To Treasury: "Here It Comes"

The Market Ticker ^ | 4/11/09 | Karl Denninger

[GreatDaggar]

so in other words, you’d much rather live in the economy from 30 years ago instead of now?

[AndyJackson]

Hey idiot. I started off saying that I had no use for 0, Geithner and crowd. But your problem is that you are in denial over the fact that this economic crisis has been on his downhill slide since LBJ's great society. Carter inflation was pretty bad, but you know why we had high inflation under Carter - war and social debt from Nixon on top of war and social debt under LBJ. Then we had cold war debt under Reagan, with the approval of a democratic congress bought off by more social debt. Then Bush 1 who was clueless about the economy. Then something of a slowdown in the runup under Clinton, and then the absolutely uncontrolled explosion of debt under Bush with a Republican controlled house and senate.

Year after year after year, more and more and more debt. Debt on debt on debt, public and private until the stagggering pile of debt sinking under its own weight. And you blame 0 who has been in office for 3 months.

You are a totally clueless self-deluding fool.

[AndyJackson]

in other words, you’d much rather live in the economy from 30 years ago instead of now?

I don't know what you mean by "now" since now is not a stable economic equilibrium. Either we must print money like mad to monetize all this debt (an explosion of inflation and a collapse of the currency) or we allow defaults. Let's wait a couple of years and see how the resolution of this staggering load of debt works out for all of us.

Of course I preferred the time 10 months ago when we just printed money, shipped it overseas and in return for bits of paper or better some ones and zeros storred in a computer they shipped us oil and cars and Walmart plastic junk, and Italian shoes and French wine and cheese and cheap olive oil and on and on and on.

But those glory days of living free and easy are gone.

[grey_whiskers]

Andy -- if the trend is bad, then is the gross acceleration of that trend even worse?

What is the magnitude of the national debt accumulated up till' Kennedy?

Then LBJ?

Then Nixon?

Then Ford?

Then Carter?

Then Bush (father)?

Then Clinton?

Then Bush (son)?

Then Obama?

Do it in constant 1960 dollars, do it in 2008 dollars, I don't care.

But Obama is orders of magnitude worse.

NO cheers, unfortunately.

...but Happy Easter.

[stig]

But your problem is that you are in denial over the fact that this economic crisis has been on his downhill slide since LBJ's great society. Carter inflation was pretty bad, but you know why we had high inflation under Carter - war and social debt from Nixon on top of war and social debt under LBJ.

Hey DBag go back and read your original post you said "republicans" and decades of mismanagement. It wasn't until this last post that you started to include democrats. I was only pointing out that the democrats have controlled congress for most of those decades and that in the 3 months that they now control congress and the white house the spending has gone berserk beyond anyone's expectations and only Republicans and a small minority of democrats have voted against it.

And you blame 0 who has been in office for 3 months.

Yes the president has done nothing to reign in spending or fix social security. Instead he has been a great enabler giving cash out to anyone who asks.

Republican controlled house and senate.

Without a veto proof majority, coupled with liberal minded rinos the republicans had no real control over the senate. Much of what conservatives voted on in the house was DOA when it reached the Senate. Then the dems got control of both under Bush II so for the past 2 years, where much of the astronomical spending has occurred, it's been under a democrat congress.

Then Bush 1 who was clueless about the economy.
Bush 1 only had 4 years and don't forget he had to deal with the S&L crisis which he handled pretty well. Much better than Obama has been handling the current banking crisis.

[AndyJackson]

Do it in constant 1960 dollars,

When it is credit / GDP ratio you are calculating, it doesn't matter which dollars you put it in. The deflator is the same in the numerator and denominator. If you can remember way way way back to 4th grade when you were learning your long divisions, you can cancel.

Now, go back to sleep.

[grey_whiskers]

I wasn't talking ratio, I was talking absolute dollars.

So adjusting for inflation would matter.

However, since you *do* bring it up, given the drop in nominal GDP ("deflation due to popping of Mr. Housing Bubble, reduction in velocity of money due to credit not being extended, drop in production of new goods" all falling somewhere in the area), and the drastic increase in govt. spending and commitments,...

what is the Federal Deficit/GDP ratio since the days of JFK, by Admin?

Cheers!

[AndyJackson]

[Randy Larsen]

Obama says!

It’s Bush’s Fault!

[grey_whiskers]

At first blush, that graph cuts off about nine years ago.

What about Obambi?

(And his projected deficits, according to the CBO?)

Cheers!

[AndyJackson]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Here it is with projections for 2010. I would remind you that that th slope on that bump was under Bush 2, and that the shortfalls to deal with banks etc. are the consequence of 3 decades of bad policy. Am I in favor of spending money to bail out banks. No way. let the bankers rot while the Sheriff repossesses their NY condos and Hamptons digs. I will chear. Start boiling up tar even. But for chrissakes pubbies are supposed to be better than democrats, not just as bad as democrats.

[AndyJackson]

that graph cuts off about nine years ago.

That graph cuts off at the end of 2008. No you did not just wake up from 10 years of slumber mr RVW. The nightmare you are living is right now today after 8 years of GWB.

[AndyJackson]

It is the fault of 30 years of bad policy. The last 8 years of that were GWB, who had a majority in both houses for 6 of those years.

Conservatives have to stop harking back to the Bush years as some sort of golden era in American politics and fiscal prudence. They were goddawful. The banking mess mostly happened under unregulated products approved by the GWB administration. Are dims worse? Of course. But I don't care about the corrupt soul of the democratic party. I care about the corrupt soul of the Republican party. When we have a better party that stands for things that matter to me I will support it. When it just tries to pretend GWB was its hero, or pretends that crony capitalism comes close to some sort of free market capitalist ideal I am going to heap as much scorn on the self-destructive denial and idiocy as I possibly can. Conservatives are going the wrong way!

[AndyJackson]

the democrats have controlled congress for most of those decades

The Gingrich revolution was when? What years did the pubbies have a majority in the Senate?

This convenient historical revisionism of yours is just more of the same denial.

[Justa]

I distinctly recall Regan refusing to sign the budgets because of too much spending in the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED budgets. Those were Tip O’Neils budget deficits in the 80s.

[Justa]

Pssst, the Congress authors the budgets. What you credit Clinton with is actually the 1994 Contract With America. Thanks, Jack.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

It's not difficult, history has proven time and time again, you cannot spend yourself into massive, irreconcilable debt and expect prosperity in return, as Obama claims will happen.

It is clearly Economics 101, that reducing taxes and the size of Government, along with reducing restrictive regulation, stimulates economic growth rapidly and at prolonged, sustained levels. Reaganomics is a prime example that even Clinton was able to try to take credit for and which the MSM did give him credit for. When it was a nearly 20 year period of growth started by Reagan.

Obama’s little Bear Rally going on right now, thanks to the artificial injections of Tax payer money into the system, will soon be followed by massive inflation and run away interest rates. What will quickly follow, will be the huge tax increases coming, just to keep his bloated government running, with little left to pay down the debt.

[BillM]

Since CONGRESS builds and approves budgets it is necessary to look at the makeup of both houses over the time period. The Republicans have not had a filibuster proof senate during that whole period. The Dems policy has been to use the hammer to get what they want. Remember when Clinton shut down the government and blamed the House of Reps. The Press let him get away with it.

The left wing of the Dem party has led us to where we are. If they are not purged America is in for a very hard time. It is likely that regional separatism will rise to the point it risks the integrity of the USA.

[AndyJackson]

the Congress authors the budgets

PSSST. The administration "authors" the budget and submits it to Congress. The Congress then tinkers with it, but the budget is within predictable parameters and earmarks the budget that the President proposes.

It is not a budget until the President signs it into law.

[grey_whiskers]

I'm posting on my Mac, now, I was on my PC.

For some reason, the PC showed the graph as the dip at Clinton. Now both your earlier plot, and the new one in red, are showing the entire time sequence.

I blame Bill Gates for that, btw.

But I don't understand the extreme right hand side of the plot in red: if we are in a recession, and the GDP is dropping, and expenditures are accelerating (many of Obambi's initiatives don't kick in until 2010) -- how is it the ratio of National Debt/GDP levels off in 2010...? Now that I've seen it, thanks for showing it.

Yes, Bush sucks. But Obama positively gargles.

(If you read my posting history, you'll see I'm hardly a Bushbot.)

I think the problem is that the Dems and the Republicans are playing the left and the right off against each other, to secure the blessings of influence and pork to themselves and their (political) posteriors -- which is why Sarah got shafted so hard: she actually took on the corruptocrats in Alaska, and nobody wanted her to try that in DC.

Cheers!