Federal Budget doubles in 10 years

[Karee 4,191]

Total outlays in recent budget submissions

Annual U.S. spending 1930-2014 alongside U.S. GDP for comparison.

• 2013 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)^[129]
• 2012 United States federal budget – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
• 2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
• 2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
• 2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
• 2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
• 2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
• 2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
• 2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
• 2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
• 2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
• 2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
• 2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
• 2000 United States federal budget – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
• 1999 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
• 1998 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
• 1997 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
• 1996 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

The U.S. Federal budget doubled between 2000 and 2010. I can't think of any good reason the budget should double in 10 years. From the data above, it looks like it's been at least stable in the last 4 years. Looks like Bush liked to spend other people's money, although Obama did jack it up .5 trillion between 2009 and 2010.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions

Edited October 10, 2013 by Karee

[spookyturtle 9,466]

So the Republicans are responsible for this?

[Karee 4,191]

So the Republicans are responsible for this?

I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around. I'd guess both parties are responsible for it.

[Sousuke 1,214]

So the Republicans are responsible for this?

Its what happens when a government says "its for the children" and then pours money into security and defense...starts wars etc.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Well.. but at least we can all sleep better knowing Exxon, Halliburton etc. made a killing. In more ways than 1.

& China surely appreciates all our efforts. That's worth a ...right?

One of my favorite quotes = On December 11, 2003 President Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, it’s very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

The God of War sure is fickle.

[Karee 4,191]

Well.. but at least we can all sleep better knowing Exxon, Halliburton etc. made a killing. In more ways than 1.

& China surely appreciates all our efforts. That's worth a ...right?

One of my favorite quotes = On December 11, 2003 President Bush said, “The taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq, it’s very simple. Our people risk their lives, friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that.”

The God of War sure is fickle.

I read an interesting book a few years ago. It's premise was that the Iraq war indeed about oil, but it was about making sure there was less oil on the market, rather than more. It actually made sense. I wish I could remember the name of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Looking at inflation adjusted numbers, there's no doubling of the federal budget. It was up roughly 50% from 2000 ($2.38 trillion) to 2010 ($3.67 trillion). And looking at inflation adjusted numbers you may also notice that federal spending has actually gone down from its high in 2009 ($3.77 trillion) to 2013 ($$3.45 trillion). That's a decrease in federal outlays of 8.5% over the last three years. But sure, the sky is falling.

Oh an before you attack the data, the numbers are from the Obama friendly Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Looking at inflation adjusted numbers, there's no doubling of the federal budget. It was up roughly 50% from 2000 ($2.38 trillion) to 2010 ($3.67 trillion). And looking at inflation adjusted numbers you may also notice that federal spending has actually gone down from its high in 2009 ($3.77 trillion) to 2013 ($$3.45 trillion). That's a decrease in federal outlays of 8.5% over the last three years. But sure, the sky is falling.

Oh an before you attack the data, the numbers are from the Obama friendly Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

So spending dropped after GOP took control of House?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So spending dropped after GOP took control of House?

Spending dropped 8.5% since Obama took office.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Spending dropped 8.5% since Obama took office.

Looking at that report - 2009 total spending included the $787 billion stimulus package?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Looking at that report - 2009 total spending included the $787 billion stimulus package?

No. There were no 787 billion spent on economic stimulus in FY2009. The stimulus package - and its cost - was spread out over several years.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

No. There were no 787 billion spent on economic stimulus in FY2009. The stimulus package - and its cost - was spread out over several years.

Okay...but is the 100 billion of 2009 stimulus spending included?

& I wonder if O should get credit for the spending reductions since the budgets he requested;

2010 = 3.55

2011 = 3.83

2012 = 3.729

2013 = 3.8

& ...what about debt -

Did all that borrowed money help cap spending....?

Seems the drop in spending is...cooked?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seems the drop in spending is...cooked?

No, it doesn't. Debt is accumulated when receipts are lower than expenditures. Expenditures isn't the only side of the ledger that has been reduced. Revenues were also at their lowest level in decades - reached only 15% or less of GDP in the years following the economic collapse of 2008. Usually, revenues are in the 18-19% range. Had revenues been in that range, that would have reduced the deficit by roughly $500 billion a year. Republicans don't understand this even though it really isn't hard to understand.

[Karee 4,191]

Okay...but is the 100 billion of 2009 stimulus spending included?

& I wonder if O should get credit for the spending reductions since the budgets he requested;

2010 = 3.55

2011 = 3.83

2012 = 3.729

2013 = 3.8

& ...what about debt -

Did all that borrowed money help cap spending....?

Seems the drop in spending is...cooked?

Don't bother. He'll just keep parroting the same thing over and over that it's all the Republican's fault. I'm starting to worry about him.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Don't bother. He'll just keep parroting the same thing over and over that it's all the Republican's fault. I'm starting to worry about him.

Yeah...I could see that building up. (but) At least it was more civil this time. I was prepared for lots of sarcastic jabs. Maybe that was a TGIF moment.