50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph • Hacker News Board

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#31

Post by aneth » Thu, May 17, 2012, 3:35 AM UTC

aurelianito wrote: post #24

_delirium wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-…

Gas is subsidized by wars in the US. If you keep that in mind, the value that they get from their money is not that low. Edit: Please do not down-vote just because you don't agree. The second Gulf War was explicitly called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM

This is a claim that requires some justification.

Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#32

Post by ekianjo » Thu, May 17, 2012, 3:36 AM UTC

adviceonly wrote: post #2

Unfortunately this graph primarily just shows that government handouts to citizens in the form of safety net programs, medicare, and medicaid have gone up in percentage, that defense has gone down in percentage, and that we don't spend enough (in my opinion) on public transportation- but it only looks at three years! Instead, look at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's graphs, like this one of our debt and projected d…

I am not sure exactly at what level you wish there would be more spending on public transportation, but spending money in that field could be a big waste of cash in the US. It's way too big and too decentralized. It makes sense in some countries (in Japan, for example, all cities are on the coast because nobody builds stuff in the mountains, so it's easy to connect the dots), but public transportation would not work well outside of a few big cities in North America.

Even in France, the bullet trains lines cost way too much versus their planned profits. Some will not be profitable for another 20-30 years! And that's assuming that, by then, it's still the best way to get from A to B. It's all about getting votes in the end, it does not make economic sense at all.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#33

Post by mbell » Thu, May 17, 2012, 3:44 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #10

Interesting that, contrary to what I had assumed, social security is completely flat in its budget share from 1987 to 2011.

Flat in expense perhaps, but the liability chart would look...slightly different...

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#34

Post by gruseom » Thu, May 17, 2012, 3:51 AM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #22

cpeterso wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Does the "defense spending" category include the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? George W. Bush's administration conveniently swept the wars' costs into a "supplemental" budget separate from the DoD budget.

"The figures in the graph include veterans' benefits as well as funding for current operations."

That suggests that the off-budget wars were not included.

Edit: never mind. I was referring to what they call the "unfunded" wars under GWB but the graph obviously doesn't include those years.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#35

Post by WildUtah » Thu, May 17, 2012, 3:53 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #17

nhebb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the reasons that I don't like graphs of governments spending shown as percentages. There is an inherent spin in the chart. If federal spending increases relative to GDP, but the constituent components of the chart remain relatively flat percentage-wise, then it misleads people to interpret the spending as flat, when it isn't.

Oh, I realize it's grown overall, just somehow I had thought it grew as a percentage of the budget as well, which seems not to (yet) be the case. Looks like healthcare spending (Medicare+Medicaid) is the main thing that's been gobbling up a bigger percentage.

People talk about how Social Security and Medicare are growing out of control and threatening to ruin any possibility of a sane federal budget. That is true, but it would also be true to say that school lunches plus Medicare or NASA plus Medicare is dangerously out of control.

In fact, Social Security is a tractable spending commitment. It is only Medicare that is growing like a crazy metastatic cancer.

And Medicare is growing like that because health care spending is growing out of control in the private sector, in the VA, in Medicaid, and everywhere.

The main drivers of health care spending are mostly not addressed by the Romney-Obama health care reform ('Obamacare') passed in 2010. Only a few minor tools to slow growth will be in the hands of federal bureaucrats and only if they have the courage to sieze them. Nobody is even talking about educating, licensing, and allowing immigration of more doctors; the USA has a very low level of practicing physicians for a first world country. Licensing regulations also prevent pharmacists and nurses from taking responsibilities for direct patient care that other countries allow them, exacerbating the problem.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#36

Post by parasubvert » Thu, May 17, 2012, 4:12 AM UTC

adventureful wrote: post #23

_delirium wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-…

A big part of our problems are the calculations that were used to justify Social Security and Medicare (over half our budget). Neither program was built to last more than two generations. The politicians that created them didn't care about that (FDR and LBJ), in typical intentional short-sightedness. Both programs were designed to be flush early so they could be plundered. Instead of having trillions sitting in a sov…

That's just not true with regards to Social Security. 100 years of projected life before dragging on other Federal finances and one major reform so far (another will be needed) is usually the sign of a successful government program. It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, as FICA will only fund about 75% of payouts once the trust fund is exhausted.

Medicare on the other hand is a different story. Costs are growing too high to make it sustainable. But that doesn't have to do with the efficiency of the program itself vs. other insurance companies - it's actually quite a bit efficient than private insurers. The problem seems to be the broader U.S. system of health cost/benefits compared to other countries. We spend more and get less.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#37

Post by anamax » Thu, May 17, 2012, 4:23 AM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #36

adventureful wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of our problems are the calculations that were used to justify Social Security and Medicare (over half our budget). Neither program was built to last more than two generations. The politicians that created them didn't care about that (FDR and LBJ), in typical intentional short-sightedness. Both programs were designed to be flush early so they could be plundered. Instead of having trillions sitting in a sov…

That's just not true with regards to Social Security. 100 years of projected life before dragging on other Federal finances and one major reform so far (another will be needed) is usually the sign of a successful government program. It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years, as FICA will only fund about 75% of payouts once the trust fund is exhausted. Medicare on t…

> It's not in dire crisis: we will start to see it drag on other government finances in 20 years,

It's actually a drag now, as it has been paying more in benefits than it receives for the past few years.

Yes, I know about the bonds. Paying them back is a drag because they weren't used to create profitable assets.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#38

Post by NHQ » Thu, May 17, 2012, 4:47 AM UTC

The authors says

"Federal spending has grown roughly as fast as the overall economy over the past 50 years."

And then immediately after that says spending climbed from 18% of GDP to 24% of GDP, which is a 33% increase.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#39

Post by nnnnnnnn » Thu, May 17, 2012, 4:50 AM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #21

tnuc wrote: post #15

Does this account for the changes in how spending is reported? Is all defense spending under defense? or is there a lot hidden under education and health? I have played with too many budgets to accept things like this at face value.

Good question. Does the "defense spending" category include the trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? George W. Bush's administration conveniently swept the wars' costs into a "supplemental" budget separate from the DoD budget.

No, the graph clearly does not include the supplementary spending. I ran the numbers for this a while back, and the supplementary extra-budget DoD spending in the Bush years raised the DoD expenses from 22% to nearly 40% in some cases.

Military expenditures are much higher than 22%, even in 2011. These budget numbers hide much military spending in other budgetary components -- for example, veteran's benefits or military scholarships will fit into another category (Medicare, everything else, etc). Statistics that put military spending at a quarter of our budget never include these costs.

A big part of this "change" comes from a budgeting game which hides military costs in other budgets. Contrary to claims in the article, VA benefits and medical claims did exist as an expense 50 years ago -- but they were directly part of the Defense budget at that time.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#40

Post by njharman » Thu, May 17, 2012, 4:50 AM UTC

adventureful wrote: post #23

_delirium wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most amazing thing I take away from that chart, having lived in both Europe and the U.S., is how little the U.S. taxpayer gets for their money in comparison, I'm guessing because spending crept up slowly without any real planning. For example, the U.S., Canadian, and Norwegian governments each spend about 40% of GDP, but somehow Norwegians and Canadians get a much stronger set of social services (including state-…

A big part of our problems are the calculations that were used to justify Social Security and Medicare (over half our budget). Neither program was built to last more than two generations. The politicians that created them didn't care about that (FDR and LBJ), in typical intentional short-sightedness. Both programs were designed to be flush early so they could be plundered. Instead of having trillions sitting in a sov…

> over half our budget

32.9 != over half. Including Medicaid gets 43, still not over half. Not likely to give much credence to rest of your claims.