Posted on 07/07/2005 5:17:51 AM PDT by expat_panama
That's why I marked 2005 as projected and listed Bush's numbers through 2004 as well as 2005. The numbers through 2004 are all "in the book" and have been subjected to "reality scoring", so to speak. Dynamic scoring could only effect the 2005 numbers and these numbers do not effect the conclusions.
You can read it in the following post to expat_panama.
I pointed out that it's lower now. You pointed out that the debt burden is increasing now while it was falling before. Let's get comfortable with the fact that we're both right-- neither of us is "wrong".
I agree that, if you look at the entire decade, there is an argument that your statement is technically correct. From 1994 to 2004, both the gross federal debt and the public debt increased in current dollars (the numbers can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/debt06.html). However, both decreased as a percentage of GDP. The reason is that the GDP continued to grow under both Clinton and Bush.
However, the Clinton and Bush periods are so disparate, it presents a misleading (or at least incomplete) picture to combine them. Under Clinton, the debt burden went down, chiefly because, as a percentage of GDP, revenues went up and outlays went down. Under Bush, however, the debt burden went UP, chiefly because, as a percentage of GDP, revenues went DOWN and outlays went UP. During this entire period there was also the ever-present shrinking of debt burden due to growth in GDP. However, there was also the ever-present cost of the debt, the portion of the budget that goes to pay nothing but the interest on the debt. Hence, the debt burden is not a costless entity that is steadily shrunk down to zero through GDP growth. We pay an ongoing cost for it.
What is most misleading, however, is your chart in post #1. An unsuspecting reader would likely think that the shrinking average debt burden was somehow connected to the lower revenues. In fact, it is connected to the fact that the debt burden declined under Clinton. This insured that Clinton's average debt burden was greater than his final debt burden, the one that he passed on to Bush. Hence, your method of displaying the data perversely uses Clinton's (and the Republican Congress') virtue of decreasing the debt burden against them and rewards the fruits of that virtue to Bush and our current spendthrift Congress. I make no judgment about your intentions in posting it up until now. That will continue to be the case if you stop posting that particular chart. It's your choice, of course.
I agree. If we start to mislead we might as well become Democrats, or protectionists. Bad expat_panama. :^)
Having said that, I think the foreign exchange value of the dollar plays a much larger role in inflation prospects than it once did. Thus, when Greenspan raises rates, it strengthens the dollar and reduces the threat of long term inflation, flattening the yield curve.
We spend all this money on imports, but a good portion comes back in exchange for IOU's. Not even the reckless spending of Republicans and Democrats can keep up with it. It's quite a contrast to the old mercantile system.
I made a similar statement to expat_panama over here. I'm starting to detect a trend.
You're both on my "ignore these idiots" list due to your obsessive flame-baiting and misrepresentation of facts. I have better things to do than become bogged-down in your convoluted, paradigm-shifting, revisionist manure.
The critics of global trade are really impervious to facts it seems. They said by now, a decade after NAFTA we'd have fallen down to the Mexican standard of living. Our economy would have contracted so much, that we wouldn't be able to pay our debts.
Well since 1994 when NAFTA came into effect our economy has grown by about 40% and per capita gdp by about 30%. Now the same doom and gloomers are saying DR-CAFTA will impoversh America..
You mean like my claiming that cheaper steel is better for America than expensive steel?
I have better things to do than become bogged-down in your convoluted, paradigm-shifting, revisionist manure.
Like I said, you won't talk to people who can refute your fluff.
I was kidding. I think expat_panama knows that Bush and Congress spend too much. Everything he claimed in his post was correct.
In my old age I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what in particular you're disagreeing with, and what if anything you're in favor of. You seem to be saying here that it's wrong for the US gov't to ever borrow money. ("The claim that the government needs to go into debt or overspend in order to prevent anarchy isn't logical."). I tried to get a clarification out of you here, but maybe you plan to clarify it to yourself before you get around to sharing your clarification with the rest of us.
In the meantime, we'll understand that your objection to debt is absolute and it was wrong for Washington to send Adams to Europe to borrow money to finance the war for Independence, that anyone who bought war bonds during WWII was a fool, and that Lincoln shouldn't have run the country into debt to keep the Union together.
Now I got it, refuting his fluff is what he calls "obsessive flame-baiting and misrepresentation of facts", and what he means when he "ignores" us is that he sends us posts calling our arguments "convoluted, paradigm-shifting, revisionist manure".
This is fun-- I like figuring out codes!
Let's give other freepers the same right to make conclusions that we have. My conclusion with this 'tax-cut/lower-debt' thing is that at least the chart shows tax cuts didn't hurt. Your conclusion is that the shrinking debt burden is "connected to the fact that the debt burden declined under Clinton." You're in very good company with the idea that so many good economic things came with Clinton --that's what most news sources say. IMHO, gov't employees (including elected ones) are not nearly as important as their fans would have us believe, and that good economic things happen in America all the time.
I always figured that it's nice to post stuff that isn't available elsewhere. Somehow that ends up with me always having to point out the nice things that happen when the Republicans are around --we can get all the Republican-bashing we want from the news services (and the Freerepublic for that matter). Then again, if you want to say my motivation is something other than what I say it is, it's a free country. In fact I love food fights-- I got a stack of lemon meringue pies all ready!
Once again, it's simple math. Under Clinton, the public debt went down steadily from 49.4% of GDP to 33% of GDP. The average during his years was between those two numbers at 43% of GDP. Under Bush, the public debt has gone up steadily from the 33% of GDP that he inherited to 37.2% of GDP. The average during his years was between those two numbers at 35.8% of GDP. Only when and if Bush manages to push the debt back up to 49% of GDP, the level that Clinton inherited from Papa Bush, is Bush's average likely to approach Clinton's.
If you want to look at the effect of a President's policies, you should look at the new debt, that is, the deficit. If you insist on looking at the debt, you should look at the debt at the END of the President's term, once his policies have had some time to take effect. In that case, your chart would show 33% of GDP for Clinton and 37.2% of GDP for Bush. Do that (or at least add those numbers to your current chart) and then let other freepers draw their own conclusions.
If your aim is to simply mislead, however, leave the chart as it is. In that case, you'll be happy to know that the little math quirk that you have discovered works in reverse as well. If Bush continues to run up the debt until the end of his term, that will insure that the average debt burden during his years will be less than the high point that he passes on the next poor SOB. Then, you will be able to post a similar chart showing the superiority of Bush's policies, regardless of what that next President does.
If you should decide to continue with your current chart, however, we might as well end this discussion. There's too much real data out there for me to waste any more time on misleading data. At most, it may temporarily mislead a few freepers. However, I would be very interested if you or anyone should see that same statistical trick used in a national publication.
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.