Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (559025)	4/6/2010 5:15:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576163

His main point is completely true His points "BUT, if our elected officials would have kept spending to the rate of inflation during this period, our outlays in 2007 would have totaled $2.154 trillion resulting in a surplus of $414 billion!" "If spending had been kept at the level of inflation during this period, outlays would have been $2.229 trillion producing a deficit of only $124 billion INSTEAD of the $1.413 trillion we generated." (note its a different period than the other statement) are true. Here's a good illustration of the general point behind them yargb.blogspot.com From 2000 to 2005 you have a strong increase of spending, then you have a very short leveling of the move up, only to be followed by an explosion upwards. Revenue goes down with each of the two recessions, but even from a recessionary low point in 2009 its only slightly below trend, while spending is way above trend. For the longer term past and future see usgovernmentspending.com frbsf.org keithhennessey.com econbrowser.com online.wsj.com marginalrevolution.com Federal Spending Grew Nearly Seven Times Faster Than Median Income heritage.org heritage.org