US Deficit Graph
 

This says a lot.

Good handling of the US economy?

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

I'm confused.


Mr Mephisto

is it just me or does this show that the democratic presidents have been better at handline money then the repubs? seems to go against what people normally say... weird.

Clinton was probably the greatest moderate/conservative president we've ever had. He believed in fiscal sanity, accountable government, reform of the bureaucracy, welfare reform, strong anti-crime policy, and political compromise.

If only conservatives cared more about "government" than they do about sex.

And if only Clinton cared more about national security (so that he didn't sell China missile technology that will allow them to build ICBMs that can target the US with nukes) than he cared about illegal campaign contributions...

please stay on topic.

Although I can see the reasoning behind focusing on Clinton....the topic is economics in this thread. Perhaps we could use this as a constructive discussion about the circumstance that created the economic growth.

Ah. The partisan fiscal conservatives' nightmare.

But to be fair - 9/11 was devastating for the economy. If this graph were zoomed in to mid-2001 to mid-2002, you'd see a major drop right after 9/11.

Now, it is my opinion that Bush has done exceptionally little to address that unforeseeable plunge. And rushing into a $225 billion war only fans the flames.

You mean the recovery which started before Clinton was president, and the 1994 republican revolution which crushed all his hopes and dreams of passing things like Hilarycare?

I think the figures speak for themselves.

Net Gain under Clinton: +523
Net Loss under Bush: -713 (FY04)

That's a difference of 1,234 "points". Quite a difference.

Or is anything good that happened during the Clinton years due to other factors over which they had no control or input at all?

Mr Mephisto

Ahhhh, so Clinto isn't responsible for his turn around yet, it was rebounding before he was elected and then the 94 GOP revolution created this greathuge surpluss, but Clinton IS responsible for the economy Bush inherited and the GOP congress that was just praised had nothing at all to do with that part of the economy....... what hypocrasy. That makes no sense to anyone but GOP'ers that can't face the truth.

But now there is a huge question...... the GOP has all the power and has had 4 years and the deficit is still dropping faster than Jimmy Swaggert's pants in a Motel 6 with a hooker in his bed.

Who knows...maybe the figures are inflated by little things like the .com bubble, which eventually popped....like the Enron and MCI frauds, which eventually were exposed, et cetera.

You're undoubtedly right Daswig.

They are a "little inflated" by those things. But not entirely. :)

Mr Mephisto

Actually...I meant the recovery on the graph....
It may very well be that the Timing is relevant to that which you proclaim...but the way you state it is not likely to gain participation in this debate.

Well, I think it has to do with the fact that Republicans believe that spending money helps the economy and Democrats believe saving money helps the economy. This graph just illustrates that difference in mentality.

Psssst, Mephisto... Check out that website you gave http://www.factcheck.org

Its got some stuff relating to this and how its really not as bad as it looks once you factor in inflation...

Psssst, Irishsean,

I most certainly shall. As I said when referring to the site, even I should check that site regularly.

However, even if we take inflation into account, whilst the difference may not be "as bad as it looks", there is certainly a difference.

Or do you believe there is no difference in the way Bush handles the economy vs the way Clinton did? Honest question. Don't you think, even a little bit, that Bush is a bit more economically rash or a poorer manager?

Mr Mephisto

PS - Sarcasm has its place. Unfortunately this wasn't one of them. :)

If you zoom in anywhere during Bush's graph you'll see a major drop. I don't even have to zoom in.

All this shows is that Clinton balanced the budget, and Bush spent all the surplus and then 5x more. But really, if you take out Clinton, Bush only went down 200. His dad went down 150. That's pretty even if you consider inflation. He's just trying to be like his dad!

Ok, no sarcasm, I got it.

The above graph this post is based on is for all intents and purposes true, and yet has no practical meaning. While this years budget is the largest ever at nearly half a trillion dollars, in reality it only comes to about 4.5% of the entire economy.

Look back to WWII when our deficit ran to 30% of the entire economy.

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

Here's the link that Irishsean alluded to, but failed to reference. [EDIT: Irishsean posted a link at the same time I made this post. Please ignore the proceeding comment] Never let it be said that I'm biased or ignore valid contradictory claims.

http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

Oh, by the way... the facts still speak for themselves. Read the article. You (like me) may learn something.

Emphasis added.

So I guess the current deficit is not "the worst in history" (something I never claimed by the way). It's just as bad as the some other Republicans created!

Well, that makes me feel much better. :)


Mr Mephisto

From the same article:

World War 2 huh, hmmm, off the top of my head I'd say the presidents during that era were Roosevelt and Truman, both democrats.

In this 2002 Article, The type of tax cuts that Bush was proposing were predicted to "not have an effect on aggregate economic activity," while
the effect of Clinton's 1993 tax increases was, "Yet what eventually followed was the longest expansion in U.S. history, a big surplus, and an unemployment rate that fell below 4%."

Let's all take a deep breath and remember that the checkbook is ultimately in the hands of Congress. As a general rule I think the Presidency is a lot like the Quarterback position in the NFL. When a team is doing really really well, the QB usually gets too much credit and when it is doing poorly the QB usually gets too much of the blame. The Presidency is alot like that.

Constitutionally the Congress is responsible for the money.

World War 2 huh, hmmm, off the top of my head that was right after the GREAT DEPRESSION. The deficit was grown by FDR to pay for his New Deal, in an effort to get record unemployement stopped. Some would say that if FDR didn't spend that money, the people would have been more worried about feeding their family than protecting the country from the Jappenese, and that we may have lost the war. I don't think anyone would say that if Bush didn't give a tax cut to the rich that the poor wouldn't still be fighting in Iraq.

I love the "Tax cuts for the rich" that keep getting brought up. The affluent, even after two bush tax cuts still pay more than any other group.

The only thing misleading about this chart is associating the presidents names with it, as if these puppets had anything to do with it. To a fiscal conservative or Libertarian the difference between the Democrat and Republican platform is miniscule.

If you are talking the amount paid in dollars or even as a percent of the total taxes received by the government that will always be true. Even if we had a flat tax of 20% and I made $10,000 and you made $100,000 you would pay more dollars of tax and your taxes would be a lager percent of the total recites. My point is that this statement has no meaning, higher incomes will always pay more tax.

Erm... Isn't that the whole idea?!


Mr Mephisto

Apparently not! ;)

Nothing like a good graph for explaining things. I'd love to see more graphs on stuff.

It is generally undeniable that since the rise of Reagan, the GOP has taken kindly to deficit spending. Cheney has said repeatedly that they proved that deficits did not matter during the early 80's. He and the NeoCons are much less fiscally conservative than mainstream Republicans and that is why many within the GOP are concerned about the Bush Administration's fiscal plan.

I would not argue that a slowing economy was in place when GW Bush took office and that 9/11 dealt quite a blow to the U.S. economy. I would argue that continuing with tax cuts, large and significant tax cuts, while increasing spending on domestic programs and the military shows poor fiscal policy and a willingness to place the burden of war and the cost of this recession on future generations. I think that Clinton and the Congress of the 90's showed us that we can attain a high level of ecomonic security and success while avoiding the creation of deficits. You can argue that we needed to increase military spending during those years (of course Clinton was just continuing post Cold War policies put in place by Secretary of Defense Cheney and GHW Bush), but we easily could have used the surplus money the Clinton Administration generated to help facilitate that.

I am not opposed to tax cuts or even deficits. I think we can all agree that deficit spending post Depression and during and post WWII was necessary. I think you can even make the arguement that deficit spending accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union. I do not think that deficit spending will help defeat Al Qaida or the "War on Terror". I think that a rollback to a more Clinton era tax structure, while including much of the first Bush tax cut/stimulus plan would help to slow deficit spending and pay for the war, military expansion etc.

Overall, I truly believe that Democrats are much better stewards of the nation. Yes, they do spend money on social programs, but Republicans spend on them as well and increase spending on military matters at a much higher rate. Let's face it, bread is cheaper than bullets. We need to spend on both, just not too much of either.

Here's another one - showing how the upper class is doing well and the middle and, especially the lower, classes are still being sucked dry.

http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/ec...ct20040826.gif

And the text that goes along with it: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...income20040826

Here's another showing how our present post-recession job "boom" matches up to the 7 previous post-recession job booms:

http://www.epinet.org/images/snap20041025.gif

And the text that goes along with it: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...shots_10252004

Republicans feel that it is the other way around, but the numbers DO speak for themselves.

Republicans profess to feel that deficit spending or bloated budgets are a bad thing, but Reagan and GW Bush have blown that claim straight out of the water.

One of the most important factors is being left out of this debate - interest rates

When you buy a home do you look at the total price or the monthly price? We pay on the deficit like homeowners pay on their mortgage. A $300,000 house can be too expensive at XX% and more than affordable at a lower percentage.

Why else do we jump on the refinance wagon everytime the rate goes down?

Since we do not pay the debt off all at once, the true "expense" of the debt can only be measured by comparing payments, interest rates, etc.

That being said, without comparing corresponding interest rates (ceteris paribus and strength of the economy aside), the discussion is moot.

In other words, this is just a graph of numbers without the necessary corresponding numbers needed for this debate.

/thinks Bush overspent
//remembers 9/11 and the recession

Bush Jr. = Yes, he did

Reagan = No, he didn't (remove defense out of the equation)

look at the statistics

But What if you can only afford an $80,000 house in the first place?

If you were making a point, I missed it.

I pulled the number out of my butt, regardless of the sell price of the house, the interest rate is a major factor. If you can afford an $80,000 house with an interest rate of 8%, imagine how much nicer of a house you can get at 7%. 6%. 5%.



my point being, this debate/argument is missing many key elements that are extremely important and relevant.

The topic itself is very important, but to leave out key factors and points, makes the end result moot.

/still thinks Bush Jr. overspent

What I would like to see is a graph on the change in tax dollars paid to the government. I believe in supply-side economics, but I'd like confirmation.

Clinton's economy did well not just because of the .com bubble, it was mostly from the .com boom. The economy under Bush struggled after the bubble burst, and after 9/11. We're starting to get on the right track now, with better GDP growth and moderate job creation, but oil prices seem to be dampening the economy quite a bit (side note--PLEASE let us drill in ANWAR, Alaskans want to!)

Look, rather than looking at the people responsible for the ups and downs, look at the magnitued of ups and downs. That, folks, is the graph of a driven oscillation about to hit resonance. Time to buy gold. All economics aside, look at the graph: it's essentially a sine wave bounded by hyperbolae and just about to head off toward infinity. Let's hope that it's got a positive derivative when it finally does bust loose.

Why do politicians hate America so much?

That's because every single man, woman and child in Alaska gets a bribe.... erm, sorry a "Citizen's Dividend" from oil profits.

Call me a cynic if you want.


Mr Mephisto

This seems wrong... where did you find this???

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

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


Mr Mephisto

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

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

:D

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.

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

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

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

http://www.littlepiggy.net/deficit/Deficits.gif

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


Mr Mephisto

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

Bush is a menace for the economy and the world.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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? ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.......)

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?

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.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

read Host's link.

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

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.

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

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.

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. :thumbsup:

bling -

I am not referring to debt, per se, but to the arguments made in this thread (along with the original concept).

Read it again.

Also, what's missing from Host's post that is a necessary element when delivering information like this???????

It follows along the same criticism I have of this thread.

onetime - And I will continue to wait for your response to the second chart.

You're going to have to be more specific. There are 2 mentions of the deficit in Host's link. One claiming the debt is more important because that is where interest is due (which is irrelevent to this discussion) and the other stating that the deficit does not include monies borrowed from gov't accounts.

I doubt the former is the issue you find relevant. As to the latter, if you have a chart showing monies borrowed from gov't accounts since 1960, please post it.

I do not disagree that context is valuable - but until context is provided and analyzed, I'm not going to dismiss this discussion or concede any opinion. If you don't want to take the time to provide context, that is fine. But don't expect anyone to reverse their opinion that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans simply because you won't follow up on your own opinion. Information has been provided - a discussion of that information requires more information. You don't "win" a discussion by simply stating that somewhere there is more information.

Onetime tried that. He attempted to dismiss the discussion because the first chart was not up to date. That the up to date chart bolstered the opinion of the original post doesn't help onetime's case in any way. Maybe a chart showing money borrowed from gov't accounts shows that Democrats borrowed less - this would again bolster the opinion of the original post. Until the information is provided, I can't judge it.

I am not trying to "win" anything.

I am pointing out that the discussion is flawed, misleading and based on inadequate information.

My point: It should've been presented better or not presented at all. And, not one person to the left of the political spectrum has had the gumption to recognize this.

Again, I repeat myself, I am not here to further a discussion on this topic. It is too complex and too broad for this type of forum.

And no, you are still missing the point, regarding the missing info on Host's post (not necessarily the link) and the other thing I mentioned. It is intrinsic to a discussion of this type and if you cannot see that then there is no reason to point it out to you (Hint: value).

See, you are missing it again. That was not onetime2's point at all.

He stated, ratherly clearly I might add, that you cannot START a discussion on this type of topic with old and outdated data. You would get laughed off of any economic stage.

Yes, Mephisto posted a second graph, that is not what onetime2 is talking about.

Only as flawed, misleading and based on inadequate information as any and all discussions. Mephisto could not have provided every single piece of relevent data. Even a prolonged discussion (which we have not even begun, because we are arguing over what a discussion actually is) could not provide every single piece of relevent data.
I disagree. It was presented efficiently enough. The problem you have with it is that you do not want to present any other information. In effect, you do not want to have this discussion. You're allowed to not want to have the discussion - but it is not Mephisto's fault that you do not want to have the discussion. You have stated that there is other information out there. Understood.
Ha. "If I don't know what you're talking about, I must not know what I'm talking about." Nice.

Onetime attempted to do something which was impossible: completely discount a discussion because a single piece of 40 pieces of information was not presented. Sorry, but his insistence that the entire crux of the opinion in the first post is invalid because 1 year of 40+ is estimated (but actually known) is absurd.

Yep, and add to that he was a statesman, an intellect, had charisma, was self made, and a lover of women.

God, How I wish he could run again.

Exactly.

bling, the second chart, despite more accurate information, does nothing to offer CONTEXT and has as little relevance as the first when discussing "Good handling of the US economy".

The budget deficit is NOT the economy. It neither drives nor hinders the economy in any substantial way.

In actuality it was two years in the original chart and that was a substantial part of Bush's Presidency. The numbers were wrong and your belief that this fact is irrelevant is equally wrong.

The only evidence presented to begin this thread was that chart. It was submitted as proof of poor handling of the economy. The entire discussion isn't flawed because of a lack of one year's data, it is flawed because no correlation exists between budget deficits and "the good handling of the economy".

But I digress. There is no point in continuing down this path. You believe this thread is substantial while I believe the premise it was based upon was flawed from the outset. There is no reconciling our stances and, quite frankly, I have little inclination to educate you about economics.

2004 numbers do not exist outside of estimates.
This is my point. Your attempt to dismiss the discussion on the grounds that the first chart is outdated was not effective - and you know this to be true, which is why you are now claiming that entire discussion is flawed because it does not include some other information, which you continue to fail to provide. Sorry, no. The discussion is not flawed because you refuse to contribute to the discussion.
Quite frankly, it would be impossible to "learn" anything from you about economics, considering you continue to refuse to provide ANY information on economics. Take your superiority complex elsewhere and please refrain from dismissing discussions simply because you refuse to partake in them.

...enough with the personal attacks.

period.

amen to THAT! The rest of the debate is inconsequential from my point of view because neither side is particularly fiscally responsible. I don't consider the redistribution of wealth, however much it may lead to a "balanced budget," to fall under the realm of responsibility.

You know, I think you have a fair point. Of course I was trying to show that I believe Bush is mishandling the economy compared to his predecessors. Anyone who posts here has a political leaning.

So I accept my initial comments were biased and apologise accordingly. I have gone on record as saying I'll try to find more appropriate figures or analysis... and believe me I've tried.

Well, believe it or not, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. But I think your criticisms are fair and valid.

Let me be the first to admit that I often tout the "I try to be objective" line quite regularly here. In this circumstance it seems my choice of words were unsatisfactory.

Having said that, I believe it's only natural to show some bias in one's posts. I believe you (KMA) are equally "guilty" of that as me. But in this case, you're right.

I'll keep on looking for more accurate figures, or ones that include things like interest rates and GDP.

Thanks for the insightful and constructive criticism.



Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, congratulations on the single most considerate post I have ever seen on the Politics board. It's things like that and folks like you who allow me to enjoy this forum and to try to not just spurt fire and sarcasm. If I can do half that well, I wil feel successful.

If Kerry keeps half the promises he made- it can only get worse.
That said I have no idea how Bush plans to get outta this pickle... I've not yet heard any plans by Kerry ( raising taxes on the 'rich' wont cover it)

So much of what caused our current situation happned during clinton years. I was all for the guy btw- a true moderate-


But Enron/Tyco fiasco occured under Clitnon -was uncovered under Bush- yet Bush's numbers take the dive

Yeah, I agree, but these "fiascos" often occur when there is lack of accounting oversight and ever more deregulation of the financial markets--stuff that Republicans tend to push hardest for (with Democrats reluctantly agreeing).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gulation/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...llstreet/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/dotcon/view/

Well, after much searching I finally found a graph that shows a number of seperate factors and how they have changed (generally for the worse) under Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_grap...ance_Index.jpg

There are three pages of explanation and comprehensive references to explain this graph if you don't understand or disagree with the data as presented.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentid=252964

This article is also relatively up to date, having only been published about two weeks ago.


I hope this satisfies onetime2 and KMA-628 in their understandable request for more balanced data and information.


Mr Mephisto

where is perot when you need the little foot stool

While interesting, comparing the economic performance while Clinton was in office, perhaps the most staggeringly positive economy in the history of the US (and possibly the world), to the tenure of the very next President who presided over the inevitable fall of said economy and an attack that deeply effected a key economic center (NYC) and countless industries (airlines, hotels, financial services, etc) doesn't exactly lend itself to calls of thorough economic analysis.

Certainly this adds a little more context than your original charts but only marginally more since it only compares the terms of the two most recent Presidents and the economic realities of Bush are inexorably linked to the performance under Clinton.

Hell, this article doesn't even mention the recession that occurred during the second President's term. "Accounting" for the fact that Clinton was in office for 8 years and Bush only 3 1/2 does little good when a fair portion of his term was occupied by the recession.

Other factors that this analysis ignores:

You can not look at jobs data over the last decade plus without discussing, in detail, how the remarkably high productivity growth relates to the overall employment picture. In fact, the productivity increases the article points to as "one of the only bright spots" in Bush's tenure and the productivity growth seen during Clinton's terms have lead to fewer jobs. The more productive a worker is, the fewer employees required by businesses to achieve production needs.

Now, on to GDP. Rather than look at GDP growth from year to year because, with the exception of the mild recession stemming from the tail end of the 90's boom, it paints a pretty good picture for Bush. While looking at GDP per capita is valuable, it is far from the economic panacea this article presents it as. First and foremost, the growing population includes children, elderly, and infirmed. These are hardly factors even remotely controllable by a President. GDP is absolutely the best single measure of the economy and excluding it is questionable at best.

Median household income is not the "best measure of American families' well-being" because it doesn't take into account the stored wealth of the population. Home values, investments, savings, assets, etc play no part in this data. Additionally it doesn't take into account their liabilities. Consumer debt (credit cards, auto and home loans, etc) play a big part in the well being of the family yet play no role whatsoever in this analysis.

Not trying to knock you down at every turn here Mephisto, just trying to get the point across that the economy is incredibly complicated and even a wonderful three page article with endnotes cannot give a complete assessment of the economy by looking only at the two most recent Presidents' terms and focusing on half a dozen or so indicators.