Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 1 decade ago

Do you know that federal spending is part of GDP?

Considering that our GDP growth is mediocre at best and that Federal spending is a record 3.1 trillion (twice the growth rate of a Democratic president like Clinton), is our economy significantly supported by big government as oppose to private enterprise.

If we were to keep discretional spending at the Clinton's level our budget would have been 700 billion less , hence GDP would have been lower by this amount.

Update:

you are mistaken.

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Produc...

... and it is 3.1 trillion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_go_pr_wh...

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    GDP is "Gross Domestic Product"... it doesn't have anything to do with spending, or rather government spending.

    And I wouldn't call the stongest GDP in the world "mediocre at best", the hampered growth is probably affected by the recession that the world is feeling right now because of the sudden slack in the European economy.

    And government spending isn't 3.1 trillion, that's the national debt. Spending is about 500 billion less than that. The spending is more than Clinton, but then again so is the population, (natural) inflation and costs for modes of production.

    And lowering GDP is a bad thing, generally...

  • 4 years ago

    you're basically spectacular, yet there are some significant differences. - One distinction is that Reagan's spending as a share of GDP grow to be no longer a huge advance over spending decrease than the previous administration. no longer real this time. Obama's budgets represent a huge advance in the fee selection vs. GDP than the budgets of present day years. Thank Clinton for shrinking the federal budget vs. GDP critically. Bush better it back, yet in ordinary terms slightly. - yet another distinction is that the deficit as a p.c. of GDP grow to be a lot smaller decrease than Reagan than it extremely is this year. real that Reagan ran a greater deficit in 1982 than we had in any year of the 1930's, yet Bush's 2009 budget, and Obama's destiny budgets, are a lot greater as a share of GDP than in Reagan's worst year. - yet another distinction is that Reagan's regulations have been professional advance, which meant that GDP advance better signficantly after the 80 two recession ended. This allowed the deficit and the fee selection as a share of GDP to cut back by way of fact the GDP denominator grew strongly. Obama's regulations are no longer as of course professional-advance. This will advance the prospect that deficits and budgets as a p.c. of GDP won't cut back sooner or later. that should be a disaster, and is the main reason that financial conservatives are working scared.

  • 1 decade ago

    Honestly I didnt know that.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.