Well, ever since Nixon the deficit has tended to go up under Republican presidents and down under Democratic ones, so perhaps Bricker is arguing that it’s premature to cheer since it possible that the recklessness could continue unabated even after 2008.
A Republican that was willing to veto ANYTHING would at least be a small improvement.
The other irony is that this is the first president who attended business school. Wasn’t he called the “MBA president?” By the way, I think this chart is interesting in showing how the national debt increased under various administrations. The steepest slopes are during the Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush administrations. (However, the chart does not appear to be adjusted for inflation.)
Someone brought up the prospect of Jeb running. I hear old Jeb has denied that he’s considering running for POTUS but just the thought of such a catastrophe makes me shudder.
I guess nobody bothered to read this little line on the graph page (bolding mine):
Now I know you libs hate Bush with the fire of a thousand suns and all that bullshit, but do you think you might just stop for a moment and think before running around in circles and screaming like a baboon with turpentine on its ass? You’re just so goddam eager to blame everything in the frigging world on George Bush and/or the Republicans that you close your eyes to reality and common sense.
Here, read it again:
FerTheLuvvaOg, people - get a grip, will ya?
Which seems to put the lie to the right’s claim of being fiscally responsible. They all spend, it’s just a matter of where the money comes from: Tax and spend, or borrow and spend; what’s yer poison? I think most responsible people would agree that it’s better to have a revenue base for your spending, rather than raiding pension funds and downsizing regulatory agencies. It’s a shell game on both sides, with the more egregious being from the right, IMO, since it’s a complete line of bullshit, rather than just a partial lie.
“Spending has been constant as compared to the economy as a whole” doesn’t absolve a government of the responsibility to manage its finances responsibly. The fact is that a government that racks up massive piles of debt is doing its citizens a massive disservice. You can’t excuse that by saying “Well, gosh, the private sector is bigger than it was in 1971.” Yeah, we know. How does that excuse the government for racking up debt through preposterous farm subsidies, bridges to nowhere, and wasteful drug wars?
You talkin’ to me?
Well, it’s not just liberals and Democrats who are concerned about the massive deficits of recent years. Paul Weyrich and Paul Volcker, neither of whom is particularly liberal, have also written about this lately, as have many other conservatives. Or are you saying that you’re not the least bit concerned about the growth in the federal debt?
Damn, you’re dumb.
Spending (in relation to GDP) has been more or less constant, but TAX REVENUES haven’t. Both Reagan and Bush spearheaded big tax cuts, but, despite all their talk about smaller government THEY DIDN"T CUT SPENDING TO MATCH.
The fact that government spending has been more-or-less constant since WWII (in relation to GDP) is actually a strong argument that RAISING TAXES TO BALANCE THE BUDGET WON’T KILL THE ECONOMY. After all, if we were able to sustain the current level of government spending during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 90’s without running major deficits we should be able to do so again.
This is one example where I will partly agree with the left. Bush has not been very good at watching the money, and neither have the Republicans in the Senate and House (less so in the House, actually).
However, there do seem to be signs of a quieter conservative revolt going on, which may wind up stopping a lot of the problem. With the growth of blogging, porkbusting is getting to be a big joy. It even has its own site now (with cute piggy logo). Right now, I don’t know how things will turn out.
A businessman’s ultimate loyalty is to his investors.
Yeah, but let’s just do a little back-of-the-envelope exercise here. In the graph you’re referring to, we had approximately a 2% surplus in 2000. In 2004, we had an approximate 4% deficit. Looking at the graph of Gross Domestic Product lower on the page, we can estimate 2000’s GDP at 10 trillion dollars, and let’s extrapolate 2004’s GDP to be about 12 trillion. So we went from a surplus of approximately 200 billion dollars to 2004’s deficit of 480 billion dollars. That means in four years the Bush administration managed to spend 680 billion dollars. Now see how the graph levels out after 2004? Well, they don’t actually have any data for those years, so that’s basically a guess (a very hopeful guess if you ask me). If this administration keeps spending at the rate they have been, that whole “more-or-less constant” thing goes out the fucking window. And may I also point out that where the “relative” deficit is now is about as low as it has ever been in the last 50 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if we now have a deficit that’s even larger.
I believe that this out-of-control spending won’t stop until an administration that is actually responsible takes control and works to bring us out of the deficit. No sign of that for the next three years at least, sadly.
Could someone help me get this turpentine off my ass?
Clothy honey? “spending” is only one part of “budet”. If I “Spend” less than what I have, I"m being fiscally responsible. If I “spend” more than what I have, I’m being fiscally irresponsible. So, ‘twasn’t that us bad ol’ libruls didn’t read the line you found. It’s that we understood what it meant.
“budet” = Budget. Really, the condescending tone works so much better w/o the typos’. (* ::smacks self in head::* )
Well, hopefully at least someone more fiscally conservative than Bush. As far as I can tell, this administration has turned out to be largely opposed to what I agree with, both where I agree with the Republicans (fiscal conservatism), the Democrats (social progressivism), and the Libertarians (civil libertarianism), and if I could isolate any Green Party issues, they’d probably be opposite the Bush agenda. So, personally, I await 2008, when it will be somebody other than Bush.
I recall joking after the 2004 elections that they might just be the last, as by 2008 the country would find itself being reorganized by its creditors. While its blatant exaggeration, the current state of affairs really has me worried about the future. And, just for reference, back in 1995, one of my college entrance essays was about how the biggest problem facing our country was the inability to rein in the budget deficit, primarily focused on the Democrats. Left or right, someone needs to take care of this problem, or at least retard its current growth.
42? Did Grover Cleveland clone himself? (Yes, I know that he is considered both the 22nd and 24th president since his terms were non-consecutive. That doesn’t mean he’s two people, though. Though maybe Taft was. He was big enough.)
The debt question is one to be taken seriously. I for one beleive the current administration is spending irresponsibly.
That being said, the OP has it’s head up its ass. Really the amount being borrowed is not an issue by itself as a matter of sound and incontrovertible economics.
How much debt you carry is meaningless by itself. What matters is how easy it is to carry it. It’s a lot easier to carry a million dollars at 1% than half a million at 10%. We have enjoyed low interest rates for quite some time and can afford to issue more debt when he can compel low interest rates.
Secondly, treasuries can be construed as a cheap tax for the government in such an environment. The Principle will be repaid years from now in dollars that are not worth as much in real terms.
Thirdly who is purchasing the treasuries, is not by itself a salient fact.
As **lonesome ** used the phrase “The Bush administration”, I think you would have to count Cleveland twice. He did have 2 “administrations”.
Jim
I only glanced over the title. “Administration” makes sense.
Sure did. In those days one could toss a buck clear across the Potomac. These days you’d be lucky to clear the nearest gutter.
Anyway.
The simple fact is that Fearless Leader, who prides himself on being a businessman, and handled our public finances in a manner that would shove a real business towards bankruptcy. (Interesting thought question: if the USA were any regular business, would its creditors have stopped extending additional credit by now?)
In a way I was kinda sorry when Clinton started balancing budgets because I used to able to razz Republican friends who insisted on a balanced budget by pointing out that the last president to propose such a budget was none other than Mr. Great Society hisself, Lyndon Baines Johnson.