since 1950.

usgs_line.php


We are on the wrong track and breaking this country, which was founded on private economic activity. The government is adopting too many social programs, but even beyond that, is growing too large. And it is getting worse. Something must be done but the Congress, House and Senate, are getting ready to enter a bunch of bull**** rhetorical combat to cut the deficit and yet defend home programs. It all needs to be reduced. Even the Tea Partiers are not going far enough.
Click to expand...

How come there's not choice to increase military spending in the first choice? The poll is a joke set up to force conservatives to make false choices.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
"extremely partisan website"? proof? Tea Party links? Does that make it partisan? Does it make their numbers invalid? Of course, charts don't really show the numbers. We'd have to go here: US Budget Breakdown for FY12 - Charts

Note that they are combining Fed, Fed transfer - whatever the hell that is (SSN stealing?), State and Local spending.

GDP '11 = $15,079.6 Billion
Fed Spending = $3,818.8 Billion = 25% of GDP
Fed Transfer = -$664.2 Billion = -4.4% of GDP
State Spending = $1,490.3 Billion = 10% of GDP
Local Spending = $1,870.4 Billion = 12.4% of GDP
Total Gov Spending = $6,515.4 Billion = 43.2% of GDP

EDIT: So i mislabeled the poll as federal spending when the graph I showed was combined government spending.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the Tea Party link. Everyone is slightly partisan. But it did tip me off to check it out. Again, my numbers which come from the government don't match your numbers. I noticed the federal transfers and I am not sure of what they are either.

But it appears that the actual spending % is much lower than what is on your charts. Sort of misleading, wouldn't you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom