Invoking TR


Simple facts.

  • In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt went to Kansas and made one of his “square deal” speeches, promising to give the little guy a fair shake. The same theme had inspired much of his popularity as president during the preceding decade.
  • In 2011 Barack Obama went to Kansas and invoked Roosevelt in a speech promoting higher taxes on wealthy folks to pay for more government spending on education and “infrastructure.” He too called for a square deal, but with less colorful language. He preferred the word “fair,” as in "pay your fair share."
  • After Teddy had provided a “square deal” for seven years, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was under 10%.
  • After Barack had provided his for three years, federal government spending as a percentage of GDP was about 40%.

Couldn’t we just settle for more than twice the fairness that Teddy demanded, by cutting the government in half?

Share This



There's nothing inherently wrong with increased government spending, and there is no magic number of spending per GDP that will make things all better again.

The problem is that our government isn't spending the money on our own country. Instead, we get pointless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. Endless welfare for Israel and Africa. Bailouts for international banksters, and every illiterate Mexican peasant who manages to sneak across the border gets free healthcare and an education for his litter of a half dozen niños.

Wouldn't it be nice if our government actually served the American people?

Michael Christian

@Todayinwhitehistory, I know you seek a Solution, but it sounds a bit like National Socialism to me.


I hope Santa Claus brings you some books on macro economics and real history...A few on statistical analysis would be helpful, also.

Jim Henshaw

re this: "After Barack had provided his for three years, federal government spending as a percentage of GDP was about 40%."

You have a link to back this up? My understanding is that the federal government is currently spending about 25% of GDP.

Michael Christian


Good question. Here's a chart of US government spending as a percentage of GDP:

Here's a chart of US government spending as a percentage of GNP:

And here's a description of the difference between GDP and GNP.

More important for purposes of my comment, the trend in federal spending obvious, whether expressed in absolute terms, or as a share of GDP or GNP. But it never seems to be enough. At less than 10% of GDP was supposed to achieve "a fair shake." Now with spending at more than four times that percentage, our government wants to tax and spend more for the sake of "fairness."

Jim Henshaw

Another link, from the Cato Institute, which would not be inclined to understate the case, at about 24%:


I'm not seeing that 40% figure anywhere but at the one site you used. Elsewhere, it is showing at around 25% of GDP spent by the federal government, and around 40% spent by all levels of government, such as here:

Anthony W

Michael, rather than be an ex-pat, the Non-resident alien status for tax purposes is a lawful way to avoid tax liability for both the national and state tax.

As to the TR / BHO, both are fascist; TR took land that didn't belong to the national government and removed the land ownership of the former owners while BHO wants to remove homeownership rights and land rights via the Bureau of Land Management, one farmer at a time. Before his term is over and the economy and dollar has collapseed, all homes will be eminent domained to prevent further decline in home values and control over the masses.

Of course, when the economy does collapse, the dollar and all assets owned by the amerikan sheeple will be worthless; all pensions, cash, etc will be destroyed in a short period of time.

Michael Christian

Hey, I used to be a tax lawyer, but I'm still sane. What's your excuse? But really, Anthony, on a more serious note, this stuff does tend to drive one mad. I sympathize.

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.