So we hit the debt limit...

[Berkut]

So your chart that shows that as a share of GDP spending has increased by about 40% (from 18% to projected 25%+) since 1990 is supposed to prove...that they are exactly correct?

The chart shows that there is no clear increasing trend over the decades that you claim. 

The chart shows that as a percentage of GDP the feds have increased spending by 40% over the last 20 years. How is that somehow not relevant to my point, which is that federal spending has increased dramatically over the last couple decades?

Sure, it goes up, and it goes down - but the trend that people are worried about, which is the trend over the last cycle, is a huge increase. How is that somehow not relevant to what people care about RIGHT NOW?

[Berkut]

It is amazing that you have posted a chart to show that spending as a percentage of the GDP is at an all time high since WW2 and 40% higher than the low point since then in an effort to show that concerns about federal spending are "a falsehood".

I mean, what would we have to spend for concerns about spending to be legitimate? 50% more than the low? 100%? 200%?

[garbon]

The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%.  Here:

Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints.

[Berkut]

This is really baffling.

If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?

I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.

[Berkut]

The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%.  Here:

Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints.

Exactly.

It seems rather bizarre that DG would argue that looking at the previous low and comparing it to the current value would be somehow some terrible crime when talking about how much spending has increased over some period of time. Noting that the current high is higher than any other previous high seems kind of relevant as well.

[DGuller]

It is amazing that you have posted a chart to show that spending as a percentage of the GDP is at an all time high since WW2 and 40% higher than the low point since then in an effort to show that concerns about federal spending are "a falsehood".

You're switching your assertions now.  Your assertion was that spending was steadily rising decade after decade.  It's that assertion that I'm calling BS on.  In fact, decade over decade, the trend was flat, with periodic upward or downward movements.

[DGuller]

The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%.  Here:

Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints.

Sigh.  The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did.  I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.

[DGuller]

This is really baffling.

If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?

I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.

It illustrates the point that you made up after I posted the chart.  It does not illustrate the point to which I responded, in fact it refutes it.

[Berkut]

This is really baffling.

If spending goes up and down as DG claims, then shouldn't it be perfectly expected that people who care about spending would be alarmed when we reach a peak and will want to take action to stop that increase and try to drive spending back down?

I am truly at a loss here. DGs chart perfectly illustrates my point. I could not have come up with a better chart if I had just made up the numbers myself.

It illustrates the point that you made up after I posted the chart.  It does not illustrate the point to which I responded, in fact it refutes it.

Uhhh, the point that spending has increased over the last few decades? No, it confirms that point rather nicely.
It might refute some other point that I haven't made, but even you don't seem to know what that point might be.

I think I have a pretty good idea what my point was, and appreciate you posting the chart to prove it for me. Why you would claim this shows that conservatives are liars is beyond me, except perhaps to illustrate how partisan you are and ready to get all worked up over those damn purple drazi. Again.

[garbon]

The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%.  Here:

Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints.

Sigh.  The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did.  I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.

Indeed. Don't really see it as a good refutation 1) because I didn't understand it at first (blame the medium of the typed word I guess) and 2) because it fails to address how people will be concerned about trends over the "short" term - other than to say "don't worry about it."

[Berkut]

The reality is actually that spending has been decreasing rather dramatically over the last 65 years, from 48% of GDP down to about 20%.  Here:

Oh so the issue was that Berk was looking at the wrong endpoints and not that one shouldn't compare endpoints.

Sigh.  The issue is that you shouldn't compare endpoints, because it's so easy to pick the convenient ones like Berkut did.  I hoped that my second graph would drive the point home, evidently wrongly.

So comparing the previous low to the current value is "picking convenient endpoints" when talking about how much spending has increased?

Huh? Today is not a "convenient endpoint" when talking about politics TODAY. And the previous low spending point is certainly a rather convenient point when talking about how much spending has increased over the last couple decades. So convenient in fact that it makes rather perfect sense to show why people are concerned about spending.

Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.

[garbon]

Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.

I think he chose WWII as an extreme example of picking a convenient endpoint in hopes of illustrating that you can't just choose endpoints that you like.

[Berkut]

Now, picking WW2 as an endpoint, THAT is a pretty good example of incredibly terrible data analysis. Why you would think that would fly is rather beyond me. Last I checekd, we were not curerntly involved in the greatest war in human history driving spending in a rather exceptional circumstance.

I think he chose WWII as an extreme example of picking a convenient endpoint in hopes of illustrating that you can't just choose endpoints that you like.

Except that his chosen endpoint is clearly an outlier and a rather exception circumstance.

Picking the endpoint of today is not "convenient", it is the only endpoint that matters when talking about today.

And picking the previous lowpoint in the cycle is not "convenient" either when talking about how much spending has increased over the last couple of decades. It is perfectly relevant to illustrate that we have in fact been spending more - how else can you point out that in his cycle we are at the top of a slope except by comparing right now to the previous bottom of the slope?

Should we pick some date randomly to determine if we are currently trending up or down and by how much? Its not like his graph shows that spending his essentially random - it clearly cycles up and down over time as a percentage of GDP.

[DGuller]

Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well.  It's all too easy to engage in some innumerate counter-analysis, at which point it's just your word against theirs as to what constitutes proper analysis.  I'm not in the mood for these games. 

If you look at the graph of spending over decades, and see something other than essentially flat trend over the long term, then there is really no argument I can come up with, no matter how well-worded, that would change your mind.  I don't see why I should waste any more time looking for that perfect argument or perfectly-put point.

[Ancient Demon]

I think that if government spending is higher now than at any time since WW2, it's reasonable to believe that it's too high.