Discussion in 'Economy' started by Max Power, Oct 17, 2005.
So Bush, after the economic bullet of 9/11, then waging war since, has a project defict about equal with Clinton's high? Wow! Staggering. :sleep:
Let's hope this comes to pass. Links at site:
Do you know the difference between a deficit and a debt?
That might as well be an Onion article.
IMO, the only real way to cut spending is to set up a partisan deadlock, like we enjoyed from 1994-2000.
What's staggering is that in every war the US fought that I am aware of, taxes went up to pay at least partly for the war. In this war, taxes have fallen, and far more than were needed to stimulate the economy.
Bush is hardly a conservative. Discretionary, non-defense spending has risen faster than it ever did under Slick Willie and the man has never vetoed a single bill.
Wrong. There comes times when it is good to have a party in power and opposition braying loudly enough to keep the public informed. It's true for whichever party we are speaking of, there has been too much deadlock for too long. However, this administration has blown it and perhaps the opposition party will become the majority eventually because of it.
BTW, rather than raise my post count, go ahead and give your economics lesson on your chart.
Well, the deficit is simply the money spent by the government less the income.
The debt is how much money is owed by the government... so if you add up all of our deficits and surpluses (and factor in interest), you will get the debt.
The chart shows the debt as a percentage of GDP.
Basically, every president after WW2 except Reagan, Bush, and Bush, decreased the debt.
Can you have deficits and surpluses? I mean concurrently?
Comparing 1950's-1960's to 1970's-2000's just doesn't make sense to me-but econ was not my strong suit. Just seems the post war economic engine, with the blip caused by rehiring/retooling, made growth inevitable.
Now, Carter dealt with the gas problem from OPEC, as well as the malaise brought on by his handling of domestic and foreign affairs-so I guess his military cuts really were big. Again,
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right points, so I'll wait and see what you have to say.
You can't have deficits and surpluses concurrently. A surplus of $1 is equivalent to a deficit of $-1 and the other way around.
Of course, even if we run a surplus (as we did a few years ago), this doesn't necessarily mean the debt goes down, because there is interest charged on the debt. So, it IS possible to have a surplus AND become deeper in debt.
Now back to the graph.
It's as a percentage of GDP.
This is a fair comparison, because owing $10,000 if you make $15,000 per year is worse than owing $20,000 if you make $200,000.
So, for example, during the Clinton years, the national debt increased... but the GDP increased by (significantly) more.
Separate names with a comma.