Mephisto2

It's a [not]well-known fact.

http://www.pfd.state.ak.us/


Mr Mephisto

cthulu23

What do you mean by that? Isn't defense spending an expenditure?

onetime2

Not in the mood to do the checks but the numbers you posted appear wrong. First and foremost, why are 2003 numbers projected? Second, the numbers I have recently seen regarding the deficit in 2004 were closer to the $400 million level rather than $700+. And third, the money coming into US coffers during the Clinton Presidency was unprecedented. We were seeing an economy growing at something on the order of 5% per year over nearly a decade. We are not likely to see sustained growth at that level with few negative effects (low inflation, interest rates, etc) very often. To use that period as the underpinning of any thoughts around how fiscally responsible Clinton AND Congress were is flawed. The money was coming in faster than even Congress could spend it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

hammer4all

“Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.”

neutone

Hells bells, that graph is shocking. I don't understand how Bush can be so defended when his most popular redeeming feature is his willingness to bomb the hell out of Arabs. What is the chance his new proposals for tax will make any difference.

__________________
Protect the rights of tribes

onetime2

Hmmm, I guess bringing up legitimate questions about the graph and assumptions made in this thread has little value in generating real discussion so I will join the band wagon.

God damn George Bush. What the hell did he do with the $5 trillion surplus he was handed by Clinton!?!

Well, I'll bet he gave it to Haliburton. No wait, it probably went to the Saudis since we all know they're in bed together. Oh no, I'll bet his good buddy Ken Lay has it, after all he's got to repay Bush for protecting him from prison by doing something. Guarding a big wad of cash like that probably makes them just about even.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Ustwo

I'm glad you took the time to look that up onetime2 as I was going to and forgot about this little 'Bush sucks' thread. They looked way out of wack to me as well but only so many hours in the day can be devoted to tfp.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

With all due respect Ustwo (and onetime2), this is not a "Bush sucks" thread, and it's a bit disengenous to label it so.

I simply posted a graph of figures published by the Congressional Budget Office. These figures are on the record. The aim was to discuss this, highlight some misunderstandings that seem prevalent and to foster debate.

Simply attacking the thread and the comments of fellow board members does nothing to actually refute the facts.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Fair questions, so let me see what I can do. I presume the reason the 2003 figures are project is because the graph is out of date. Let me see if I can find a more up to date version.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Here's another one. Still trying to find one that includes up to date figures.



I didn't create this graph, or include the rhetorical question. Please don't shoot the messenger.


Mr Mephisto

bling

Well you were right. 2003's deficit was over $550 billion - not the projected $401 billion from the previous graph.

Bustello

Bush is a menace for the economy and the world.

tecoyah

War creates a major burden on any economy, regardless of which party is in power.
perhaps the question should be directed towards warfare economics...as these graphs and statistics simply point out the obvious reality. War is expensive.

Note Reagan was funding the cold war.....
Bush 1 was prepping for, and had Gulf war 1
Bush 2 has gulf war 2

The reasons for the deficit spending are clear.......
It is the reasoning for the Warfare that are not.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

KMA-628

Mr. Mephisto -

Once again, the missing information makes it suspect. Why post something like this that is missing vital information to the argument?

The graph shows Carter in a relatively good light. What about inflation? What about interest rates (they were CONSIDERABLY higher)? What about the gas crises (where we had to search and search for a gas station that actually had gas to sell)? What about the housing market that went into the tank?

Posting graphs like this furthers your point(s) by giving falsely representative facts (re: many, many, many omitted items).

Posting a graph like this or even looking at a graph like this is misleading.

KMA-628

I see defense spending (especially during the Cold War) as necessary and should not be included in an argument like this.

My point: Reagan tried to cut spending, congress blocked him. Lowered spending was part of his plan. He tried and tried but was never able to get a decent portion of his items cut.

The arguement about Bush Jr. is correct, in my opinion. I have never been happy with his spending.

The argument about Reagan and spending is flawed, in my opinion.

braisler

I think that the posts referring to the analogy of buying a house are somewhat apt in this discussion. If you can afford to buy a $80000 house at 8% interest, what happens to your finances when the interest rates drop to 5%? Most people in this country opt up! That is to say, they buy a $140000 house because they can now "afford" it. After all, for the same monthly payment, they can now live in a nicer neighborhood, have a pool, extra bedrooms, or whatever. Nevermind that the $80000 house was just fine for their needs and was well within their means. That house is now "beneath" them. It is a very poor reflection on our society that we largely choose to spend rather than to save. In the above example, how many people could honestly say that instead of buying the larger house at $140000, they would buy the $80000 and live below their means, pocketing the difference as savings? I would, and I did.

To bring this back to the discussion at hand... Politicians ultimately, and in the best of all democratic ideals, are a reflection of the people who elect them. If we are a fiscally irresponsible populace, why should politicians be held to any higher standard? I have seen so many people buy a new car (nevermind that the bank actually owns it) or overextend their credit on the estimation of future returns. "Oh, I'm graduating college and I'll have a good job soon. I deserve that new BMW now." How is this different from our government saying that "we want these social programs/better roads/bigger military now. I am sure that the economy will be better soon and will pay for it." Both are examples of deficit spending and fiscally irresponsible.

Personally, I don't know which came first, but I believe that the relationship of government deficit to personal debt is reflective. People see their government massively in debt and still chugging right along and think, "why not me?" The government (by the people, for the people) spends on things that it doesn't have the money for in anticipation of future prosperity.

Yes, I recognize that their are times when deficit spending is needed in government and personal life. As a country, we might have an unanticipated war (not a pre-emptive one) that requires us to spend money that we don't have in the coffers currently. In my personal life, I might have the A/C at my house fail and need replacement. I don't have the money in my bank account right now, so I put in on my credit card. But I have it paid off next month. Why? How? Because I bought the $80000 house instead of the $140000 house. I live below my means and save money aside. If our federal government operated in a similar way, wouldn't we be safer and better off in the long run.

Feel free to add your comments.

Dyze

Do not get me wrong, I definitely think that Clinton did a better job than Bush. But, besides better fiscal politics, the new economy boom pushed his account a lot. Consider that.

Mephisto2

Please allow me to quote myself. "Fair questions, so let me see what I can do. I presume the reason the 2003 figures are project is because the graph is out of date. Let me see if I can find a more up to date version."

Well, I beg to differ. It's not misrepresenting facts. Facts speak for themselves. It's a graphical representation of the Deficit.

It is NOT a graph of gas prices.
It is NOT a graph of house prices.
It is NOT a graph of inflation.

And it was never, EVER represented as such.

If you go back to the very first page, I post the graph and ask a question. I allow anyone and everyone to comment and draw their own conclusions.

If this graph is misleading, and even "looking" at it is misleading, then by implication collecting this data and showing it to people is an attempt to mislead. What kind of Orwellian world do you live in if you believe such bunkum?


Mr Mephisto

onetime2

Facts do not speak for themselves. Facts require context.

"I owe my brother $500." is a fact but it does not give anywhere close to the whole picture. Do I earn $100/year or $100,000,000? Am I going to die tomorrow? Am I still employed? What is my brother missing out on by not having that $500?

The context is necessary to understand what the fact means.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

bunjamin

Do you usually rely on the person quoting a statistic to provide that context? When Bush says, "My oppenent voted to raise taxes ten million times," or Kerry says, "Bush underfunded education by 20 trillion dollars," do you expect an aside from them explaining the origin of those "statistics"? Maybe an omnibus explaining the full implications of every factor related to the situation in question?

I regard pretty much any statistic I hear or read with a healthy skepticism. If I care enough about it I research and provide my own context. If not I forget about it.

Questioning the validity of the information provided is a good thing. Accusing someone of intellectual laziness when you've made no effort to provide any of the many contributing numbers you say would serve to make this a worthwhile discussion is hypocritical at best.

bling

Context is only required if the question demands it.

If the question is: Is this the graph of the deficit since the 1960's?

The answer is yes.

If there are questions beyond that, then context is necessary. But Mephisto did not attempt to answer any questions beyond that with this thread topic.

KMA-628

Bunjamin -

You are missing the point that onetime2 and I are making regarding this discussion.

To throw out incomplete information in order to arrange a discussion about a particular issue is misleading. Then to assert that the discussion was created to foster an unbiased debate is even more misleading (especially when you look at the history of the "unbiased" discussions created by this person).

If all of the facts and circumstances are not initially given, what is the debate on? Empty numbers.

onetime2 gave a very simple example of how throwing out a number without the related information shows nothing and further discussion of this number (without corresponding information) proves nothing and accomplishes nothing (other then pushing the already apparent agenda of the thread creator).

This is a huge topic that cannot be discussed by merely posting a graph. This is a topic that requires a much larger forum then is available here. Just the background information needed to start a debate on this topic is overwhelming. While it is an interesting topic and one worthy of debate, I think that it cannot be debated correctly in a forum like this.



I will repeat myself. Here is how the thread was started:


Followed by:

So, yes Mr Mephisto, I will call you out on this one. I do not, in any way, believe that you were trying to create an "open" debate. While I appreciate the insight in your posts, I am not naive enough to believe that you created this thread without a pre-conceived agenda in mine. To me it is apparent in your opening comment. It is further grounded in the resulting discussion that ensued in this thread.

Until onetime2 and I, nobody bothered to mention that the discussion was missing information vital to the discussion.

Why?

Because that wouldn't further the underlying reason behind the creation of this thread. If you just look at the graph, it makes any Republican administration look good and any Democrat administration look good. A discussion of this nature is much bigger then any one administration. The underlying factors that influence numbers like this are many and complex.

This is obvious in how Jimmy Carter is shown. Anyone familiar with the economics of the 70's knows this to be a false representation. Carter looks better compared to Clinton and that is blatently and obviously incorrect.



Again, I enjoy reading your posts Mr Mephisto, and I know that you are more then willing to concede if your information is incorrect, that fact is very evident in your posts. You are probably one of the few people on this forum (that I usually disagree with) that is willing to do this. I appreciate this and respect this.

In this case, however, I completely disagree with you and your motives.

In my opinion, if you wanted to foster an open debate regarding a graph like this, you would have spoken differenly in your opening remarks. Maybe something like: "I know that there is a lot of information that isn't shown that affect a graph like this, do you think a graph alone like this proves/disproves anything?"

That would have opened the debate for further information to be brought in (which nobody did). It also would have shown that you acknowledged the ommited/missing information.

KMA-628

By originally stating "Good handling of the economy?", then yes, context is absolutely necessary. Mr Mephisto did not start this thread on anything as simplistic as "is this a graph of XX", did he?

bling

I was speaking mainly to the logic of onetime2's post. But yes, Mephisto did ask a question that required additional context (which no one has provided, including you or onetime2). I'll give you that as long as you give me a dismissal of your bogus claim that defense spending shouldn't be a consideration.

Fair enough?

KMA-628

bling -

You are correct but first you must understand the context behind my point.

I was responding to a post that equated the increased spending by Bush Jr. with the spending habits of Reagan.

Reagan actually tried, very hard, to lower overall spending by the government. It was one of his passions. He increased defense spending because he was doing his best to protect America (a totally different topic altogether).

So, if you remove defense spending from the equation, you see a President that worked at lowering spending versus what we are seeing with Bush Jr.

A lot of people don't count an increase in certain public goods as a "spend happy" administration.

So, you have President, on one hand, that tried to decrease overall spending but didn't and another President that said he would decrease overall spending, but did the opposite.

You can't really compare the two, which was my original point.

bling

The problem with this defense spending doesn't count claim, as applied to Reagan, is that you are attempting to bring a seperate and unrelated discussion - that of the validity of said defense spending - into a discussion which has nothing to do with validity of spending.

I could claim all social and humanitarian spending is vital and should therefore be thrown out of the equation. I don't have exact figures, but I'm sure you would agree that Democrats have assuredly spent far more money in those areas.

We can't cherry pick what is "good" spending and what is just plain old spending in a discussion about who spends more.

KMA-628

right, but that wasn't the original point.

It is not really a major discussion, but I was responding to someone else's comparison, not making a comparison of my own.

Intent is part of the discussion here. One tried, one didn't. To put the two together isn't totally correct.

Here is the original comment I was replying to:

My opinion was that it was incorrect to lump Reagan and Bush together in this argument. You can't really compare numbers (to signify intent) unless you remove defense from the equation.

In that case, the above comment is absolutely true about Bush and incorrect regarding Reagan.

That being said, there was an increase in overall spending during the 80's but it is not all related to Reagan, that burden falls more heavily on congress.

bling

I understand that context of your original statement. However, cherry picking defense as a valid expense still has no logic to it. Bush Jr. HAS cut spending in some areas. Maybe he even cut spending in more areas than Reagan (net savings aside). Or maybe has hasn't. Maybe Reagan only cut other things because he wanted more money to spend on defense. At the end of the day, the results are the same: bloated budgets.

But yes, it is not really a major discussion. Personally, I'm waiting for the debate on the context you brought up. There is additional context to this discussion - but I haven't seen it yet.

host

Another view of 65 year history of federal spending and deficits........
It is interesting that in 1964, Johnson signed the first $100 billion
annual budget. The total debt was just over 3 times that budget amount,
amd today, the total debt is about 3 times the current annual federal budget.

(The number to the right of each year is the running total of the deficit.
When Reagan took office, the 190 year total debt accumulation was
$994.8 billion.......)

KMA-628

I do not plan to bring all of the necessary information into this debate. I am pointing out that the debate is impotent without it.

There is way too much information, from way too many sources to even attempt to bring it into the debate.

For example:

Interest rates are extremely vital to this topic.

Can we only bring in a graphical representation of the history of federal interest rates? No, because then we have another meaningless graph.

We then would have to discuss why the interest rates change/didn't change, etc. I personally do not have anywhere near the amount of time needed just to populate the debate with the required information, let alone discuss that mound of information.


see my point?

bling

Your point is that nothing is simple.

I think we all know that. Including Mephisto.

That point does not dismiss the validity of this thread. If it did, all threads would be invalid.

KMA-628

see, Host just proved my point.

What little tidbit of information is missing from his post that makes a world of difference in how these numbers are read and understood?

And, hidden in the link, but not pointed out in the chart posted, is another kernal of wisdom that throws the entire basis for this thread into doubt (thanks for posting it Host, there is an excellent point made in your link).

This is a very, very complex topic that requires a ton of information, from many different resources just to open the issue up for debate.

onetime2

I guess my expectations are unrealistic in your mind then. After all, why would it occur to anyone to actually understand the graph they are using to begin a thread like this?

It's painfully obvious to anyone that looks at the graph for more than a split second that the data is questionable since, here we are in October of 2004 and this graph is showing PROJECTED data for 2003.

Go ahead and check the archives bunjamin and you will see that I have done more than my share of research to disprove horrendously bad distortions of facts. Some that were blatant partisan bullshit.

If you think the discussion before the graph's accuracy was worthwhile then I guess we have little to discuss. Discussions based on incorrect and distorted data have little relevance, IMO.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

Sorry bling but your premise is just plain wrong. The logic of my posts is perfectly sound. Your desire for new data has no bearing on the fact that the data presented is outdated and inaccurate.

The proof you seek is right there in the chart. We're near the end of 2004 and yet this chart has projected 2003 data.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

bling

My critique of your claim that all questions require context is 100% accurate. The logic of your post concerning context was invalid.

You keep saying the chart is outdated like that means something more than simply that the chart is old.

Mephisto posted a new chart - and the deficit for 2003 was $550 billion instead of the estimate $401 billion in the first chart. If you're arguing that this proves something beyond the obvious fact that the first chart is simply not up to date, well then you must be admitting that Republicans are worse for the economy than Democrats.

KMA-628

read Host's link.

It basically tosses out both graphs presented by Mephisto and pretty much contradicts most of the arguments in this thread.

onetime2

You jump from me pointing out the OBVIOUS flaw (which you either purposefully ignored or missed completely) in the presented data to me admitting that Republicans are worse for the economy than Democrats and you question MY logic?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Truly inspiring.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

bling

I can't explain your insistence that the age of the first chart is vital either.

bling

Host's link is discussing Debt, not deficit. Debt is the accumulated monies that are owed by the United States. Deficit is the difference between how much money is brought in vs. how much money is spent.

I've been in other discussions involving economics where the focus is the debt - and invariably, someone attempts to claim it is irrelevent and only the deficit matters. That the reverse has happened here in this discussion of the deficit is no suprise.

onetime2

I will take my insistence over yours, that incorrect and outdated information is an acceptable base for discussion any time. The presentation of that graph, outdated and without context, will earn you a failing grade in even the most elementary of economics courses.

But that's ok since "facts" speak for themselves in this thread.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.