Mitch McConnell Blinked FirstFollow

"I'm not getting my news from anywhere, Joph."

Right.

Smash asked me to provide data showing that spending has "grown at a particularly high rate recently...". He even specifically asked for a "chart of spending relative to GDP". I provided that chart (table actually), and it shows that spending relative to GDP has been higher in the last 2 full years than at any time in the previous 38 years.

I provided what he asked for. The fact that revenues were also down isn't relevant to that.

Um... Sure. I'll do you one better. I'll include revenue, spending, deficit, and debt, all as a percentage of GDP, courtesy of CBO historical budget data. And I'll give you 40 years instead of 20:

Great, let's use the CBO numbers. It's good we can agree on a neutral data framework. Here's the link to the actual report.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

So, before we go too crazy with stuff like this:

Sure! How about the fact that for the first 38 of those 40 years not one year had outlays greater than 23.5% of GDP. A level that has been exceeded for both of the years Obama has been in office (and is projected to be exceeded this year as well).

Let's stipulate some objective facts.

2010 outlays were .3% of GDP higher than 1983 outlays. By any measure, these are extremely similar numbers. The causes aren't the same, but generically, if this is the yardstick we're using, they're close to identical.

The response to the outlay number in 1983 was to raise taxes. Well, that's probably an unfair characterization. Let me clarify. Ronald Reagan signed significant tax increases into law in 1983.

The 2009 number includes some percentage of the Stimulus outlay, but is primarily driven by the 2009 budget, signed into Law by GWB. It would have been impossible for Obama to have much impact on 2009 spending, in either direction, budgets aren't made in real time obviously.

The first fiscal year Obama has real responsibility for, 2010, how's a decline in outlay from the previous year. Now the previous year was the highest ever relative to GDP, I'm not making an argument, just noting the data.

These are facts.

So, here's an example of an argument that can't factually be made from the data:

1. That current outlay numbers are dramatically higher than other outlay numbers in difficult economic times. This is demonstrably false. Not only are they nearly identical to the early 80's numbers during that recession, but the number here is a combined number that includes non discretionary spending, and in that context they're actually lower than many previous years. More on that in a minute.

Keeping that in mind, please complete the second part of the excessive. Yes, I asked you for data, but I also asked you to tell me what you think it means. So, do. Before you do, take a look at the non discretionary numbers and keep in mind this really what we're talking about. Medicare cuts aren't on the table, or Soc Sec cuts etc, right? If I'm wrong about that, and that's an argument you want to make, let me know.

Again, what's your analysis of these numbers. By themselves, the fact is we see the lowest revenue numbers in the history of the data set by a significant amount, and the highest outlay numbers by a much smaller margin. Again, these are facts. Let me know what you think they mean.

Thanks.

Oh, no! John McCain isn't a conservative! Shocking from an amnesty proponent and a cap and trade missionary.

I wanted him to be president just so he'd go to address the press and scream at them to get off his lawn.

Gbaji must be working on a reallllly long response for it take this long to respond.

Yes, I'm sure that's it.