Posted on 03/15/2008 5:36:57 AM PDT by expat_panama
If President Bush's 2007 defense spending had matched the same share of the economy as President Clinton's did, last year's budget essentially would have balanced. Such an observation opens a Pandora's box of policy and politics.
By looking in it, we can also see an objective budgetary comparison between the past two administrations. The result is a currently counterintuitive conclusion: In a comparison of the large components, Bush's are more in line with historical levels and current needs than Clinton's.
The best comparative approach for measuring broad federal budget categories is percentages of the economy. Such a yardstick is graspable, unlike astronomical nominal dollar figures. It is also effective across time because it eliminates inflation's effects. It is the most significant measure of economic effect.
As the chart below demonstrates, defense spending has trended downward since reaching 37.5% of the nation's economy in 1945. Within our current period, however, a marked difference exists between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
During his second term, Clinton's defense spending fell to just 3% of GDP. In contrast, Bush's defense spending has averaged 4% of GDP over the past four years.
These small percentage differences have big effects. For example, if Bush last year had matched the defense-spending average of Clinton's second term, the 2007 deficit would have fallen from 1.2% of GDP to a virtually nonexistent 0.2% (less than $30 billion).
Such an impact on the 2007 deficit begs the question: What effect did low defense spending have on Clinton's budgets?
[snip]
At the same time, non-defense spending continues to insist on filling a vacuum that no longer exists. While defense spending confronts our greatest threat abroad, the rest of federal spending constitutes our greatest threat at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
--and will continue to do so until you get a Dem in the White house?
Come on guy, either you get a little perspective or you admit you're campaigning for Obama.
And there you go with the insults again. Calling someone a Democrat is about as bad as it gets.
That's true. LOL!
I figured it was something like that: if I had taken a dollar in 2000, converted it into another currency in 2000, bought into the DJI with it in 2000, liquidated my position in 2008, then converted the result into dollars, I would have lost my hat. Do I have it correct?
Drop non defense spending by 3 points and then bush would get a passing grade.
Almost. To buy the DJI, you'd use dollars. An investor trading his Euros for dollars in 2001 to buy the DJI and then selling in 2008 and converting back into Euros would have lost his shirt (in Euros). An investor using dollars in 2001 to buy the DJI and then selling in 2008 would still have a profit (in dollars).
It’s simply a fixed frame of reference by which to measure performance and come to some conclusions as to the state of the economy relative to prior points in time. Any fixed frame of reference would do for the calculations. The only purpose of this is that I’m trying to make a point about wealth, that to get an accurate measure of relative value over time, one needs to take into account not only price changes but currency value changes as well. In the past, the CPI was adequate to measure the change in the value of the currency, but since the mid-90s this is no longer true.
In other words, this "convertability" stuff isn't really a number thing after all, it's just how it's all been feeling to you lately.
Go ahead and flunk him if you want, but the point here is that W's done better than his predecessor at cutting non-defense spending.
When someone says that my posts lack proportion, I clarify the logic so as to make the point more clear. Please explain why you're "criticizing economic performance" that results in 4.8% unemployment, increasing productivity, rising exports, and zero inflation.
Oh golly gee. A republican did better thana democrat! How amazing!
That's a fair point; next we'll be happy that W's foreign policy is better than Carter's --talk about damning with faint praise. The weird part here is that there're freepers who actually think W's spending is worse than Clinton's and they want us all to sit out the next election. That's where I draw the line there...
If you consider defense spending PLUS non-defense spending...then they are right. Bush did do worse than clinton.
If you then compare total spending to total revenue, bush really starts to look pathetic.
You're for cutting defense, say no more.
--and no, I don't want to hear you tell me why Obama would be a great president.
I give up. You win. Anybody who ignores everything I’ve already said and especially someone who insists we have zero inflation based on one month’s numbers is too good for me.
Now I can agree with you, Cheers!
Oh buzz off. I never said anything like that.
Oh, so now the story is that you liked W's defense spending.
Erasable reprogrammable memories --never freep without 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.