Yep I recall it too. Yearly surpluses apparently are ours to squander, but accumulated debt belongs to nobody.
Wow even by your math we have only raised the deficit a little more than a TRILLION dollars a year since bush took office. Impressive.
From 1962-2005 there have been very few budget surpluses. Aside from Clinton the only other President to do it was Nixon. I’m not sure any club which includes exclusively Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon is the kind of club we need to be looking to for presidents.
Bubba was working with a very successful economy, which, love Clinton or not he did not create, it was created by technology. And he wasn’t faced with a need to increase spending on military and security matters, he didn’t have to deal with the economic effects of 9/11.
So, this isn’t something new, and Airman Doors, like most people who don’t understand economics, is panicking over something that isn’t that big of a deal. I’m not sure what he thinks would be worse, raising the debt ceiling or defaulting on treasury bills. There’s lots of people that invest heavily into t-bills for retirement purpose, because of the fact they are incredibly stable and safe. To default on them could cause a confidence crisis with ripple effects that could very well make 9/11 look like a joke, economically speaking.
Don’t try to apply economics of corporations or individuals (ie tons of debt = death) to government, government isn’t the same creature.
The statement “these debts are going to be called” is one that shows a great misunderstanding of how this works. It’s not like we have one massive 8.4 trillion dollar debt that is payable in 5 years to X entity. We have millions of small debts, most of them payable to the public (including foreign entities that purchase t-bills and such, the rest being intergovernmental debt), that are being called and paid every day.
The U.S. debt to GDP ratio is also about average for a major country, so while our debt is huge, we aren’t significantly worse or better off compared to other major countries when our debt is compared to our GDP.
He’s using debt figures that only factor in debt held by the public. During Bubba’s presidency that was around 3 trillion, it’s now around 4.5 trillion.
The total current debt figure of around 9 trillion includes debt held by the public + intragovernmental debt (intragovernmental debt being debt that often isn’t included in varies publications.)
I was responding to another assertion made without fact, not to a lapse in time from my request to you.
I never intended to. I take it you a referring to where I said “untruth.” I meant this only in terms of a statement that is not true, but I apologize for the unintended implication of a lie.
Well, I think the overall economy is the primary point, but okay, I’ll play along for a minute.
I’m really not sure how you can conclude that. For instance, look at the top 10 deficits in your favored chart. All of the top 10 deficits occurred under split governments. So one could equally conclude that massive fiscal irresponsibility is not guaranteed by having a split government, but it is a prerequisite. In short, I don’t think you can rely on these data to make conclusions that split governments are necessarily good for the economy. (It also looks to me like instances of Democrats in control of all three branches of government, when that occurs, are spread fairly evenly throughout the distribution.) Another problem with these data is that they are static, rather than reflective of change. It could be that split governments, for example, are always associated with an improvement in the deficit (in support of your argument), but that isn’t clear within this data.
Again, I recognize that you are interested in a split government, and I don’t have other data on all the economic indicators (as in the eRiposte data) organized by split governments, and they occur so infrequently that it would likely be hard to make a clear interpretation. However, based only on party holding the White House, the increase in National Debt under Democrats was $0.72 trillion, and under Republicans was $3.8 trillion. So, go with a split government if you want a shot at either a surplus or a vast deficit. Go with a Democratic president if you want better odds at a lower National Debt.
Here is another discussion of data showing the same thing, with an interesting breakdown by economic class. It illustrates that under Democrats, everyone prospers more than they do under Republicans, except the very wealthy, who prosper equivalently under Democrats and Republicans.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
For hard facts about debt/spending/et al.
Some interesting things to keep in mind:
-Around 1995, the U.S. debt as a % of GDP was higher than it has been for most of GWBs term, and we’re just approaching that % again right now.
-In 1945 the U.S. debt as a % of GDP was around 2x as high as it is now, at almost 120%.
Fuck you, you simpering troglodyte. I didn’t make here a single fucking solitary qualitative statement about what the deficit is now, how it got that way, or what I think of it. In case you care for some actual fucking facts, I’m on record here from long ago as adamantly opposed to Bush’s deficit spending idiocy. I’ve also been vocal about Congressional complicity; after all, Bush can’t spend it if the fucking House of Reps doesn’t approve it.
And just to head off the more reactionary jackasses among you, because I know that many people will read that last sentence and immediately call me a Bush apologist - again, I ain’t absolving anybody. EVery fucking fool in Washington who’s voted in favor of, or lobbied for, or approved any budget increases in any program anywhere no matter how small is complicit. Any asshole who does anything to increase the federal deficit should be unelected at his constituents’ earliest opportunity.
Nice comparisons Marty. Two years after Bush Sr. and right after WWII.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Link
For hard facts about debt/spending/et al.
[quote]
I’ve also been linking to hard facts.
You know what’s interesting about that? That you chose 1995. Why choose 1995? Also, your choice of “approaching”? Could you provide us with the actual figures (you know, the hard facts) about what the deficit (or debt) as a percentage of GDP was from 1992 to the present?
Didn’t mean to hit a nerve. Like the spanish inquisition I didn’t expect that. I don’t know why anybody thinks you rightwingnuts are hate spewing asholes. :rolleyes:
Heh. “Intra-governmental debt.” It takes a slimeball politician to concoct such a Machiavellian fiscal concept. “We’ll just take this money from the Department of Whangdoodles over here, and “loan” to to the Federal Gizmagidget Agency over there. That way, the Gizmagidget guys can spend it on their Rural Gidget Electification Program, and the Whangdoodlers can call it an asset and spend for their Urban Doodle Renewal plan. Then us Congresscritters can Whang-Dang-Doodle all night long during the next election cycle.”
I gotta get me some of that.
Bullshit.
The 93 and 94 budgets were all Dem - both houses and the presidency.
Check out this chart (from your link).
Hey, look, in 1993 and 1994 the annual deficit was shrinking! You seem to think to achieve ‘fiscal responsibility’ you need to go from deficit to surplus in 1 year. That’s really stupid. Try saying it out loud. ‘Fiscal Responsibility means we have an immediate surplus.’ Sound stupid? Clinton and the Democrats turned the direction around immediately (without a single Republican ‘yea’ vote on the tax increase), and it took 6 years to hit a surplus. Look at the chart - the trend is constant - Republican congresses didn’t affect it at all. But we hit surplus in 1998, so you credit the Republican congress (or the ‘split’ government) with being fiscally responsible.
No wonder we keep electing idiots.
I won’t call you a liar, but I will say you’re either willfully misrepresenting data or you need to re-examine your wrongheaded analysis.
Get with the program. The whang-doodles haven’t been a viable party since 1884.
You’re a real class act, Bosda.
Classier than going to war, saying “OOPS!”, and trying to bury your screw-up in an ocean of flag-waving. Buuuut I gues that goes without saying, hmm, porkpie?
Class has little to do with it. Bosda’s pretty much just a moron. But at least he’s stopped with the multicolored fonts.
Hmm. Act like an asshole, get called on it, and instead of apologizing, point out that somewhere, someone else is a bigger asshole, as if that’s some sort of excuse.
Gee, that sounds vaguely familiar…
{ { { { { {Neurotik } } }} } }
OK, you’re on my list now, too. :wally 
Actually, right now both of them are looking pretty damn good by comparison to the current occupant.