Comment 62838

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted April 28, 2011 at 20:38:20 in reply to Comment 62826

>> Would love to see the sources of your data so I can take a look at the interest charge to GDP ratio

This ...

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/pdf/49-eng.pdf

will give you the public accounts for the 2010 Federal government. On page 22, near the bottom of the table, you should see a row called "public debt charges".

These numbers show that from 2006-10, debt charges as a percent of revenue have fallen from 15.2% to 13.5%, even as tax rates were cut and program spending accelerated.

The numbers I presented in my previous comment are from the these two tables...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-210-x/2008000/t002-eng.htm
("GDP at market prices" column)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-210-x/2008000/t008-eng.htm
("Interest on the public debt" column)

and include all levels of government.

>> there's the little matter of who benefits most when the times are good, and who pays the piper when the house of cards falls.

From 2000-08, social benefits went from $1,049.2B to $1,857.8B, an average increase of 7.4% a year. Under Clinton, these benefits increased 42.6%, or only 4.5% a year. All this, even while debt charges have fallen.

If Obama wants to help the economy of the U.S., he should cut tax rates and let average people direct the economy, rather than the government. Central planning doesn't work.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds