3 ms·
> Take a closer look at that chart. Notice the pronounced downward trend on the blue line (federal) starting from a peak in 1992... So? That is noise on a flat
by roenxi 1y ago
> Take a closer look at that chart. Notice the pronounced downward trend on the blue line (federal) starting from a peak in 1992...
So? That is noise on a flat line. A drawdown doesn't mean sticking to the consensus flat trend. The plan here seems to be a "drawdown" is something where I can say "spending will be about the same".
If I talk about increasing government spending I can point to spending growing from 3% -> 20% GDP with a really clear trend and level change. When we talk about drawdowns it is supposed to mean maintaining a trend at 20%? That isn't a drawdown. If that is a drawdowne then DOGE may turn out to have successfully drawn down US government spending! Even though spending seems to be going up.
- acdha 1y agoIf you’re arguing that going from 10% to 6% is flat, it sounds like you’re starting from a predefined conclusion and adjusting terminology to match.
- roenxi 1y agoSays the person whos missed most of the spending - US Federal spending hasn't dropped below 10% in 80 years. You might not have read the title of the graph you're looking at? US Federal spending over any recent time period is basically sum(GDP over however many years)*20%. You're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction that, which potentially didn't even involve actually lowering spending since we're talking a % of something that is growing. Y'know, well done Clinton and all that - balancing a budget is challenge. But if that is going to get called a drawdown it was about as effective as DOGE. It didn't bump Federal spending off the trendline and the small amounts render it largely meaningless in the big picture. It is literally statistical noise.