The so called "experts".
 

In re your first paragraph, see the one directly below it.

I love the term "rich supporters." It all but advertises "The speaker is utterly irrational." Nothing says "lack of reasoned analysis ahead" like an opening statment about the alleged "class war" the Left loves to blather about.

There is no class war. The GOP is not about feeding the rich and fucking the poor. The GOP is trying, badly, to shrink govt and create a business friendly climate for econ growth. In so doing, the rich will profit, as they always do. The GOP can't stop the rich from doing so. The rich will always get richer because once you're rich, you have capital, and once you have a lot of capital, its easy to make more money with it.

Are the GOP whorishly hooking up contributors? Absolutely. But no more than the Dems do.

The "cure" you seem to advocate - somehow handcuffing the rich and indirectly redistributing their wealth to the poor and middle classes - is impossible in a free capitalist society. When you try it, all you get is a bigger govt class which steals from everyone. Frankly, I'd rather be fleeced by business, which might make me money as a shareholder or employee or entrepreneur, than by a big govt, which will do nothing but feed its inefficient self.

The so called "experts".
 

That may not be the stated intent, but it is the actual effect.

So the GOP does feed the rich. As for fucking the poor, you only have to look at the budget cuts the Senate tried to pass just before Christmas, which were aimed principally at Medicaid, Medicare and student loan programs, and ask who bears the burden of those cuts.

The GOP does not bother to try to argue these do not disproportionally affect the poor. Rather, they try to argue that in the long run, the poor will be better off as a result of economic growth stimulated by less government. Sort of "We're fucking the poor, but only for the short term".

The GOP can't even shrink government - under the bush administration, it's grown. This is the cornerstone of their theory of governance, and they can't even get started doing it. At best, the GOP is incompetent. So tell me again why you vote for them.

The so called "experts".
 

The Dems are incompetenter. Actually, they are only equally incompetent. Both parties are a fucking embarrassment.

I'm done voting. Politicans can go fuck themselves. I say run the damn thing into the ground - that's the only way to get rid of the two-party system.

The so called "experts".
 

No they are not, contrary to what the GOP and a million talking heads on Fox News and MSNBC would have you believe. The Dems do what they say they will do which is to protect those unable to purchase access to those in power. Would a Democratic-controlled Senate try to pass the cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and student loans that the current Senate tried to in December? And somehow, the Democratic presidents stilll have almost always outperformed Republicans in growing the economy and reducing budget deficits (Carter being a notable exception).

The so called "experts".
 

I didn't. I voted for Bush in 2000, but hated the fucker so much in 2004 that I voted for Kerry.

I can't recall a worse choice than standing in the booth, looking at Bush's and Kerry's names on the levers. It was like hearing "You can go home with the skinny girl with volcanic facial acne and body odor or the 250 lb girl in the 'World of Warcraft' t-shirt. But you WILL be fucking one. Select. The line isn't getting any shorter behind you. NOW."

The so called "experts".
 

Oh, those Dems... the picture of altruism. They're the same whores the GOP are, they just sell their souls to different buyers.

The GOP lets big business buy its votes. The Dems let big business and the unions and those who seek wealth redistribution buy their vote. An argument can be made that the GOP is at least more honest about its whorishness, since it doesn't pretend to be helping the poor while also taking handouts from big business, which the Dems do.

But in the end, I agree with Coltrane. The parties are just different colored bags of shit. Same product inside.

BTW, take a look at how much Abramoff money Chucky Rangel took, and take a spin through google to see the myriad reasons offered by Chuck for not returning the money or giving it to charity, as many GOP lawmakers have (embarrassingly) quickly done.

The so called "experts".
 

I didn't say they were any different in where they get their money. I said they were different in what they do with it.

You take one Dem who hasn't returned Indian (not Abramoff, a distinction Dean made over the weekend but which I'll not sign on to) money and compare him to some (but not all) Republicans who got religion all of a sudden and your point is -- what? I might as well point out the money that bush took from Abramoff and hasn't returned, and the point would be as meaningless.

The Spanky Thesis
 

I didn't realize the graph would throw you so badly. Sorry. Balt is right that it is a snapshot of the national debt, and where it came from, as of a certain period in time (today, and projected as of the end of the Bush presidency).

I found it interesting because one of your side points was about the irrelevance of old debt, but let's not let your confusion take us away from my main question. Let's focus on the AGGREGATE DEBT.

Here, let's look at the background data to see if the graph is right. The OMB's official data is presented in a nifty chart here ... let's see ... in 2005 the gross national debt is estimated to be, as a percentage of GDP, .... holy shit! 65.7 percent! And 2010 projections from the OMB? 70 percent!

The graph was right. The horror. The fucking horror.

So. Anyway. Let's go back to my original question to you.

• We've discussed before the laughable notion that we'll start balancing budgets tomorrow (or in the near future) so that your enthusiastic economic argument will come to pass. In that light, please examine the above graph for me, which demonstrates that debt as a percentage of GDP is in the 60%+ range right now, and is expected to rise to about 70% before the end of Bush's term.
  
  Even acknowledging that SOME debt is just dandy, what's your magical percentage of GDP where the debt just painlessly evaporates in the face of an ever-expanding economy? 60%? 80%? 20%?
  
  If 70% evaporates in less than a generation, then Ty's original comment wouldn't seem to apply. If it takes more than that, please elaborate.

Gattigap

The Spanky Thesis
 

I never questioned the accuracy of the aggregate debt (as a percentage of GDP). What I questioned was

1) the percentages seem to imply that the majority of todays national debt comes from the presidents prior to Bush II - which I know is innacurate because most of the recent debt was derived Bush II. In addition, it shows that twenty percent of today debt comes from WWII which I also know is not true. Therefore, proper diagram would show that most of the debt is derived by Bush II, which would reinforce my point that it is not long term debt that is the problem but is recent deficits.

2) In the alternative, (if the percentages are not demonstrating what I stated in #1) then the diagram seems to imply that Bush II has grown the debt to a higher percentage of GDP than all the Presidents since WWII. Which has led to your conlusion that 67% is really high. But as I pointed out that is innacurate because the deficits during WWII (not the debt - meaning not the entire debt but just the deficit for one year) were as high as 140% of GDP. So the debt in the past has been much higher than 67% of GDP or 70% of GDP.

Therefore I reject your assumption that 67% of GDP is some drastic number. Most western developed countries (inclusing Germany and Japan) have much higher debts (higher percentages of GDP). And they have not been fighting wars.

So either way you read this chart it is innacurate (unless you have some theory on how to read it that I have missed).

The last problem with your assumption, is that, as I have said before, the predictions about future deficits are always too low in a recession and too high in an expansion. Remember last year's deficits predictions were too high (and Ty was implying it was intentional manipulation on Bush II's part). However, we were in an expansion (not even that strong of one) and the deficits were much lower than predicted. It turns out that growth right now is really strong, and higher than predicted, so the deficit is going to be a lot lower this year than any one predicted (of course Ty will again blame this on manipulation). If the economy keeps growing at its current rate we will be out of our deficits by 2009.

The miracle about this whole thing is that we just went through a recession and a war and our aggregate debt is only 67% of GDP. And we are still at war and the deficit is starting to drop. That is unprecedented.

• As I said there is nothing catastrophic about a 70% GDP debt. But with the way the economy is growing we won't come close to 70%. Not only does a growing economy bringing in more tax dollars reducing the deficit, but a growing economy makes the pie bigger, making the debt percentage of that pie even smaller.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally posted by Gattigap Even acknowledging that SOME debt is just dandy, what's your magical percentage of GDP where the debt just painlessly evaporates in the face of an ever-expanding economy? 60%? 80%? 20%?

  The problem with the Clinton expansion was that it took seven years into the expansion before we balanced the budget. We only had a few years of balanced budgets before we hit a recession again. If the economy keeps growing under Bush it may take as long if we don't start cutting spending. But if Bush can get the budget under control sooner then we can start cutting the deficit sooner.
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally posted by Gattigap If 70% evaporates in less than a generation, then Ty's original comment wouldn't seem to apply. If it takes more than that, please elaborate.

If you run a balanced budget for twenty years then seventy percent would drop to like fifteen percent (maybe more). So what is the issue?

To give you an idea of the magnitude I think our entire budget debt in 1980 was around one trillion dollars. Last years budget deficit prediction was 400 billion. So one year of deficts in 2004 equals forty percent of GDP for a 1980 budget. It was just take three years of those deficts to get you to 120% of debt. At a deficit of 300 billion per year it would take just four years.

In 2030, if we are in a recession, our deficits will well exceed a trillion dollars. If they are as high as todays deficts they will be from two trillion to three trillion dollars.

The Spanky Thesis
 

From looking at the description of the graph, it looks like a meaningless calculation. To do the calculation properly one would have to look at accumulated debt during each administration, net of interest expense, and then calculate the interest (including interest on interest) going forward.

If you want something simple, this graph pins much of the blame on Reagan/Bush I, in terms of increased percentage of debt relative to GDP.

I suppose it cuts both ways--debt is a problem, but less and less of one post WWII, until Reagan came along.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Delay
 

So it turns out Delay took money from Abrahamoff, sought to do his bidding (by seeking the shut down of a rival Indian casino), but had insufficient pull with the administration to get it done.

This has to be the best news for the Bush Administration in a while. How often does the scapegoat walk up to the altar with the knife in his mouth?

The Spanky Thesis
 

Sure. Right. And the reason we could afford the Bush tax cuts was because of the massive surplus that was predicted.


My God!! You're right!!!* Bush is a genius!!


*Well, with the exception of at least three times during the Vietnam War, when the deficit 'started to drop' (and in some cases continued to drop) from one year to the next.

But I guess those don't count.


cf. Reagan, who balanced the budget in which year of expansion?

Of course, Reagan had a much greater challenge -- after all, his predecessor had left him with a legacy of deficits approaching something like $40 billion, whereas Clinton's prede..... um, never mind.

Incidentally, I suspect you are comparing apples and oranges here. It took 7 years for Clinton to balance the budget including eliminating borrowing from Social Security. Are you predicting the same thing will happen by 2009? Or just the "on budget" deficit will be reduced to zero?



If pigs had wings they would be pigeons.




I'm not sure what your point is, assuming there is one, but I guess I'm not worried -- after all, by 2045 none of that will matter, right?

The Spanky Thesis
 

Yeeew are seeew on fire. We are so gonna get into a depression.

The Spanky Thesis
 

You may disagree with how they were distributed but they did pull us out of the recessoin.


I left out one salient fact. Tax increases. The amazing thing was that Bush cut taxes, took us through a war and a recession and still the deficit is only 67% of GNP. When Kennedy took over in 1960 defense spending was 75% of the budget. We may have reduced the deficit but it was on the back of the taxpayer.


When Reagain took over in 1980 the economy was shot. Slowgrowth, high unemployment and high inflation. He turned all those three things around. I wish he had cut spending more but we really need that growth.

Just the budget deficit. Just in case you forgot, the Bush administration tried to do something about the Social Security problem, but the Democrats said there really wasn't a problem.




Those would have to be some big wings.





The amount of our growth now will matter in 2045. It will determine to a large degree how much government revenue will will have in 2045. The deficits we incur now will not matter much in 2045. So the important thing is that the economy is growing. In the last year of Bush I presidency the economy was growing, so Clinton inherited a growing economy. In the last year of Clinton's presidency the economy did not grow. So Bush II inherited a contracting economy. He took that contracting economy and turned it into a growing economy. That was what was important.

The Spanky Thesis
 

Translation: There is no level of aggregate debt that is too high, provided we have constant economic growth, a string of balanced budgets, and a multigenerational time horizon. Got it.