US Deficit Graph

[Mephisto2]

This says a lot.

Good handling of the US economy?



I'm confused.


Mr Mephisto

[hannukah harry]

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.

[Scipio]

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.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by Scipio

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...

[tecoyah]

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.

[bling]

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.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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.

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?

[Mephisto2]

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

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

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.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

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

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.

[Mephisto2]

You're undoubtedly right Daswig.

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

Mr Mephisto

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

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.

[Kadath]

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.

[Irishsean]

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...

[Mephisto2]

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.

[rukkyg]

Originally Posted by bling

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.

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!

[Irishsean]

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

[Mephisto2]

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.

But the most important measure of the deficit is not the size in dollars, or even the size in dollars after adjusting for inflation. The most important measure is the size relative to the nation’s economic output, what economists call Gross Domestic Product or GDP. And in fact, the current projected deficit was equaled or exceeded in four years during the Reagan administration and two years in the term of Bush’s father.

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

[Irishsean]

From the same article:

The biggest deficits by far -- measured as a percentage of the economy -- came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close.

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.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

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%."

<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_52/b3814032.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_52/b3814032.htm</a>
The Great Budget Debate
Supply siders and deficit hawks will square off over the best way to rev up the recovery .........................

If income taxes are not overly oppressive today, what are the economic arguments for further cuts in tax rates?

In the short term, tax cuts clearly pump up the economy by putting more money in consumers' pockets. It does matter, however, which taxes are cut. Lowering taxes paid by high-income filers is likely to hike savings, which could give an upward jolt to the stock market. In contrast, a cut in the Social Security payroll tax paid by employees would mostly benefit low-income workers, who are more likely to spend it quickly.

The more difficult question, though, is the impact of tax cuts on long-term growth. The core of supply-side theory is that people are discouraged from working harder, investing in themselves, and taking risks if they have to give much of their additional income to the government in the form of taxes.

But after countless economic studies, it's clear that those arguments have been overstated. The positive incentive of lower tax rates on the labor supply is limited. Research shows that it applies mainly to married women, who face high marginal tax rates on their income. Yet this group makes up only 30% of the adult population. As a result, the sort of tax cuts being proposed by Bush "will not have an effect on aggregate economic activity," says Joel B. Slemrod, a tax economist at the University of Michigan.

Moreover, a moderate tax increase appears not to hurt the economy, despite what supply siders claim. In 1993, as President Bill Clinton's tax hike was passed, then-Representative Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) declared that "the tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession." Yet what eventually followed was the longest expansion in U.S. history, a big surplus, and an unemployment rate that fell below 4%.

[SirSeymour]

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.

[rukkyg]

Originally Posted by Irishsean

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.

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.

[Irishsean]

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.

[flstf]

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.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Irishsean

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.

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.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Irishsean

The affluent, even after two bush tax cuts still pay more than any other group.

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


Mr Mephisto

[Zeld2.0]

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

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


Mr Mephisto

Apparently not!

[ObieX]

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

[mml]

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.

[bling]

Originally Posted by ObieX

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

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.



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:



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

[Halx]

Originally Posted by Kadath

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.

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

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Halx

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.

[KMA-628]

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

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

but Reagan and GW Bush have blown that claim straight out of the water.

Bush Jr. = Yes, he did

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

look at the statistics

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.
-snip-

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

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

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

[quicksteal]

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!)

[Tophat665]

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?

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by quicksteal

(side note--PLEASE let us drill in ANWAR, Alaskans want to!)

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

[tspikes51]

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