So which is the Big Government Big Spending Party?
AxisofLogic/ Economy — When are the die-hard Bush supporters going to realize that they are being taken to the cleaners with the rest of us. Or is all this imaginary?
With Bush and cronies having added over $3 trillion dollars to the national debt, the country’s credit card tab now stands at $8.8 trillion. This represents an astounding increase of over 45 percent since Bush came into office in January of 2001. And all this fiscal profligacy took place during the years when the CBO originally forecasted record surpluses of approximately $2.5 trillion. And there is no end in sight to the deficits.
More alarmingly we now rely on foreigners to finance over 40 percent of this debt with the lion’s share coming from the Asian central banks. In FY 2006 the current account trade deficit is on track to set yet another record, on the order of $700 billion. To put this in perspective, billionaire investor Warren Buffet points out that, “15 years ago, the U.S. had no trade deficit with China. Now, it’s 200 billion dollars.” He says if the country does not change course, the rest of the world could end up owning 15 trillion-dollars worth of the United States. That’s equal to the value of all American stock.
I’m saving that chart and am going to use it every time some blow hard conservative carps about “liberal spending”.
Their decades-long, self-righteous finger-wagging about “tax and spend liberalism” isn’t just a big fat lie — IT’S EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH.
Apparently greg allen missed the post about post presidents. The mistakes or the positives of any president will not show up till long after they are gone. Also “lies, damn lies and statisics” . Says it all
#19 Because we all know that wealth is zero-sum. It certainly can’t be created. The same amount of wealth has existed in the world since man began to walk and talk.
Please Jason, tell me your absurd pseudo-certainty is sarcastic.
We all “knew” wealth was zero-sum… back during the gold standard when people thought that every dollar bill had to represent its literal equivalent in gold somewhere in a vault.
I remember my grandfather — during the Nixon administration — bemoaning the loss of the gold standard. He was convinced that all our economic problems stemmed from that. Looking at that chart, he didn’t know how bad it could get!
Admittedly, that chart does not show inflation which was my Grandfathers other big complaint and pretty bad at the time.
#32 Apparently greg allen missed the post about post presidents. The mistakes or the positives of any president will not show up till long after they are gone.
I didn’t miss it — I think it’s bull crap.
Steaming, self-serving bull crap straight from the Whitehouse via Fox News into conservative brains.
Especially the way they use it selectively.
I can’t EVER remember a single Republican giving credit to Jimmy Carter for the economic upturn during the Regan Administration. It was all about “Reganomics”. And I can’t ever remember a conservative blaming “Reaganomics” for the downturn during the Bush Sr. administration.
I DO remember warning my Republican friends — “if you increase spending and cut taxes like Reagan proposes, it’s going to balloon the deficit.”
“No! YOU IDIOT!” They said in their thoughtful way. “Cutting revenue sources will INCREASES revenue. That’s proven economic theory!”
But the deficit ballooned.
I was right. They were wrong.
I remember my conservative friends WARNING ME, “You fool! If you you raise taxes like Clinton wants, it will kill the economy and balloon the deficit.! ”
The economy roared. The budged balanced.
I was right. They were wrong.
Then I remember warning my conservative friends, “If we cut taxes like Bush Jr wants, it will balloon the deficit again. Just like happened under Reagan.”
The deficit ballooned.
I was right.
You’re all still in denial about it.
PS: BTW, I’m curious which economic polity under Bush Sr do you think led to the boom under Clinton? Raising taxes was the hallmark of Bush Sr.s economic policy, as we all remember. If your theory is correct, you were idiots to beat the hell out of him for that.
PPS: I will gladly admit that economic decisions — NEAR THE END OF AN ADMINISTRATION has impact into the next one. This just makes sense.
But it is just dumb to claim that the economic policy of Nixon led to the Carter downturn; the ecomic policy of Carter created the Reagan upturn; the economic policy of Regan created the Bush slump; etc. etc.
That’s just too silly to even consider seriously.
Last time I checked Congress actually hands out the cash. Since Democrats are in control of Congress so deficit spending shouldn’t be an issue anymore.
I think mxpwr03 just proved the point that neo-liberalism based solely on hate for a man, rarely can stand up to honest scrutiny, but I digress, the “neo-libs” will continue to hate Bush, and the “neo-cons” will continue to hate the libs, and most people will still be holding their hands out to the government all the while complaining that they are paying too much in taxes.
My take on all this:
Bush Spending: Yep he has spent too much, I am not happy about that.
Bush and the border: Do we even have a border with Mexico any more? I don’t think the Neo-Libs would do any better though. One side see’s cheep labor, the other sees future votes. Neither side sees the harm they are doing.
Liberal Leadership on Iraq: Playing short term political games, in order to win the White House, yet not caring about the people they are getting killed.
Bush Taxcuts: Taxes are too high (for the 50% of us who actually pay taxes), but you have to cut spending if you are going to return money back to the people who earned it (or how about start by making the other 50% pay their fair share).
Would I vote for Bush if he ran in 08: Other than the fact that the constitution disallows it, and I am a firm believer in the constitution, I would not vote for Bush in 08, he has proven that he is not conservitive.
Who would you vote for in 08: Certainly not Clinton or Obama, I kind of like being able to choose my own doctor, and none of the ones running for the republican ticket don’t seem to care much for liberty.
>>I think mxpwr03 just proved the point that neo-liberalism based solely on hate for a man, rarely can stand up to honest scrutiny, but I digress,
I’m a Clinton liberal — liberal social policies and fiscal conservatism. Free markets tempered with a social safety net.
Does that make me a neo-lib?
(I can honestly say I don’t hate Bush, personally. I think his policies suck suck suck.)
>>Last time I checked Congress actually hands out the cash. Since Democrats are in control of Congress so deficit spending shouldn’t be an issue anymore.
Let’s hope! But you know its not that simple.
Watch what happens if the Dems try to cut funding on our single biggest discretionary line item: the military.
Or if the Dems try to raise taxes.
Notice which party tries their damnedest to keep current spending levels.
Lets see if the Senate Republicans are still fans of “up or down” votes.
But don’t get me wrong: There are plenty of Dem porkers. I don’t deny it nor do I try to defend them.
But history has just shown that the Dem porkers are not nearly as collectively shameless as the GOP porkers.
#37 Who would you vote for in 08: Certainly not Clinton or Obama, I kind of like being able to choose my own doctor,
Frankly, my friend, I’ think you’ve been suckered by yet another lying Fox talking point.
When did Clinton or Obama say you’d be forbidden to chose yourown doctor? Got a link for that?
I did a quick Google and got this pretty good analysis of Clinton’s policies:
http://tinyurl.com/27v3be
You see in there anywhere that she’s proposing to take away your current choice of a doctor?
Finding a link for Obama is harder because he’s not nearly as defined on the issue.
PS: I lost my ability to chose my doctor long ago when my company went to an HMO in a cost-saving attempt We all remember that America got HMOs after the GOPs killed healthcare reform. The free markets were going to fix everything ,they claimed at the time. But prices kept going up and up.
We libs aren’t the only threat to your “free choice” — so are the corporations!
The main problems we have..
1. the RICH want to be richer.
2. the Rich want control.
3. the Rich dont give BACK as much as they USED to.
4. the OLD style ideas of corporation, have gone by the wayside.
Where corps and companies Help the areas they were Built in.
5. for SOME reason, someone hasnt Taught the rich, that there are CHEAPER alternatives then paying someone 2-3-4 times the price to do the SAME thing.
6. corps THINK, that US citizians WONT work for a reasonable wage…Guess what, ALOT will, except, that someone has gathered the NEEDED people and is SELLING this NEED at 2-4 times the price. because the CORPS wont look around for someone ELSE to do it, they decide to TAKE it out of the country.
This is like Paying $60-100+ per hour to have your car fixed, and the Mechanic only gets 10-15 per hour… the owners get whats Left, for doing VERY LITTLE.
#9, mxpwr03, Very well done. Since I’m not an economist (and obviously most posting here are not), your argument has much merit. Thanks for the post. The debt / gnp graph is quite revealing.
Like I said, when you’ve got to wage a war (albeit a weird one), the only way is to ‘charge it’. When LBJ escalated VietNam, I was 17 and thought I’d never see the likes of it again. Good grief, have we finished paying for that one yet? The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The left – LBJ. The right – Nixon. /flame off
The bright side:
We ordinary folks buy imported stuff dirt cheap at the dollar stores, Walmart, Fry’s….
And we’ll probably pay the Asians back – if we ever pay them back – with funny money.
Also, the US is fairly self-sufficient, and if other nations stop lending us money, we should still be able to afford to buy what we need from them, with a little belt tightening.
I don’t have time to read this whole thread, but I just wanted to jump in and point out that the article ignorantly portrayed only the deficit in terms of actual dollars and not as a percent of GDP which is the ONLY measurement that matters. The economy has grown so much that the deficit is actually running at about historical averages.
Hey Rick,
While I agree measuring debt in terms of raw dollars may be misleading why percent of GDP? Why not adjust for inflation? or percentage of federal budget? or the price of gold?
And if GDP is the way to measure everything, shouldn’t the largest contributors of GDP pay the largest taxes to pay off that debt?
For me the most important fact is that debt creates inflation and inflation hurts consumers more than investors, which is why the right wing doesn’t give a damn about federal debt.
Greg Allen –
Where were you in 1994? The Clintons were proposing to force EVERYONE into HMO-type health plans.
Maybe you need to change your employer. Many companies have dropped HMOs as an option, due to their extreme unpopularity, in favor of PPO-only plans. My company is one of them.
Notice the surplus was when Newt Gingrich was going to make us all poor, take away school lunches and steal Christmas. Slick Wille whined and cried each year but signed them when Dick Morris convinced him (between interns) that it would be suicide not to sign them. It only took three tries for him to sign welfare reform. Congress controls the purse, not the President. Not that most of the moonbats here are intrested in facts. Flame on!
I’d like to throw out a “John Maynard Keynes was wrong with just about everything…and the followers of Keynes are wrong about everything” –M. Friedman.
I’d throw it out too. Keynes got the US out of the worst depression of the past century and made the US the strongest nation on earth. In fact, I worry about anyone quoting Friedman, the worst quack the neo-cons have ever found. Shit, is his name supposed to inspire fear or awe?
There was a budget surplus in 2000? Good thing the government doesn’t use accrual based accounting for its entitlement liabilities like it wants everybody else with more than ten employees to. And how much of the FICA revenues from that year were used for general treasury expenditures?
Mr. Fusion, I don’t even know where to start.
Why does the chart stop in 2003, with the cut in capital gains taxes? My guess id the deficit started dropping around then so it ruins the talking points that liberals have set up.
I don’t know why tax revenues as percent of GDP should be the standard. I’d rather the government be a smaller percent of the economy.
I’ll start to believe the chart means anything when I see the Democrats pass spending cuts.
#43,
You’ll pay the Asians with funny money and then they come back and buy your house and your land and your factories and …