|
Yeah, that article has been floating around here. (I think Willravel started a thread based on it.) It has a lot of validity. Your graph above is a simple demonstration of who was spending how much. While it's more sensational to look at the $trillion amounts, it's more important to consider the % of GDP because spending in proportion to the wealth you generate is more important than a set amount.
It makes sense, right? If I make $35,000 and spend $20,000 on a car vs making $100,000 and spending $40,000 on a car, what seems more financially sound? The $20,000 car might seem like "reduced spending," but perhaps I should have used public transit instead. If I make $100,000 and buy myself a $40,000 car, depending on the circumstances, it might be a sound decision (quality car, high resale, good mileage, etc.), despite it costing twice as much as a $20,000 car. It's about keeping things relative to wealth.
If you look at the % of GDP spending, you'll notice that since the '50s, Democrats have consistently reduced the ratio. This means one and/or two things: GDP increased and/or spending was reduced. Either way, while they were in power, they managed to balance the two. The Republicans?
They did all right for a while, but then Regan came along with his political game-changers.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|