RSSU.S. Government Spending 1968 – 2007
The federal budget challenges faced by the citizens of the United States of America start and end with spending. During its fiscal year that ended September 30, 2007, the federal government spent a total of $2.730 trillion. As the chart indicates, the federal government spends more money every year than it did the previous year. This should not surprise anybody. What may be surprising to many, however, is how the money is spent, and more importantly, how it will be spent in the future.
Spending did not exceed $100 billion per year until 1962. It reached $1 trillion in 1987. Fifteen years later, the number reached $2 trillion. It is estimated that spending will surpass $3 trillion in 2009.
38 Responses to “U.S. Government Spending 1968 – 2007”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:51 am
The problem with that chart is that it doesn’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’s stayed flat since 1955:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/outlays-per-gdp-graph.php
[Editor - It's true that spending as a percentage of GDP has been roughly flat over that period. And we show that in this chart. The problem is that income has frequently been less than spending. Second, the project growth in entitlements will overwhelm government spending in the near future. See here and here. You will find all our GDP normalized charts in GDP Charts]
November 12th, 2008 at 12:53 am
“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.”
1. Yes I do think we need to do that.
2. The problem isn’t nearly as big as this exageration.
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
March 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Let’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’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.