Comments on: Realize That You’re Not Alone on This Journey (2/365)

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 22:06:52 +0000

Steve, spending is now 228% of what it was then, or the original amount plus a 128% increase. (A 100% increase would be a doubling.)

The increase in the defense budget accounts for 17% of the ~ $3.5T increase. Remember that the figures I quoted were total government spending, including state/local.

The argument Johanna and I were having is whether government is bigger, not whether the growth was justified, whether by wars or economic woes.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 20:59:32 +0000

AnnJo – actually it’s a 228% increase. I thought it was Trent that specialized in Fuzzy Math ;)

I speculate (without looking up any figures) that the majority of the $3.5T increase was on prosecuting the overseas war campaigns (60% of the increase was between 2000 – 2008).

Welfare programs have no doubt increased since 2008 but with the dive-bomb in the economy what would you expect?

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:51:36 +0000

Johanna, why so mysterious? If spending relative to GDP doesn’t work, and spending in absolute terms doesn’t work, what exactly do you contend IS the correct way to measure whether or not government has grown bigger? Spending relative to Johanna’s personal preferences?

Government simply has gotten bigger, except, as I mentioned earlier, relative to the WWII period. Granted, probably nowhere near as big as you’d like it, but why pretend otherwise?

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:05:24 +0000

“if spending as a fraction of GDP is not a fair way of measuring whether government is getting bigger, then that leaves us with spending in absolute terms:”

LOL! Please try again, with a serious suggestion this time.

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:21:08 +0000

Johanna, if spending as a fraction of GDP is not a fair way of measuring whether government is getting bigger, then that leaves us with spending in absolute terms:

1996 $2.72
2000 3.24
2005 4.4
2006 4.7
2007 4.92
2008 5.34
2009 5.94
2010 5.92
2011 6.05 (state/local proj.)
2012 6.22 (proj.)

Aside from a trivial drop between 2009 and 2010, there’s been a 128% increase in government spending in the last 15 years. How can that possibly reconcile with your claim that government is not getting bigger?

By: Johanna

Johanna — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:21:26 +0000

Part of the reason why government spending as a fraction of GDP is high, of course, is that the GDP is lower than it would be if we were at full employment. There are other reasons, too, that have nothing to do with the government itself getting bigger (which it has not done), but all this stuff has been explained to death elsewhere on the internet.

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:44:16 +0000

Claire, could you specify what time frame you have in mind as the one to which we should return in our welfare programs? My understanding is that we are now at the greatest level of government spending to GDP we’ve ever been outside of WWII (federal, state and local).

By the way, I think you’re way off the mark in attributing subtlety to Trent. You may feel there’s an underlying conservatism there, and I feel there’s an underlying liberalism, but whatever it is, I’m quite sure it is guile-free.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:34:21 +0000

Well, it looks like somebody is moderating comments after all.

I am still confused about what the comment filter does. Why have a filter if you are not going to filter the F word?

Anyway, back to the topic…

Something to consider is that you can be alone in one respect but not in another. You can be surrounded by people that you should be able to trust to care about you – and maybe who really do care about you – but when you reach out to them about some particular thing, they let you down badly. Maybe they want very badly to believe that your problem is not real. Or maybe they’re just incapable of providing the support you need.

By: valleycat1

valleycat1 — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 16:14:09 +0000

The series is based on Trent’s book, which is titled 365 ways, not 366.

By: Evita

Evita — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:15 +0000

Trent, your are one lucky guy, I hope you realize it.
(I hated the post like so many others, but loved the photo!)

By: Scarlett

Scarlett — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:33:04 +0000

Thanks for this positive and uplifting post. I’m going through some financial hard times at the moment but trying to stay positive and working to make changes. I’m new to The Simple Dollar, and I have really liked Trent’s perspective and attitude about finances and life in general.

By: AnnJo

AnnJo — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:39:14 +0000

Johanna, I wasn’t referring to all people in abusive family situations but to the subset who do not have free access to the internet to search out resources and aid for their situations – in other words, the subset who really are alone. Granted that some of them may be too psychologically damaged to effectively use that access, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

By: David

David — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:31:45 +0000

Justine, you screwed up. Just because there is an extra day in the year, that is no reason to put an extra “e” in “Trent” (or indeed in “Justin”, but there are those to whom points need to be made without subtlety). Moreover, as would have been explained to you if you could read, the series started on January 2nd. Hence, today’s is the second of 365 instalments.

By: justin

justin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:23:32 +0000

Treent you screwed up. 2012 is a leap year. 366 days for those bad at math.

By: Angie unduplicated

Angie unduplicated — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:12:05 +0000

I got through the childhood of abuse and the adulthood of stigmatization by reaching out. You have to make the first move in life to get anywhere, even if it’s only the first step off the bottom. The bigoted and boorish are “human resources”- there to be used. In a situation where you know you’re inconveniencing someone, these are the kind you inconvenience. Few people are total isolates, especially in the age of the Internet.
About “lay vs. lie”-this, like the rule of “rearing” children instead of raising them, makes me wonder what kinds of scoundrels made the rules. Jerry Sandusky, for instance, is accused of “rearing” a boy and telling a lie. Skeptics rule!

By: Luis@wealth-steps.com

Luis@wealth-steps.com — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:54:12 +0000

Wow, the article is pretty positive and uplifting and the comments are not…

I really don’t think we are alonge BUT you have got to look for help my brother!

I have felt similar failure and desperation when having been layed off twice and the worry about finding another income to provide for your family is just as overwhelming. But from those experiences I know you are not alone.

By: Claire

Claire — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:50:29 +0000

Like Kristine, I also stopped reading this blog sometime ago because I disagreed with the underlying conservative political message, which is often subtly buried (platitudes are a useful disguise). For some reason the title of this post appealed to me, but, once again, after reading I felt discouraged rather than uplifted. I am disappointed that Trent doesn’t see our government as one of the entities to which people can turn when they are truly alone. There are plenty of us who cannot rely on our families, and while God may be supportive, he is not always able to put food on the table. Soup kitchens and food banks are seeing unbelievable demand right now, while their resources are dwindling. This is not a motivation for us all to reach into our pocketbooks and donate. (And make sure we deduct our tithing from our taxes, natch.) This is a wake-up call. We cannot, under any circumstance, survive without strengthening the welfare arm of the state and the nation, without restoring it to what it once was. If that means paying higher taxes, so be it. Consider it a donation to those who, like Trent and Kristine, once found themselves in dire need of help and thought they had nowhere to turn.

By: kate

kate — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:55:52 +0000

#14 – Kristine, I wish you well on your journey. And you make a very good point about “do not be afraid to reach out,” as well as the danger of indulging in “self-realization – turned-self-righteous declaration.” I guess I better watch out for that in myself. I don’t think the writer means to be offensive and I don’t tend to be bothered by his tone. But, I can see how it could be offensive, and I appreciate learning from you. Thanks also for the mention of wisebread. I’m going to check that out.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:27:47 +0000

@Nick: He started the series on January 2nd. So this was the 2nd of the 365 days remaining in the year.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:27:00 +0000

Nick,

See the last italicized paragraph regarding the title.

This post is part of a yearlong series called “365 Ways to Live Cheap (Revisited),”

(I had the same thought too, yesterday)