Slashdot Mirror

I find it interesting that so many will try to argue the record deficits are low when expressed relative to GDP, without looking at the data. Here is one
And this one includes Federal spending as a percentage of GDP.
In both cases, the GWB spending is not only record on total, but nearing as a percentage of GDP. In fact, only during WWII (when we had a manufactuering base) and Regans first term has it been higher.

Take a look at this graph (taken from figures on the White House website)

US Debt

US Debt as a percentage of GDP was falling when the US first went to the moon. So the USA really isn't in the same situation as it was then. Add to that a very weak dollar which might encourage less lending, and things aren't looking that great. Debt isn't just bad in the short term, it's expensive to maintain and difficult to get rid of.

The US is doing this at a time when other countries like the UK are cutting back their debt as much as possible to limit interest payments. Here's a similar graph for the UK

UK Debt

Now I'm no economist, and this obviously isn't the only economic indicator which is important, but it looks kind of scary given the expensive war that the neo-cons have taken on all alone, and the others they still appear to be planning (Iran springs to mind). Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era of faith-based budgets.

As most other tinfoil hat wearers are aware, the only reason Ashcroft has resigned is so he can catch a lift up to the mind-reading satellite and read your mind directly! It's all a part of their global domination plan.

(Sadly, that last bit has some truth to it. [tinfoil hat securely back on])

Job growth/loss graph under different presidents
Missing jobs under Bush administration
So
- job loss=OK
- alienating the world=OK
- job loss to undo some alienation of the world=not OK
Lovely logic.

Whoops, I forgot to preview :(

The word "Nonsense" was supposed to be a link to this debt graph for evidence.

-

"Of course he had an effect. But that's largely irrelevant"

This more then anything else shows exactly how much of an idiot you are. You are claiming that something clinton did four to eight years ago messed up the economy so bad that NOTHING bush did had "relevent" effect. Not spending 200 billion on a war, not a massive tax cut, not creating a whole new govt department (and the biggest one to boot) not spending money like a drunken sailor.

According to your brilliant intellect none of that matter at all. All of that is completely and utterly insignificant when compared to something Clinton did more then four years ago.

Brilliant analysis there buddy.

"But I'm choosing to live in reality. And in my reality it isn't hell on earth over here like you guys make it out to be."

Here is the reality. Bush is the first president in 70 years under whom there was a net job loss. You can't get yourself to face that but it's true. Wait a minute it gets worse since January 2001, the economy should have added 6 million jobs. The Normal-Growth line shows what was needed to keep up with population growth according to Bush's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA).

But hey you don't need any facts or figures that's just for people who have "fancy book learnin". You got a job, your company is doing fine so everybody else must be doing fine too.

"I do not like Bush. But I am not going to lay every misfortune in the world upon his shoulders."

It looks like you are not willing to lay blame on him whatsoever. It's all Clinton's fault.

Cutting taxes is irresponsible, when it leads to massive debts, particularly when they are paid for by future generations and they are not being used to defend our shores.

While I do know that Reagan and GWB were irresponsible, Poppa Bush showed that he cared more about America than his own political career. Now does that mean that it is all republicans? Heck no (witness John McCain or Colin Powell). Reagans massive debt were incurred while democrats own congress. It was a joint effort between them, that deserves joint responsibility. It is something that seems to be lacking in this day and age. When was the last time that GWB took the blame for many of his decissions? In fact, when did you EVER hear GWB take the blame or admit an error. "The buck stops here" is missing, these days.

BTW, I am not interested in hearing about those commie and terrorist-loving war-fighting, peace loving, tax to holy hell, spend like there is no tomorrow liberals or those lieing stealing war-mongering (but draft/war avoiding) conservatives. Likewise, I am tired of republicans who:

• speak of defending these shores while avoiding any war or military service themselves.
• Speak of defending us from terroism, putting troops in other countries and avoiding where the terrorists are hiding (Afghanastan, Pakastan, Saudi Arabia, etc).
• Speak of balancing the budget, even though it was nearly balanced when they took office.
• Speak out against drug users, prostition, etc, while they themselves are on the radio or at camp david doing major drugs or in Hong Kong with hookers, etc.

1. Say that they have a plan, but talk about nothing except the horrible admin.
2. Talk about balancing the budget but want to return us to the same old answers (thing have to change)
3. Speak of personal freedom, but then want to take away my guns or my right to defend my self from a corrupt admin.
4. Speak of the getting us out of Iraq in a year or two, but seem to think that we can just walk away like we did in Viet Nam.
5. Does not address the fact that Al Qaida is gaining traction back in afghanastan (seems to be taking the ostrich approach)

For the record, I am a registered Libertarian since 1990. Prior to that, I mostly voted libertarian, but was independant.

One basis for comparison is that of the U.S.'s $11 trillion economy, only about $2 trillion is reasonably available for a budget, since it is politically impossible (and of course unwise) to tax, say, 50% of the nation's production. So the analogy might be a family with $110,000 income that has to spend $90,000 of that on nondiscretionary expenditures: let's say mortgage, taxes, food, insurance, and so on. That's pretty much impossible for that income level; anyone at $110,000 has a lot more than $20,000 worth of discretionary spending, so people will have a hard time imagining it.

Statistically, what household income level has about $20,000 in discretionary spending? Or maybe I'm looking for what household income level has $8,500 discretionary income, which I guess would be proportional to the fed's discretionary spending. Hmmm... or am I looking for total fed revenue minus nondiscretionary spending, which I would guess at about $4,000 for a household?

Maybe a household earning $40,000 a year would have about $4,000 in discretionary income. And how would that family look at a $74,000 accumulated debt? Would that family think it wise to not only spend that $4,000 on new stuff instead of paying down their debt, but then also rack up an extra $4,000 in debt every year?

Maybe if there was a way to tell this story in numbers that were proportional to household discretionary income? As GDP and governmental tax revenue grew, that could be understood as a household getting promotions and better jobs. The war debt from 1945 could be seen as a major household expenditure that was paid down until 1955, and then stayed manageable because of the "promotions" that the country kept getting (the American miracle of increasing productivity). It lasted right up until Reagan, at which point the country started spending much faster than its wage-earners got "promotions"...