Score one for the middle class

[jb_1430]

Now, there's an example of backing up an opinion with facts.

You are an odd bird. Will the same facts do any better the second or third time around. I suspect I could provide them 20 times over and your grasp on the fantasy youve created could not be broken. But, here they are AGAIN!
Obviously concepts you couldnt even begin to comprehend.

Historical Debt Outstanding
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

 

[PLC1]

You are an odd bird. Will the same facts do any better the second or third time around. I suspect I could provide them 20 times over and your grasp on the fantasy youve created could not be broken. But, here they are AGAIN!
Obviously concepts you couldnt even begin to comprehend.

Historical Debt Outstanding
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Oh, yes, the constant dollar figures as a back up for debt as a percentage of GDP. How could I have forgotten such a brilliant reparte?

Debt in terms of constant dollars has little meaning. Debt as a percentage of GDP is a lot more telling, don't you think?

 

[jb_1430]

Oh, yes, the constant dollar figures as a back up for debt as a percentage of GDP. How could I have forgotten such a brilliant reparte?

Debt in terms of constant dollars has little meaning. Debt as a percentage of GDP is a lot more telling, don't you think?

????? uuuhh The debt didnt go "down under Clinton" and adjusting for inflation isnt going to change that fact.

 

[PLC1]

????? uuuhh The debt didnt go "down under Clinton" and adjusting for inflation isnt going to change that fact.

And your point is?

The debt in constant dollars didn't go down under Clinton. The debt as a percentage of GDP did.

The debt as a percentage of GDP, in constant dollars, in terms of lead kopeks, or any way you want to count it is currently out of control, and on the way up. The size and expense of the federal government is unsustainable. That is the point I've been making. I have no interest in trying to bash or praise Clinton. Bill is history, as we all hope his wife will soon be. The debt of $90,000 per taxpayer won't be history any time soon.

 

[jb_1430]

And your point is?

The debt didnt go "down under Clinton". The GDP went up.

 

[PLC1]

The debt didnt go "down under Clinton". The GDP went up.

OK, point made. Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Andy]

No I do not.

Oh, yes, the constant dollar figures as a back up for debt as a percentage of GDP. How could I have forgotten such a brilliant reparte?

Debt in terms of constant dollars has little meaning. Debt as a percentage of GDP is a lot more telling, don't you think?

This is silly. My whole point from the start is... the debt has gone up every year under Clinton without question. You point is... well... irrelevant. His figures prove that I was right, the debt has in fact gone up every year under Clinton. Again, there was no 'surplus', he never 'paid down the debt' or anything.... it was LIES.

If you owe 5K, and your net income goes up next year, but you owe 5.5K, your debt as a percentage of income doesn't help anything, you still owe 5.5K.

What is the goal? The goal is to be debt free. The goal is to not have enemies of the US holding our debt. Reducing debt as a % of GDP does not help. Only actually reducing our debt helps.

When the total outstanding debt is lower than the prior year, then we'll be getting somewhere. Until then, the % of whatever matters not.

 

[Andy]

% of stupid = policy

And your point is?

The debt in constant dollars didn't go down under Clinton. The debt as a percentage of GDP did.

The debt as a percentage of GDP, in constant dollars, in terms of lead kopeks, or any way you want to count it is currently out of control, and on the way up. The size and expense of the federal government is unsustainable. That is the point I've been making. I have no interest in trying to bash or praise Clinton. Bill is history, as we all hope his wife will soon be. The debt of $90,000 per taxpayer won't be history any time soon.

That was the point. The statement was made that under Clinton the debt went down. The debt did not go down. Why is this so hard?

Now I get your statement about debt as a % of GDP, but I find it irrelevant. If the goal is to continue fiscal irresponsibility by over spending every year provided our debt only increases enough to keep the same percentage, then I'm against that policy. That is just another way for liberal tax and spenders to justify out of control government projects.

"Hey the GDP has increased enough we can blow $300 Billion deficit and still be under XX% of GDP"

No I don't buy it. Here, try this. Spending < revenue. No dumb percentage of whatever irrelevant figures. We'd have that if the repugs had gotten the balanced budget amendment passed. Congress doesn't get paid if there's a deficit. Sounds good to me.

 

[PLC1]

That was the point. The statement was made that under Clinton the debt went down. The debt did not go down. Why is this so hard?

Now I get your statement about debt as a % of GDP, but I find it irrelevant. If the goal is to continue fiscal irresponsibility by over spending every year provided our debt only increases enough to keep the same percentage, then I'm against that policy. That is just another way for liberal tax and spenders to justify out of control government projects.

"Hey the GDP has increased enough we can blow $300 Billion deficit and still be under XX% of GDP"

No I don't buy it. Here, try this. Spending < revenue. No dumb percentage of whatever irrelevant figures. We'd have that if the repugs had gotten the balanced budget amendment passed. Congress doesn't get paid if there's a deficit. Sounds good to me.

I'm trying to figure out where all of the talk about Clinton is coming from. The only thing I can see is this statement of mine:

Of course, the debt has increased every year for decades, with the possible exception of 1999.

There has been a great deal of effort put into showing that the debt didn't go down in '99. OK, point taken, that possible exception didn't occur. The debt has increased every year for decades, no exceptions.

I think we're basically in agreement that the budget has been out of balance for a long time, and is getting worse. I don't think the problem there is so much the tax and spenders as it is the borrow and spenders, but the fact remains that the feds spend way too much money and don't live within their means.

And the debt as a percentage of GDP is not irrelevant. The amount of debt is best measured that way. You can argue, of course, that there should be no debt at all, but the fact remains that there is, and a relative measure is more telling than an absolute one.

Finally, if the "Repugs" really wanted a balanced budget, they could have passed one during the six years in which they were in control of the Congress and White House. The fact is that the Republican party is no more fiscally responsible than the Democrats are, and that the talk about a balanced budget amendment was just that: talk.

 

[Andy]

Repugs

And the debt as a percentage of GDP is not irrelevant. The amount of debt is best measured that way. You can argue, of course, that there should be no debt at all, but the fact remains that there is, and a relative measure is more telling than an absolute one.

Finally, if the "Repugs" really wanted a balanced budget, they could have passed one during the six years in which they were in control of the Congress and White House. The fact is that the Republican party is no more fiscally responsible than the Democrats are, and that the talk about a balanced budget amendment was just that: talk.

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant. The best way of measuring debt is to look at how much you owe, and see if it is more, or less, than the year prior. If it is more... that's bad. If it is less, that's good.

Debt as a percentage of GDP was created as a method for justifying over spending, by making a number that can go down, while the actual debt goes up.

As long as people are willing to hold on to that irrelevant statistical number, congress will have freedom to over spend.

That is why Repugs are Repugs. If they stood up for what they are supposed to believe, I would dignify them with their correct name.

But honestly I don't completely blame them. The 95 budget battle was over this specific issue. They wanted to balance the budget, but instead they were creamed in the press and by ignorant voters, over trying to be fiscally responsible. So years later, they have the chance to try it again and... no I don't think so, got nailed last time.

See the real sorry excuse for an answer is, we the people. It's us. The public doesn't want a balanced budget. We want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, Food stamps, Welfare, Grants for Medical Research, Student Loans, Alternative Fuel Research and on and on and on... And we don't want someone to tell us we can't afford it, because everyone deserves health care... we don't want to hear money doesn't grown on trees behind the capital building. We really are a pathetic people

 

[PLC1]

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant. The best way of measuring debt is to look at how much you owe, and see if it is more, or less, than the year prior. If it is more... that's bad. If it is less, that's good.

Debt as a percentage of GDP was created as a method for justifying over spending, by making a number that can go down, while the actual debt goes up.

As long as people are willing to hold on to that irrelevant statistical number, congress will have freedom to over spend.

That is why Repugs are Repugs. If they stood up for what they are supposed to believe, I would dignify them with their correct name.

But honestly I don't completely blame them. The 95 budget battle was over this specific issue. They wanted to balance the budget, but instead they were creamed in the press and by ignorant voters, over trying to be fiscally responsible. So years later, they have the chance to try it again and... no I don't think so, got nailed last time.

See the real sorry excuse for an answer is, we the people. It's us. The public doesn't want a balanced budget. We want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, Food stamps, Welfare, Grants for Medical Research, Student Loans, Alternative Fuel Research and on and on and on... And we don't want someone to tell us we can't afford it, because everyone deserves health care... we don't want to hear money doesn't grown on trees behind the capital building. We really are a pathetic people

Remember the Contract with America, and its pledge to balance the budget? Yep, that was the Republicans. You're right: the party is the Repugs now, no longer the conservative party, but yet another big spending statist party.

And yes, we, the people are to blame for having elected representatives who are not fiscally responsible. We want tax cuts, but aren't willing to insist on spending cuts to go along with it. Too many believe in the free lunch. I totally agree.

But, yes, the debt as a percentage of GDP is relevant. I suppose it could be used as you suggest, but, then, there doesn't seem to be a need to find an excuse to raise the debt anyway. Just borrow, borrow, and borrow some more.

Here's an analogy: A college student in the '60s, when gas was 25 cents and rent was $75 a month, had a debt of $1,000. His income, working at $1.25 an hour (minimum wage back then) for 20 hours, leaving time to study, would have been $1,300 per year, assuming a 52 week work year.

Flash forward: Now that same college student is a successful (insert name of favorite profession) earning $130,000 per year. He has a debt of $10,000 on his credit cards.

At which point is his debt the greatest? In the '60s it was 77% of his income. Now, it is 7.7% of his income.

Income and the value of the dollar have to be taken into account when calculating debt.