Forums | MacLife

mo' ron wrote:

What is that as a percentage of GDP?

67%

To further relate the debt chart to historical GDP, here's a chart showing the % change in GDP from 1984 to 2004.

There seems an inverse relationship between the change in GDP during the Reagan years and the rise in debt.
The Red circles show recession.

From 2001, coming out of the recession tracks better with the rise in debt.

Overall, not a very linear relationship.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Interest payments are less than defense and health and human services, still quite large though, a reported 352 billion in 05.

Ribs chart comparing past administrations and debt is a bit meaningless, the govt has more mandated spending now than ever before.

Ya, except the striking contrast between the supposed "conservatives" and "liberals" in the modern (post Watergate) era.
Truly goes to show how effective having a massive disinformation system like the modern conservatives have can be.
Even as they have been primarily responsible for the huge debts we have today they still manage to get people believing they are about responsibility.
The "Big Lie" and all that.

Dude, look at what you're seeing compared here.
It's debt compared to overall GNP.
Now search what is left of your 60's addled liberal memory for when the US had it's post WW2 economic boom.
See a correlation yet? This chart isn't about spending as much as our economic growth.
With all the mandatory spending the Fed has now, it'll be harder for any future Pres/Congress to dramatically lower the ratio like Ike (a conservative btw) or Kennedy "did".

You insist on trying to connect pre-Reagan era conservatives with modern conservatives. They are no more connected than the segregationist Democrats of the past and the party as it is today.
And your point says NOTHING about the way a supposed liberal like Clinton was able to cause a dramatic change in the debt curve compared to Reagan before him and Bush after.

Oh, and about that post war boom? You mean the one that existed along with massive unionization (creating the middle class) sky high top bracket tax rates (up to 90%) Massive government investment in infrastructure (Trans-continental highway system) and protectionist trade policies all over the place?

Nothing that happened pre-Reagan has anything to do with today’s conservatives.

Whew! We can relax ... the debt ceiling has been raised!

The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.

Acutally a debt-per-population comparison might be interesting.

Be funny if all Americans had to leave a deposit for their share when they leave the country so they can't skip out on their part of the debt.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Whew! We can relax ... the debt ceiling has been raised!

The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.

Acutally a debt-per-population comparison might be interesting.

This guy did a fairly nice compilation although it still has some apples and oranges.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi … lDebt.html

Debt per capita started really going to hell in a hand basket in the 70's under Carter, Reagan then went nuts and spent everything he could and it's ballooned from there. About the best fiscal management we've had in decades was under Clinton when they at least didn't add much new debt and a booming economy started to catch up a tiny bit. That's probably the best we can hope for from any future leaders as well.

So what's the point in having a ceiling if it gets raised every time it gets reached?

Then by this point in Bush's presidency there wouldn't be any money for anything but the war.

Drawing attention to it doesn't even do anything. It's happened  4 times in 5 years!

I think to equalize the budget, the mandatory cuts to social programs shold be very large. That would leave more money that could be poured into the military, which could then bring in more people, reducing the need for more social programs. More single mothers need to join up and take advantage of the increased military budgets.

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Then by this point in Bush's presidency there wouldn't be any money for anything but the war.

Drawing attention to it doesn't even do anything. It's happened  4 times in 5 years!

Who said you got to be exempt from the cuts?

Bush.

Side note- if the current trend continues you might just get to see how very limited a Presidents powers actually are contrary to popular misconception.

Tallgeese wrote:

Which trend? The rampant spending or the Republican Congressmen with uneasy seats scrambling to borrow Al Gore's "I did not have political relations with that man" t-shirt?

hehe, first the em flashlight and now the t-shirt.
You're on a roll today Geesie.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Whew! We can relax ... the debt ceiling has been raised!


Acutally a debt-per-population comparison might be interesting.

This guy did a fairly nice compilation although it still has some apples and oranges.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi … lDebt.html

Debt per capita started really going to hell in a hand basket in the 70's under Carter, Reagan then went nuts and spent everything he could and it's ballooned from there. About the best fiscal management we've had in decades was under Clinton when they at least didn't add much new debt and a booming economy started to catch up a tiny bit. That's probably the best we can hope for from any future leaders as well.

See, there ya go ... that's what I'm talking about:

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_medi … resent.gif

And as much as I loathe Reagan, he comes off as pretty small-time compared to his successors.

aww...look, Clinton made a cute little dip, then Bush came in and corrected his "mistake".