So we hit the debt limit...

[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.

[Berkut]

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.

<boggle>

Your graph illustrates that right now spending is at an all time high since WW2. Spending, RIGHT NOW, is greater than it has EVER BEEN outside the greatest war in human history. The trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending - 40% increase as a percentage of GDP. You claim this is cyclical - great, no argument. And the cycle right now is that spending is increasing, and has been for 20 years.

These are facts, assuming your graph is accurate. They are not interpretations, opinions, and certianly not "lies", conservative or otherwise. This is YOUR data.

Your right, there is no argument you can come up with that can refute your own graph that shows that the Tea Party types are perfectly justified in being concerned about federal spending as a percentage of GDP right now.

You cannot get away from two simple facts:

1. Spending is at an all time high - likely it is higher right now than at any other time in US history, excepting very, very large and active wars.
2. Spending right now is on the upslope of the cycle.

Just because spending has been cyclical does not mean that we should just not worry about it when it is high because it is just augimagically going to go back down because it always has in the past. At least part of the reason it probably always has in the past is because people tend to start freaking out about it when it reaches high points and react accordingly. The fiscal conservatives get more votes, and the fiscal liberals lose power. Just like when it is at a low point, there is not nearly as much pressure against it rising, and those who want it to go higher tend to have their way. Of course, when the green drazi point this out, they are liars.

I am pretty sure that if we were in a trough, you would be perfectly happy to point out that we were at an all time low in spending, and on a downward trend, and hence we should consider spending some more - correct? The difference between me and you is that when you did that I would not close my eyes and pretend the data says something else entirely.

Or would you say "Hey, back in 1935 we were spending even less than we are now, so we really should not look at what we are spending right now, since that is just finding convenient end points!"

[Berkut]

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.

That is crazy talk, you lying tea bagger!

[Berkut]

Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well. 

I think this sentence should be preserved for posterity.

If the data doesn't refute the lie...perhaps it wasn't a lie?

Just a thought.

Data trumps partisan hackery every time.

[DGuller]

Ok, one last attempt.

Your graph illustrates that right now spending is at an all time high since WW2.

Yes, and had you said that spending had grown ridiculously in the last few years, you would be right.  However, you said that "that the size of the federal government has grown ridiculously over the last few decades", and that's wrong.  To recap:  in the last few years, yes, over the last few decades, no.

Spending, RIGHT NOW, is greater than it has EVER BEEN.

Right now is not the last few decades.

The trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending - 40% increase as a percentage of GDP.

See, this is where I just don't know what to say.  As a person who analyzes trends for a living, I see this as a clearly wrong analysis, but to you that's just an argument from authority, and from a partial source.  If you want to talk about the increase in spending in the last 3 years, fine.  But why do you make an argument that spending has increased over the last two decades, when for the first of the two decades, spending consistently went down as percent of GDP year after year? 

That's like saying in 2002 that over the last few decades, FDNY casualties drastically increased.  Even if true in the most tenuous sense, it's devoid of any meaning.

You claim this is cyclical - great, no argument. And the cycle right now is that spending is increasing, and has been for 20 years.

You seem to miss the reason why I mentioned cyclicality.  I mentioned cyclicality of the data because cyclical data is particularly vulnerable to abuse in analysis.

These are facts, assuming your graph is accurate. They are not interpretations, opinions, and certianly not "lies", conservative or otherwise. This is YOUR data.

No, these are interpretations, and quite faulty interpretations at that.  Saying that the trend over the last two decades is a huge increase in spending is neither fact, nor a good interpretation.  Trend is not just about the start point and the end point. 

For example, a sequence of numbers like 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 7 is not an example of a trend of growth over the last ten years, even if the endpoint is 7 times higher than the start point.  The word "trend" implies a somewhat consistent behavior from year to year.  There is no trend of any kind in spending over the last two decades, because there are 3 distinct and different patterns present in that period.

[DGuller]

Well, I guess that was a good illustration why data doesn't refute conservative economic lies well. 

I think this sentence should be preserved for posterity.

If the data doesn't refute the lie...perhaps it wasn't a lie?

Just a thought.

Data trumps partisan hackery every time.

The problem is that data by itself doesn't tell anything.  Data has to be analyzed to tell something.

It's a good thing for me personally, because I make a pretty good living doing just that.  However, in general, it's a bad thing, because what needs to be analyzed can also be mis-analyzed, especially if you really want to mis-analyze something, and that's how conservative myths persist. 

A classic example is analyzing the effects of the tax cuts on revenue.  Due to the growth of the economy and the inflation, eventually the revenue after tax cut is going to be higher than before the tax cut.  Laffer Curve charlatans go "QED".  How do you refute that?  In the most basic sense, the data supports their assertions, because revenues are higher after the tax cut than before at some point.  You need proper analysis to refute that falsehood, the data itself is not enough.

My mistake in this thread was assuming that the chart I showed was so clear-cut that analysis of it wouldn't be that difficult.  Either I misjudged my audience, or my audience is being unreasonable stubborn. 

[Martinus]

Can you guys show a similar chart for tax income? I have an inkling this is where the real culprit lies, not spending.

[Martinus]

Found this graph:



Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.

[Martinus]

So these graphs show that since 2000, the US tax income has gone down by 5 percentage points of GDP and the US spending has gone up by 7 percentage points of GDP.

I fail to see how this shows excessive spending is the main culprit here.

Considering during that time you got into two wars (which I believe you supported, Berkut - when you were voicing your support for them back in 2001-2002, where did you think the money would come from?), I would be surprised if spending did not go up, to be honest.

Only an idiot would lower taxes during a time like that, and only an idiot would expect spending at the wartime/recession period to stay at the same level, GDP percentage wise as it was during peacetime/prosperity period. 

[Iormlund]

Berkut, like most if not all of those who supported the war back then, thought it would be over in a couple years if not months. In fact I remember that one of the arguments brought around when Jake asked for people to convince him one way or the other was that it would be cheaper than keeping indefinitely the garrison in Kuwait.

[Tamas]

Found this graph:



Tax income RIGHT NOW is lower than it has EVER BEEN SINCE 1960. Time to raise the taxes.

Obviously. It is unfortunate that US leaders do not realize the possibility of paying more debts from increased income. I think you should contact them before this crisis spirals out of control.

[Camerus]

I find it odd that of the proposals for debt reduction I've seen in the few articles I've read, none seem to mention reducing military spending.  Am I missing something, or is that really that much of a political untouchable in the US?

[Berkut]

Berkut, like most if not all of those who supported the war back then, thought it would be over in a couple years if not months. In fact I remember that one of the arguments brought around when Jake asked for people to convince him one way or the other was that it would be cheaper than keeping indefinitely the garrison in Kuwait.

That is just a straight up lie. I never made any such argument, because it is on its face idiotic.

The argument was made that we could not leave an invasion (not a garrison, an invasion) force sitting in Kuwait forever, and it was the presence of that invasion force that was forcing Saddam to at least go through the motions of cooperation. And that is true, and was true then. Nobody ever claimed that the war, or any war, would be cheap. Although nobody who supported the war prior to its beginning thought that Bush would manage to screw up the immediate aftermath as thoroughly as he did leading to the rather long insurgency phase. But I am pretty sure even the most hawkish of us have long since admitted to that error.