<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Government Spending 1968 &#8211; 2007</title>
	<atom:link href="http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/</link>
	<description>Charting Government Fiscal Irresponsibility</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:55:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jamesvsmith</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-9/#comment-1220</link>
		<dc:creator>jamesvsmith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-1220</guid>
		<description>Watermark says:  &quot;3. Read the “general welfare” clause in the constitution and get back to me on whether you think that helping children get medical care so they don’t die is unconstitutional.&quot;

Prior to becoming a constituional law expert, you should read the definition of &quot;general&quot; - &quot;of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category.&quot;  I don&#039;t see anything about children&#039;s medical care in Webster&#039;s Disctionary within the definition of &quot;General.&quot; 

Why limit it to &quot;children&#039;s medical care?&quot;  Why not shoes, jobs, water, food, and clothing?  Why not a government list of what is good for us to think or feel?  After all, it is for the &quot;general welfare&quot; of all Americans....not just the children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Watermark says:  &#8220;3. Read the “general welfare” clause in the constitution and get back to me on whether you think that helping children get medical care so they don’t die is unconstitutional.&#8221;</p>
<p>Prior to becoming a constituional law expert, you should read the definition of &#8220;general&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t see anything about children&#8217;s medical care in Webster&#8217;s Disctionary within the definition of &#8220;General.&#8221; </p>
<p>Why limit it to &#8220;children&#8217;s medical care?&#8221;  Why not shoes, jobs, water, food, and clothing?  Why not a government list of what is good for us to think or feel?  After all, it is for the &#8220;general welfare&#8221; of all Americans&#8230;.not just the children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FAPinVT</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-8/#comment-1215</link>
		<dc:creator>FAPinVT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-1215</guid>
		<description>The constitution guarantees Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of which are much good if we&#039;re all sick and dying. Healthcare is the most important issue of our time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The constitution guarantees Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of which are much good if we&#8217;re all sick and dying. Healthcare is the most important issue of our time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: affitz</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-8/#comment-1202</link>
		<dc:creator>affitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-1202</guid>
		<description>Do you have charts more up to date than 2007?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you have charts more up to date than 2007?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Marmon</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-8/#comment-1083</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Marmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-1083</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s  envision the economy of a nation as a bucket full of money, the money circulating around and around between the producers of raw materials, and those who make the raw materials into a usable sale able product, and the consumer. If the the economy is in balance, the money will not collect in any certain area of the bucket. 

If this bucket of money (the economy) has a hole in the bottom of it (Free Trade), it will slowly lose its money(M1), thus becoming empty. Unless more money is poured into the bucket (inflation by created money), the economy will come to a halt.   

One of the very first pieces of legislation enacted by our congress in the late seventeen hundreds was a tariff. In-fact the colonies under the Articles of Confederation was suffering a devastating economic attack by England. If they couldn&#039;t whip us by force, they would whip us economically. This attack pushed our founding fathers into writing the Constitution and forming a stronger central government.  

One thought our founding fathers expressed ,was staying out of foreign affairs. This wisdom has not followed. Thus we have created enormous debt dealings around the world, whether it be in wars, peace actions, or imbalance of trade practices.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s  envision the economy of a nation as a bucket full of money, the money circulating around and around between the producers of raw materials, and those who make the raw materials into a usable sale able product, and the consumer. If the the economy is in balance, the money will not collect in any certain area of the bucket. </p>
<p>If this bucket of money (the economy) has a hole in the bottom of it (Free Trade), it will slowly lose its money(M1), thus becoming empty. Unless more money is poured into the bucket (inflation by created money), the economy will come to a halt.   </p>
<p>One of the very first pieces of legislation enacted by our congress in the late seventeen hundreds was a tariff. In-fact the colonies under the Articles of Confederation was suffering a devastating economic attack by England. If they couldn&#8217;t whip us by force, they would whip us economically. This attack pushed our founding fathers into writing the Constitution and forming a stronger central government.  </p>
<p>One thought our founding fathers expressed ,was staying out of foreign affairs. This wisdom has not followed. Thus we have created enormous debt dealings around the world, whether it be in wars, peace actions, or imbalance of trade practices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: watermark</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-8/#comment-958</link>
		<dc:creator>watermark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-958</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why don’t we first get rid of all the programs that should not be in the FEDERAL budget at all. It’s not hard to figure out. Take a copy of the budget and a red pen. Then READ the constitution and if you don’t see it specifically listed CROSS IT OUT.

This will no doubt gore a lot of sacred Oxen, but I got news for your friends: If you think we need “help the inner cities” or “provide more money for education” or “make healthcare more affordable” or “help out working class families” you are a BIG part of the problem.&quot;

1. Yes I do think we need to do that.
2. The problem isn&#039;t nearly as big as this exageration.
3. Read the &quot;general welfare&quot; clause in the constitution and get back to me on whether you think that helping children get medical care so they don&#039;t die is unconstitutional</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why don’t we first get rid of all the programs that should not be in the FEDERAL budget at all. It’s not hard to figure out. Take a copy of the budget and a red pen. Then READ the constitution and if you don’t see it specifically listed CROSS IT OUT.</p>
<p>This will no doubt gore a lot of sacred Oxen, but I got news for your friends: If you think we need “help the inner cities” or “provide more money for education” or “make healthcare more affordable” or “help out working class families” you are a BIG part of the problem.&#8221;</p>
<p>1. Yes I do think we need to do that.<br />
2. The problem isn&#8217;t nearly as big as this exageration.<br />
3. Read the &#8220;general welfare&#8221; clause in the constitution and get back to me on whether you think that helping children get medical care so they don&#8217;t die is unconstitutional</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: watermark</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-8/#comment-957</link>
		<dc:creator>watermark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-957</guid>
		<description>The problem with that chart is that it doesn&#039;t adjust to wealth and inflation.

Government spending as a % of GDP would be a more accurate measure to judge growth of government by, and it&#039;s stayed flat since 1955:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp-graph.php

&lt;p style=&quot;color:brown&quot;&gt;[Editor - It&#039;s true that spending as a percentage of GDP has been &lt;i&gt;roughly&lt;/i&gt; flat over that period. And we show that in &lt;a href=&quot;http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/spending-and-taxes-as-a-percentage-of-gross-domestic-product-1980-2007/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this chart&lt;/a&gt;. The problem is that income has frequently been &lt;i&gt;less&lt;/i&gt; than spending.  Second, the project growth in entitlements will overwhelm government spending in the near future.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/page/7/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/page/10/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  You will find all our GDP normalized charts in &lt;a href=&quot;http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;GDP Charts&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with that chart is that it doesn&#8217;t adjust to wealth and inflation.</p>
<p>Government spending as a % of GDP would be a more accurate measure to judge growth of government by, and it&#8217;s stayed flat since 1955:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp-graph.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp-graph.php</a></p>
<p style="color:brown">[Editor - It's true that spending as a percentage of GDP has been <i>roughly</i> flat over that period. And we show that in <a href="http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/spending-and-taxes-as-a-percentage-of-gross-domestic-product-1980-2007/" rel="nofollow">this chart</a>. The problem is that income has frequently been <i>less</i> than spending.  Second, the project growth in entitlements will overwhelm government spending in the near future.  See <a href="http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/page/7/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/page/10/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.  You will find all our GDP normalized charts in <a href="http://perotcharts.com/category/gross-domestic-product-charts/" rel="nofollow">GDP Charts</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Perot2012</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-7/#comment-947</link>
		<dc:creator>Perot2012</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 15:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-947</guid>
		<description>I am exhausted of lobbyists choosing for us our candidates. Fake mavericks and jokers for change. How can we get back to having people running for office that have less sponsors than NASCAR. What can I do to make a change? Does writing help? I am not the most articulate person, but I am not unaware of the problems in our political system. How can I make a change and be a responsible citizen of this great country before it falls to the wayside and becomes a nation that was great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am exhausted of lobbyists choosing for us our candidates. Fake mavericks and jokers for change. How can we get back to having people running for office that have less sponsors than NASCAR. What can I do to make a change? Does writing help? I am not the most articulate person, but I am not unaware of the problems in our political system. How can I make a change and be a responsible citizen of this great country before it falls to the wayside and becomes a nation that was great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sww</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-7/#comment-924</link>
		<dc:creator>sww</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-924</guid>
		<description>Of course we need to cut social security, medicare and medicaid to granma &amp; granpa but the trick is - We can&#039;t tell them. 

The solution : Inflation, or should I say slowly but constantly above historically inflation rate. It&#039;s possibly the only way out now. As we print money, the taxes we collect will be more but the same dollar amount is pay out to the entitlement. 

It&#039;s sad but some where we need to start unrolling...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course we need to cut social security, medicare and medicaid to granma &amp; granpa but the trick is &#8211; We can&#8217;t tell them. </p>
<p>The solution : Inflation, or should I say slowly but constantly above historically inflation rate. It&#8217;s possibly the only way out now. As we print money, the taxes we collect will be more but the same dollar amount is pay out to the entitlement. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s sad but some where we need to start unrolling&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaveStott</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-7/#comment-905</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveStott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-905</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s time, perhaps to stop ranting about government waste. EVERYONE is taking some benefit out of the US Government. And of course, that is as it should be. Such that, one man&#039;s &quot;hand-out&quot; is another man&#039;s &quot;helping hand&quot;. The US  Government is indeed here to serve. And we have plenty of resources. As Mr. Perot has said, we are a great nation. 

But it&#039;s also time to admit, that we can&#039;t do it all. It is absurd to expect that we could. And it is equally absurd to continue to act as if we can. We need a national reordering (or rather ordering) of our priorities. 

Simply put, here&#039;s what we got. Here&#039;s what we can get.

I&#039;m of the opinion that we can&#039;t fund the stabliziation of the world banking system, policing the renegade &quot;terrorists&quot; in the middle east and other backwaters, educate our children to top world standards, take care of grandma in her old age, grow the ecomomy, find and invent new energy products, clean our environment, and pay off the debt. Add to that the myriad of other activities that are good, necessary, and justifiable as US government activities.

We can&#039;t do it all. At election time, we have to be prepared to say - yeah, we&#039;re in favor of all good things including the chicken in every pot. BUT, some things are going to have to go. Here are the top ten items. Here are the BOTTOM 10. And by definition, we&#039;ll keep the former and lose the latter. That, my friends would be a productive talk in these debates. Not worrying about - who was consorting with who. Or who is less than honest. 

I know what we got, tell me what we gonna git. And not get. And in what order. And when. That will flush out the honesty in a second. Ask honest questions. Demand straight forward and honest answers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s time, perhaps to stop ranting about government waste. EVERYONE is taking some benefit out of the US Government. And of course, that is as it should be. Such that, one man&#8217;s &#8220;hand-out&#8221; is another man&#8217;s &#8220;helping hand&#8221;. The US  Government is indeed here to serve. And we have plenty of resources. As Mr. Perot has said, we are a great nation. </p>
<p>But it&#8217;s also time to admit, that we can&#8217;t do it all. It is absurd to expect that we could. And it is equally absurd to continue to act as if we can. We need a national reordering (or rather ordering) of our priorities. </p>
<p>Simply put, here&#8217;s what we got. Here&#8217;s what we can get.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m of the opinion that we can&#8217;t fund the stabliziation of the world banking system, policing the renegade &#8220;terrorists&#8221; in the middle east and other backwaters, educate our children to top world standards, take care of grandma in her old age, grow the ecomomy, find and invent new energy products, clean our environment, and pay off the debt. Add to that the myriad of other activities that are good, necessary, and justifiable as US government activities.</p>
<p>We can&#8217;t do it all. At election time, we have to be prepared to say &#8211; yeah, we&#8217;re in favor of all good things including the chicken in every pot. BUT, some things are going to have to go. Here are the top ten items. Here are the BOTTOM 10. And by definition, we&#8217;ll keep the former and lose the latter. That, my friends would be a productive talk in these debates. Not worrying about &#8211; who was consorting with who. Or who is less than honest. </p>
<p>I know what we got, tell me what we gonna git. And not get. And in what order. And when. That will flush out the honesty in a second. Ask honest questions. Demand straight forward and honest answers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fouad</title>
		<link>http://perotcharts.com/2008/05/us-government-spending-1968-2007/comment-page-7/#comment-865</link>
		<dc:creator>Fouad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://perotcharts.com/?p=100#comment-865</guid>
		<description>Is it the American Perestroika ?? or what is the difference between GWBush and Gorbachev??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it the American Perestroika ?? or what is the difference between GWBush and Gorbachev??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
