Can you spend 26% of GDP in ONE year and be sustainable?
The heritage foundation? Really? Is that your unbiased source. I would have given a FOX News story a little creedance, but these guys are just liars. Is there an actual news account of this? Just to show you how ridiculous these clowns are, this is from the link:
'The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). '
Peacetime? I believe there are 2 wars going on right now. 2 wars that Bush always kept off budget.
Providing me with a source like this would be like me giving you a michael moore blog as a source.
BTW, I don't dispute the spending will be 26% or higher. It will probably be closer to 36%. But as already stated, we are in a crisis, and it is not meant to be sustainable. My problem with you is you are so devoted to your ideology, you will believe the first thing you see that supports it. Do some research and maybe you will be able to see the truth.
I see nothing in that article (really just a blog) that says it was 4% during the depression. And I also see nothing where it said that people considered 4% as too high. In fact I see nothing in this blog entry that says anything about government spending 26% of GDP in one year. They report about a number of 29.9% of GDP for STIMULUS spending for a 15 month period starting in December 2007 through March 2009. So most of that spending happened under Bush. This blog was written back in April, and is not very current.
Now please tell us where you got your initial info from, because it obviously wasn't from this link. So far you have not provided one solid source for anything you have posted here.
BTW, total government spending will be much higher than 26% of GDP for this year.
Where are you getting your figures? The percent of GDP for government spending was not 4% during the depression. In 1929 it was about 11% and grew to over 20% by 1941 when the US got into WWII. And then it grew to about 53% by the end of the war. As thedude said, of course it is not sustainable. It is not meant to be. When you are in a crisis like we are in (thanks to 28 years of reaganomics), extrordinary measures must be taken. Just as spending helped get us out of the depression, that is what we need now to get us out of this financial crisis. But the spending definately needs to be targeted better than it is now.
Clearly not :) But, is that going to continue? I'd say "no"...but then look what Bush inherited, a thriving economy (sort of) and a stock market about to crash...if he'd taken decisive action, then (and put back in place the taxes on sale of primary residences that Clinton rescinded) Bush could have went down in history as an economic genius, instead of exiting office with the lowest approval rating in US history.
Eg, the GM bail out...that's not going to happen again.
Never said you did. But you said many things that you have not provided a source for. The sources you have provided have been irrelevant and do not support your claims.
If you are going to come on here and make such claims, you will be challenged. So if you expect to have any credibility, you better make sure you can back up what you say.
it was on AVERAGE 4% of GDP in Great Depression. Dont worry its CBS link not FOX
Keep in mind in the Great Depression, government spending was 4% of GDP of the United States and that was considered too much.
I am smart enough I guess, but I also know how to do research.
26 % GDP http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2595.cfm
I never said Bush didnt spend too much money.
Thanks Jimahl the great. Your so smart.