As the chart below shows, federal outlays for goods, services and employee compensation have fallen in seven of the past nine quarters, according to data compiled by the Commerce Department. The inflation-adjusted annual rate fell 7.9 percent from a peak reached in the third quarter of 2010. Spending by state and local governments has also dropped.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/spending-cuts-are-nothing-new-for-u-s-economy/

In response to macnh1's comment:

Obams is a fiscal conservative and we didn't even know it.......I'm sure our creditors are sleeping better now.....how is our credit rating doing??

$16.5 trillion in debt

all other preidents combined...$9.5 trillion

Obama in 4.5 years....$7 trillion....a President of historic proportions!!!!

Heh, heh, heh... nothing like just jumping up and down with false numbers to try and make an argument.

Sorry spanky but repeating lies doesn't change their veracity.

Because GDP is also going up.

Hence the %-of-GDP relevant numbers.

However, since the end of the recession, the top 1% of earners has procured over 121% of the economic gains in that time.

Meanwhile, worker wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest levels ever.

The people work harder.  The elite make more.  The elite spend more.  It's the american way.

Because GDP is also going up.

Hence the %-of-GDP relevant numbers.

However, since the end of the recession, the top 1% of earners has procured over 121% of the economic gains in that time.

Meanwhile, worker wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest levels ever.

The people work harder.  The elite make more.  The elite spend more.  It's the american way.

In response to macnh1's comment:

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

In response to macnh1's comment:

Obams is a fiscal conservative and we didn't even know it.......I'm sure our creditors are sleeping better now.....how is our credit rating doing??

$16.5 trillion in debt

all other preidents combined...$9.5 trillion

Obama in 4.5 years....$7 trillion....a President of historic proportions!!!!

Heh, heh, heh... nothing like just jumping up and down with false numbers to try and make an argument.

Sorry spanky but repeating lies doesn't change their veracity.

I was joking when i called Obama a fiscal conservative...you can call it a lie, I called it a joke.....

Feel free to share your wisdom about how the debt and spending is good for us???  Many great civilizations have collapsed due to fiscal irresponsbility, or are we immune because Obama went to Harvard???

Really, which 'Great Civilizations" collapsed because of fiscal irresponsibility?

Which great nations collapsed because they chose butter over bullets?

And as a point of fact:

You wingnuts have been predicting all sorts of finacial Armegeddons and not one has proven correct.

There was the hyper-inflation meme.... didn't happen.

Then it was the bond market and it's demise....US bonds still the most trusted investment in the world. Heck, people are paying us to lend them money.

There was the drill-baby-drill meme which had the opposite effect of fuel prices.

And then let's not forget the idea that cutting spending now in the midst of a slow recovery would spur growth....As the chart clearly points out, the federal gov't has been steadily taking money out of the economy and the result is a sideward slog.

We've had debt at 110% of GDP and the country then went into an economic boom.

CBO has projected the debt/GDP ration to be steady at 75% of GDP for the next decade. In fact they say that if there are no changes to current policy, that ratio will decline slightly.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Because GDP is also going up.

Hence the %-of-GDP relevant numbers.

However, since the end of the recession, the top 1% of earners has procured over 121% of the economic gains in that time.

Meanwhile, worker wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest levels ever.

The people work harder.  The elite make more.  The elite spend more.  It's the american way.

So should we have widespread government forced equality and pay the CEO the same as the factory worker???

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Outlays, huh?

Obama the budget cutter...thanks for the laugh..

You get a free Obamaphone for your efforts...and an EBT card.

Federal revenues will climb roughly 8% this year, 10.5% next year and 12.3% the year after that. And from 2016-22, federal revenues are projected to increase an average of almost 6% a year, according to Congressional Budget Office data.

As a share of GDP, federal revenues will be 19% (and climbing) by 2017 — which is well in excess of the 17.9% average of the previous 60 years. In dollar terms, that means Washington will take in $220 billion more in 2017 alone than it would have if revenues-per-GDP were kept to the historic average.

Read More At IBD: No Doubt: Obama's Big Spending Will Mean More Tax Hikes on Everyone - Investors.com http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020413-643105-obama-wants-more-and-more-taxes.

Ummmm, ya OUTLAYS.

So what field are you dragging the goalposts to?  Future revenues?

And what the heck does that have to do with the OP?

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Because GDP is also going up.

Hence the %-of-GDP relevant numbers.

However, since the end of the recession, the top 1% of earners has procured over 121% of the economic gains in that time.

Meanwhile, worker wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest levels ever.

The people work harder.  The elite make more.  The elite spend more.  It's the american way.

The rich got 121% of something?

No wonder they are rich.

Look, enough of this class warfare BS, particularly that with mathmatical mobius equations in play.

From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew modestly by 1.7% (Table 1) but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.2% while bottom 99% incomes shrunk by 0.4%. Hence, the top 1% captured 121% of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011.

How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains? The number is due to the fact that those at the bottom saw their incomes drop.

As you say, it's no wonder they're rich.

In response to Newtster's comment:

Cherry picking and statistical gyrations.

Are you now for cutting spending? LOL! 

What is your point?

Anyway, your assertion of lower spending does not show up in WHITE HOUSE documents:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I'd cut and paste the #s but it is too much of a pain in the .

It shows up in the documents if your looking at the correct ones.

                             2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

National defense 20.7 18.8 20.1 19.6 18.9

Human resources 63.6 61.3 69.0 67.0 65.2

Physical resources 5.4 12.6 2.6 4.5 7.4

Net interest 8.5 5.3 5.7 6.4 5.9

Other functions 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.9 5.3

Undistributed offsetting receipts -2.9 -2.6 -2.4 -2.4 -2.6

Total, Federal outlays 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Because GDP is also going up.

Hence the %-of-GDP relevant numbers.

However, since the end of the recession, the top 1% of earners has procured over 121% of the economic gains in that time.

Meanwhile, worker wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest levels ever.

The people work harder.  The elite make more.  The elite spend more.  It's the american way.

The rich got 121% of something?

No wonder they are rich.

Look, enough of this class warfare BS, particularly that with mathmatical mobius equations in play.

Dismiss and call it whatever you like.  It's still a fact:

From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew modestly by 1.7% (Table 1) but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.2% while bottom 99% incomes shrunk by 0.4%. Hence, the top 1% captured 121% of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011.

How is it possible for the 1 percent to capture more than all of the nation’s income gains? The number is due to the fact that those at the bottom saw their incomes drop.

As you say, it's no wonder they're rich.