17 trillion dollars

Here's a table with the figures and the calculation. Outlays and GDP figures are from the sources I cited. The percentages are an arithmetic calculation of Outlays/GDP*100

Year - Outlays - GDP - Outlays:GDP
1980 590.9 2,862.5 20.6%
1981 678.2 3,210.9 21.1%
1982 745.7 3,345.0 22.3%
1983 808.4 3,638.1 22.2%
1984 851.9 4,040.7 21.1%
1985 946.4 4,346.7 21.8%
1986 990.4 4,590.1 21.6%
1987 1,004.1 4,870.2 20.6%
1988 1,064.5 5,252.6 20.3%
1989 1,143.6 5,657.7 20.2%
1990 1,253.2 5,979.6 21.0%
1991 1,324.4 6,174.0 21.5%
1992 1,381.7 6,539.3 21.1%
1993 1,409.5 6,878.7 20.5%
1994 1,461.9 7,308.7 20.0%
1995 1,515.8 7,664.0 19.8%
1996 1,560.5 8,100.2 19.3%
1997 1,601.3 8,608.5 18.6%
1998 1,652.6 9,089.1 18.2%
1999 1,701.9 9,665.7 17.6%
2000 1,789.0 10,289.7 17.4%
2001 1,862.9 10,625.3 17.5%
2002 2,010.9 10,980.2 18.3%
2003 2,159.9 11,512.2 18.8%
2004 2,292.2 12,277.0 18.7%
2005 2,472.2 13,095.4 18.9%
2006 2,655.1 13,857.9 19.2%
2007 2,728.7 14,480.3 18.8%
2008 2,982.5 14,720.3 20.3%
2009 3,517.7 14,417.9 24.4%
2010 3,456.2 14,958.3 23.1%
2011 3,598.1 15,533.8 23.2%
2012 3,540.0 16,244.6 21.8%
2013 3,450.0 16,661.0 20.7%

What exactly do you contend is incorrect about the statistics and why?

 

Well yes, capitalism in general is a give me a something for nothing proposal, and they call it profits.

 

Crapitalism..is what I fondly call it. The ability to manipulate people and their circumstance for pure profit, and then call it work, while screaming about everybody else getting free handouts. Yeah, go figure.

 

I must be ok to be manipulated by a huge, unaccountable, bankrupt government then - right?

 

Corporations are dedicated to making money, and how to do more of it, in any manner possible. That your idea of 'accountability'? To answer your question, I see little difference, except that one benefits the few, and one benefits the many.

 

Again. Can you give me a link to the actual place you are getting these figures from? Why are you hiding it?

 

Why are you so afraid to reveal your actual source?

 

What in the hell are you talking about? I posted the sources for the data used. Post #94. It was posted in direct response to your request. Any member can click on the links to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and verify the numbers I used.

You claimed that my statistics were "phony" and "not correct" and from a "liberal joke site". I showed your claims and accusations were bull(*)(*)(*)(*), once again, by proving my data came from the official sources, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and posted the calculations.

And rather than concede and admit you were flat out wrong, you're just playing games. It's a "personal responsibility" thing, right?

 

Kinda makes you wonder how much less debt we would have if democrats didnt use the IRS piggy bank to buy votes.

 

it would be less, but the right prefers to invest in crime testing companies, drug testing companies, poverty testing companies, and terror testing companies.

 

Kind of makes you wonder how much less debt we would have if Republicans hadn't squandered a surplus budget and run up trillions of debt with tax cuts and military buildups, and if they hadn't left us with the worst recession in 80 years.

 

I'll tell you what. Since you seem to be unwilling to accept the data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, why don't you prove your proof of your claim:

I challenged your claim and provided evidence to prove your assertion was false. Where's your source for you claim that "Obama on the other hand raised spending to about 25% of GDP and has remained around 24% of his entire Presidency so far."

 

Those links do not show the data you posted and you know that and anyone who would click on those links would see that as well. Can you post the link to the actual data you were first showing? Don't be afraid.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me where on the CBO website is the data you first posted.

 

Absolutely untrue. The data I used for my figures is from the links in post number 94. Any member can verify it for themselves.

LOL, nice dodge. You made the claim first. I proved it was bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Where's your source for you claim that "Obama on the other hand raised spending to about 25% of GDP and has remained around 24% of his entire Presidency so far." Back up your claim. Rule 10.

 

Post #94, as I've stated numerous times now:

Post #101, giving the detailed data from the links in post #94 and the calculations:

Any member go to those links and verify for themselves the data used in my figures.

I posted the sources for the data used in post #94. It was posted in direct response to your request. Any member can click on the links to the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and verify the numbers I used. I've now posted it for the second time.

You claimed that my statistics were "phony" and "not correct" and from a "liberal joke site". I showed your claims and accusations were bull(*)(*)(*)(*), once again, by proving my data came from the official sources, the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Economic Analysis and posted the calculations.

And rather than concede and admit you were flat out wrong, you're just playing games. It's a "personal responsibility" thing, right?

Edit: I just re-checked the source data from the links I posted. The figures are accurate, except for the 2012 outlays have apparently been revised from the $3,540.0 figure I have to $3,537.1. The miniscule difference does not change the percentage calculation. The 2013 figure is the current GDP figure as of the end of 2ndQ2013, in the BEA tables I cited.

The numbers for spending and GDP are directly from the sources listed and accurate. Anyone can verify it for themselves.

 

See these figures? Yes these right here. Where did you get them? Provide a link please for these figures.

 

See post #101. For the third time. I'll even bold it for you because you apparently don't read.

Now, what exactly do you contend is "incorrect" about the statistics and why?

I've posted my sources proving your claim is wrong. Where's your source for your claim in post #82 that "Obama on the other hand raised spending to about 25% of GDP and has remained around 24% of his entire Presidency so far." Back up your claim. Rule 10:

Are you going to concede you were wrong, or back up your assertion, or do we need to invoke the rule?

 

Obviously that is just crazy Tea Party talk.

As long as The 0ne is the president, he can destroy the nation's economy and send us into an even worse recession with 150 million Americans suffering in poverty, and these partisan, liberal pigs will have nothing but frozen smiles on their faces.

 

Here is the spending by % of GDP for Obama's term in office so far. The spending is insane and the highest of all modern day Presidents by far and he is certainly not done yet. I provide a link to my stats unlike you. In addition if you look at the chart will see Reagan had only one quarter above 24% and only 6 quarters above 23%

2013 Q2 22.93%
2013 Q1 22.70%
2012 Q4 23.07%
2012 Q3 23.09%
2012 Q2 23.44%
2012 Q1 23.31%
2011 Q4 23.55%
2011 Q3 24.00%
2011 Q2 24.81%
2011 Q1 24.61%
2010 Q4 24.75%
2010 Q3 24.92%
2010 Q2 24.89%
2010 Q1 24.95%
2009 Q4 24.47%
2009 Q3 24.71%
2009 Q2 24.73%
2009 Q1 22.63%


http://www.deptofnumbers.com/misc/debt-revenue-and-expenditures-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

 

Yep, cut the military by 95%, eliminate corporate aid, eliminate foreign aid. Start government selling our own resources to pay for the budget.

 

Not accurate, even from your own sources, show spending higher in the '82-83 time frame than it is currently, and only slightly lower in later years.

Complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

The data does not confirm your assertion that "spending to about 25% of GDP and has remained around 24% of his entire Presidency so far" as the data you cited shows current spending levels below 23%.

However, the data does show different percentages than those derived from the CBO data I used.

The figures in your webpage were calculated from data from the BEA which is found here: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1

Table 1.1.5 contains the GDP data, which is the same data I used.

Table 3.2 contains the expenditure data. It is different that the data from the CBO that I used.

For example, in 2012, the CBO lists expenditures as $3,537.1. The CBO link I previously gave. The Office of Management and Budget has the same number. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/HISTORICALS [Table 1.1]

But the BEA has expenditures as $3,772.7. That is $235.6 billion more than the CBO and OMB has, which accounts for the difference in their percentages they calculated and mine.

Interestingly, the BEA numbers on revenues are higher than the CBO/OMB number. CBO/OMB has revenues in 2012 as $2,450.2, while BEA has it at $2,663.0, which is $212.8 billion higher.

So why do they have different numbers?

According to the BEA:

The main data source for the federal estimates is the Budget of the United States Government, an annual doc(*)ument published by the Executive Office of the Presi(*)dent, usually in early February. Each year, BEA “translates” the budget into the NIPA framework. The translation includes sorting the budget receipts and expenditures data into NIPA categories and ad(*)justing the data to conform to NIPA accounting con(*)ventions. This translation provides the starting point for preparing monthly and quarterly estimates, which requires data from other sources.

The Department of the Treasury’s Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays (MTS) includes monthly data in the budget framework; however, the MTS contains far less detail than the budget, especially on expenditures. BEA augments MTS data with unpublished details from the Department of the Treasury, but the result is still less detailed than the budget. In contrast, the receipts data in the MTS are similar in de(*)tail to that found in the budget. Additional source data comes from many agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Social Secu(*)rity Administration, the Center for Medicare and Med(*)icaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service. Most provide monthly, quarterly, and annual reports. For more information on how the budget is trans(*)lated into a NIPA framework including coverage, tim(*)ing and netting adjustments, please see “NIPA Translation of the Fiscal Year 2009 Federal Budget” on page 19. ​

http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2008/03 March/0308_primer.pdf p. 36.

The Treasury Department MTS referred to in the text had expenditures totaling $3,538B for the 12 months ending September 2012 (i.e. FY 2012) which are different than both the CBO and BEA numbers, though that is pretty close to the CBO number.

I looked at the numbers a bit and browsed the "NIPA Translation of the Fiscal Year 2009 Federal Budget" which can be found on line, It is far to detailed for it to be worth it to me to be worth spending time on. However, after perusing the number, it seems to me that the most significant difference lies in how interest payments are accounted for. The CBO/OMB data have interest as a net expense, with nothing logged on the revenue side. It appears that BEA breaks that out between interest paid and interest received. Net interest paid (according to the CBO) in 2012 was $220 billion. Total interest expenditures records by the BEA are $420 billion. That $200 billion difference seems to account for the bulk of the difference between the CBO/OMB and the BEA numbers, which would also explain why the revenues are about $200 billion higher on the BEA side as they are accounting for interest income as a receipt.

Bottom line, both data sets and figures are valid. While the CBO/OMB numbers are more commonly cited and used for Govt budget data, the BEA is certainly a legitimate source of data as well, which just gives a different measurement.

 

Talking about spending compared to the GNP or anything else is just smokescreen BS. It is a standalone fact that we are over 17 TRILLION DOLLARS in debt, and that is not good.

 

I see, so in your opinion only Democrats are big spenders? What a conveniently short memory you have.

 

Write your Republican Tea Party reps and tell them to compromise on revenue increases so we can get a budget deal done.

 

It's imperative you watch the Documentary " Park Avenue " on Netflix