Forums | MacLife

Do it the easy way. Move the decimal point three places to the left.

8,184,000,000,000 => 8,184,000,000

See how easy that was?

Last edited by sturner (2006-03-14 1:24 pm)

What is that as a percentage of GDP?

This is why we need a jewish president. I bet you the budget would be balanced in a week.

We need a Dem as president. Republicans are way too wild with the public funds.

THEY'RE RAISING THE DEBT CEILING AGAIN? HOW SURPRISING!

sturner wrote:

Pariah wrote:

We need a Dem as president. Republicans are way too wild with the public funds.

And he said that with a straight face!

Ya, seriously. You know the Republicans have jumped the shark when one gets wistful for the fiscal responsibility of a prior Democratic administration.

sturner wrote:

Pariah wrote:

We need a Dem as president. Republicans are way too wild with the public funds.

And he said that with a straight face!

Actually, there might be something to that.  I once heard a commentator go on about how, since Dems are all "big government" and Republicans are all "small government", in leaning, the Dems have a vested interest in making government work.  So, they don't end up spending (quite) as wildly when they take office.  Republicans, on the other hand think that government stinks, so they don't give a rip if they abuse its powers because they'd just as well see it fall apart anyway.

So, you end up getting the opposite of what you vote for!

sturner wrote:

Do it the easy way. Move the decimal point three places to the left.

8,184,000,000,000 => 8,184,000,000

See how easy that was?

Well, that's basically what they do when they print more money.  They make each dollar worth a bit less than it was yesterday.  Thus, since there is no basis for the value of money anymore, the State can just pump up the presses and "pay" down that debt anytime they choose.  It just means that you'd be poorer.

Schemes of robbing Peter to pay Paul will only work if the lenders, customers and suppliers all agree to turn a blind eye. If any of them decide to no longer play along, the house of cards crumbles.

When one considers the almost slavish support Bush had among Republicans and others after 9/11, there was a missed opportunity to crack the whip of party discipline and get far more austere budgets passed, if for no other reason than to push more funds into the military.

Given the ideological claims of sound fiscal management and small government, it's almost unfathomable that the Republican leadership did not capitalise on that partisan unity.

But I think the extreme position of ensuring small government by starving the beast has taken root, and it's only a matter of time before a major crisis forces cuts that are far more drastic than a more managed downsizing would attempt.
The problem with this approach is that by then, the ability to financially manage what government is actually needed, is also compromised.

Ribtorus wrote:

Schemes of robbing Peter to pay Paul will only work if the lenders, customers and suppliers all agree to turn a blind eye. If any of them decide to no longer play along, the house of cards crumbles.

When one considers the almost slavish support Bush had among Republicans and others after 9/11, there was a missed opportunity to crack the whip of party discipline and get far more austere budgets passed, if for no other reason than to push more funds into the military.

Given the ideological claims of sound fiscal management and small government, it's almost unfathomable that the Republican leadership did not capitalise on that partisan unity.

But I think the extreme position of ensuring small government by starving the beast has taken root, and it's only a matter of time before a major crisis forces cuts that are far more drastic than a more managed downsizing would attempt.
The problem with this approach is that by then, the ability to financially manage what government is actually needed, is also compromised.

To put a fine point on that the current cabal is deliberately sabotaging the government of the USA.

There is a word for that: Treason.

This chart shows that politics can make a difference in how a government manages the debt. It shows debt as a percentage of GDP. Eisenhower, Kennedy and Nixon all managed to bring down the debt as a percentage of GDP while waging (or starting) an expensive war.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-03-15 8:26 pm)

To be fair, the 60s and 70s were a time of unparalleled growth in the US economy, which I think is the main reason why the per-GDP figure dropped at that time (and it was followed by austerity un the slump years, which was in turn followed by spend-happy Repubs).

Actually I personally feel that the debt-per-GDP figure is not meaningless, but far from majorly significant. The scale of it is the big thing. When you consider the gargantuan interest payments -- the biggest single item (or close to it) in the US federal budget, as I recall -- and the fact that the general debt/deficit situation, in terms of personal debt, corporate debt and trade deficits makes for something of a perfect storm waiting to strike.

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.