Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What happened to the people who love Bush? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: What happened to the people who love Bush?
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I have watched the biased media non-coverage of democratic elections and school construction in Iraq and the spread of fledgling democracy throughout the Middle East, I wonder, what happened to the people who love Bush? Why haven't they jumped all over this positive news in the War on Terror? Have the anti-American leftists shamed them into silence on the terrorism front? Have they gotten a memo from someone higher up to stop gloating over our sweeping foreign policy successes? Personally (as a fervent anti-American traitor) I'm more than a little disappointed by the successes which have been made known, and very suspicious by the silence from the people who routinely make up stuff just to support Bush blindly.

[ May 30, 2005, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because Bush won.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What, you wanted me to post Chrenkoff columns?

You asked for it.
Good News from Iraq, Part 28 - May 23, 2005
Good News from Afghanistan, Part 12 - May 2, 2005

That'll keep you busy a few minutes.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You guys are wound up way too tight. Sheesh. I was just gently mocking the other similarly-worded thread with some light sarcasm.

I am happy to see that Tez and War both seem to have their deafness to humor intact. Sometimes I wonder if you guys have a sense of humor at all.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm over here mad at him for not doing more.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe most of them are too busy trying to work eight jobs to pay the National Debt...

[Wink]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny you should say that canadian. Because of our growth in GDP, the debt burden on the average American actually is dropping.

And David - Your idea of "light sarcasm" and "gentle mockery" is pretty inept from where I'm standing. Maybe a smilie or something next time?

And no, we don't have a sense of humor at all. Thanks for speculating.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sruffelman
Member
Member # 1325

 - posted      Profile for sruffelman   Email sruffelman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I neither love Bush nor completely approve of the War in Iraq, but I do, however, frequently announce when things are going well in the Middle East. If Kerry had won the election, the Democrats would be blowing their horns about how its all Kerry's policy that caused the great turnout in the Iraq election or heped curb the insurgency; that would have made me ill.

Thankfully, Bush can take all the credit he wants for those tidbits of good news. Unfortunately, the Iraqi insurgency is now attacking more fervently than ever and we're losing plenty of American lives each month. So is that also Bush's fault?

If you are going to tell me that BUSH's war cost us X-lives and Y-dollars, and that BUSH's policies have plunged the country Z-dollars into debt... then you must also say give him equal credit for each individual Iraqi citizen who can now vote and every woman in Afghanistan who now is allowed try and make something of herself.

Posts: 208 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed. to remove after reading more carefully. Sorry. Yes, that is Bush's fault. You break it, you buy it. It's his war.

[ May 30, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, it is also Congress's war, and Tony Blair's war.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be fair, it is also Congress's war, and Tony Blair's war.
"Don't forget Poland!"

(Except you can, now.)

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike_W
Member
Member # 202

 - posted      Profile for Mike_W   Email Mike_W   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WP,
Are you maybe confusing per capita debt and debt/GDP ratio?

And, even if you mean debt to GDP ratio, are you sure of those numbers? The numbers I have readily available show a worsening of the ratio from just under 58% to close to just under 62.5% (not that bad but the direction is worrisome). Has it actually improved since then? I find it hard to believe but maybe my intuition is off.

Source:

http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Data

[ May 30, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Mike_W ]

Posts: 1352 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WarsawPact is wrong on the economic numbers themselves over the course of the Bush Administration (the per-capita debt burden on the average American actually has increased significantly, and even the per-capita debt burden as a fraction of GDP has also increased), but that's forgiveable because he's not an economist =P
Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Because Bush won."

Won what? A lifetime supply of Wheaties? Aguide to pronouncing the names of foregin lands and their current leaders? Mother Josephine's prize fried chicken recipe?

Lucky guy...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
As I have watched the biased media non-coverage of democratic elections and school construction in Iraq and the spread of fledgling democracy throughout the Middle East, I wonder, what happened to the people who love Bush? Why haven't they jumped all over this positive news in the War on Terror?

Here I am! Things look positive in Iraq, and while I'm nervous about Iran, I think that we're in a better position now than if we'd gone with Kerry, or with your advice [Big Grin] But I don't generally pop up with gloat links.

Obviously, the fact that I love Bush doesn't mean I'm letting his administration off the hook for this torture stuff. I expect a full investigation, and if it goes all the way up to Bush, I'll be deeply dissapointed. Most of the credible torture allegations occurred before Abu Ghraib broke, so I think and hope something's been done to stop this horror which has the potential to turn us into a full-fledged police state.

On the domestic front, I am quite irritated about the bankruptcy bill, and that he has postponed Defense of Marriage Amendment until 2006, but I expected these when I voted for him. My love is not blind and I know that political conservatives have him on a lot of issues.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You guys are wound up way too tight.
Did my post seem like an agressive strike against your position, or simply a statement of fact?

You seem to be the one wound up tight, I'm surprised you could read a whole spectrum of delicate undertones to my 3 word post. And you also figured out that I don't have a sense of humor? You need to go into palm reading.

quote:
Lucky guy...
Very.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reading comprehension time again, kids. For our purposes I will be referring to myself in the third person and trying to appear as tightly wound as David Ricardo says I am.

Do the following two sentences mean the same thing?
"Because of our growth in GDP, the debt burden on the average American actually is dropping."
"Because of our growth in GDP over the last five years has outpaced the growth of the debt, the debt burden on the average American has dropped."

Is it possible that by "growth", WarrsawPact is referencing the recent rise in growth of GDP rather than half a decade's worth? Is it possible that by "dropping," WarrsawPact means a continuing process rather than a finished fact? Especially in the context of an economy that started in a recession in the aformentioned time frame and has since become an expansion?

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WarsawPact, start extrapolating some economic GDP and debt numbers from a data source over a time period of your choosing please. So far, you have no statistical basis for your short-term "Bush's recent GDP growth is causing a reduction in debt burden for the average American" hypothesis. In fact, the exact opposite is actually occurring -- the debt burden for the average American has continued to go up steadily even in the face of recent strong GDP growth numbers.

As a service to you WarsawPact, let me briefly explain why GDP growth in the last 2 fiscal quarters cannot possibly have reduced the "debt burden of the average American" at the same time as the government is continuing to run record fiscal deficits. "Debt burden of the average american" refers to national debt/GDP(or per-capita national debt/GDP, whichever measure you prefer). The very fact of the matter is that the projected deficit for fiscal 2005 is: $407 billion. Actually, the actual deficit for the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 is: $210 billion. In other words, the national debt burden went up $210 billion in the first two quarters of fiscal 2005 (War's hypothetical timeframe of choice).

Now, let's look at the American GDP growth for the 1st quarter of fiscal 2005:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/28/news/economy/gdp/

quote:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The nation's economy was hit by both slower growth and higher prices in the first quarter, a government report showed Thursday, presenting both economists and investors with worrisome signs about future economic stength.

The Commerce Department's initial reading on the first quarter gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, showed an annual pace of growth of 3.1 percent, down from the 3.8 percent rise in the fourth quarter of 2004.

3.1% GDP growth on an annualized basis is actually about .7% GDP growth on a quarter-to-quarter basis for the 1st quarter of fiscal 2005. Let's just call that about 1.5% GDP growth on a semi-annualized basis for simplicity's sake.

Now we can do a little basic arithmetic to find where that 1.5% GDP growth over a semi-annualized basis matches up against the $210 billion fiscal deficit number for the first half of fiscal 2005. Consider that the national debt preceding the first half of fiscal 2005 was $7.578 trillion -- that means that the increase of $210 billion was a 2.8% increase of the national debt.

Now, let's see...a 1.5% growth in GDP over the same six month period as a 2.8% increase of the national debt. That means that the growth in the national debt has been approximately double the growth in the GDP. Which means that the debt burden (national debt/GDP) has actually gone up significantly instead of down over the last 6 months (as War incorrectly claimed). To be exact, the debt burden has gone up approximately 1.87% (national debt growth %/GDP growth %).

Was that too complicated for you to understand War?

Until then, the actual economic numbers speak for themselves. Per-capita debt has gone up significantly in the Bush Administration. Per-capita debt as a proportion of GDP has also gone up in the Bush Administration (but not as significantly).

Also, it is pretty hilarious that someone would consider the 6-month period after the 2004 election a much more reliable dataset than the 4+year period of the Bush Administration economic record. If you were going to defend the Bush Administration economic record, shouldn't you be extrapolating from the 2000-May2005 dataset instead of your hypothetical November2004-May2005 dataset? And if you're going to choose a 6-month dataset to support your conclusion that GDP growth has lowered the debt burden... shouldn't you avoid choosing a dataset where the growth in national debt has nearly doubled the growth in GDP?

P.S. I forgive you for not being an economist, but you should not pretend to know anything about economic data when you obviously do not read any economic data. Otherwise, you would have realized that the debt burden has been going up in the last six months instead of mistakenly believing that the debt burden was going down in the last six months.

[ May 31, 2005, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, because certain people completely failed to notice, my original post here was a nearly verbatim mirror image parody of phil's ill-worded post "What happened to the people who hate Bush?"(I was mocking phil gently for the awkward and self-defeatingly ineffective way in which he worded his post). It was a mere exercise in satire, but for certain people, such satire did go over their heads.

On the other hand, it was amusing to see Tez and War play the straight men to my sardonic parody of phil's post "What happened to the people who hate Bush?"

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. Somehow, you actually being the superior self-congratulatory condescending jerk comes off heavier than me faking it for amusement as I did in my last post.

I mean, come on, how could I hope to beat this?
quote:
As a service to you WarsawPact, let me briefly explain ...
The very fact of the matter is that...
Let's just call that ... for simplicity's sake. Now we can do a little basic arithmetic...
Was that too complicated for you to understand War?
...
Also, it is pretty hilarious that someone would consider...
I forgive you for not being an economist, but you should not pretend to know anything about economic data when you obviously do not read any economic data.

How could one hope to compete? It's so condescending... I'm crushed. Obliterated.

quote:
WarsawPact, start quoting some economic GDP and debt numbers from a data source over a time period of your choosing please.
Okay.

I wouldn't use a 3.1% growth rate, first of all, because of two things:
* The BEA revised its numbers upwards from 3.1% to 3.48%. Your numbers come from April 28. The revision took place May 21.

* the way the BEA draws up its numbers is less reliable than it could be if they took Steve Connover's advice and use change in GDP over 2 quarters rather than 1 quarter. Follow the link to see why.
Bringing that advice to bear on the new, revised, more accurate numbers would give you a GDP growth of 3.62%.
You can choose whether or not you follow that advice. It's been more historically accurate.

quote:
3.1% GDP growth on an annualized basis is actually about .7% GDP growth on a quarter-to-quarter basis for the 1st quarter of fiscal 2005. Let's just call that about 1.5% GDP growth on a semi-annualized basis for simplicity's sake.
Why? That's not correct.
100 x 1.007 = 100.7
100.7 x 1.007 = 101.4049
101.4049 x 1.007 = 102.1147
102.1147 x 1.007 = 102.8295

That's only a 2.83% annual growth rate, David. That's way lower than either the 3.48% per annum rate or the 3.62% 2-quarter rate Connover uses, especially when we're talking about applying that percentage to the entire GDP of the United States.

or, using the 1.5% per 6 months rate,

100 x 1.015 = 101.5
101.5 x 1.015 = 103.0225

... a much closer number, but still... when extrapolated over $11.75 trillion, it's $355 billion versus $409 billion.

And once you throw inflation into the picture and talk about real GDP versus inflated debt dollars... we're talking a whole new ballgame.

Then...
quote:
If you were going to defend the Bush Administration economic record, shouldn't you be extrapolating from the 2000-May2005 dataset instead of your hypothetical November2004-May2005 dataset?
This thread was about what has happened to all the people who love Bush suddenly (very recently) dropping off the radar, right? And canadian's comment was about us working 8 jobs... right now... to pay off the national debt.
I'm talking about here and now. Everyone knows we were in a recession at the beginning of Bush's first presidency and that events like Enron, 9-11 and others didn't do anything to help the situation. Why would I include a period of time in which Bush had absolutely no control over the economy (don't presidential policies take a certain period of time to start having a direct effect on the economy?)?
-=-=-=-=-
I'd love it if you'd reply more respectfully and we could get on with a real debate. We can just leave this "condescending jerk" business where it lay... or you can treat me like an imbecile and have no hope of convincing me or most other people... in which case, even if you happen to be right, it will be wasted.

[ May 31, 2005, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me add to David's analysis the fact that his $210B semi-annual budget deficit number probably excluded the SS surplus. I'm not sure why it's always excluded from the official deficit numbers, but we have to pay interest on it, so it's as good as regular old public debt in that sense.

My point here is that David's analysis is more than likely underestimating the growth of the debt burden. If we consider the full budget deficit, it's about 4.5% of GDP, which handily beats current economic growth. This disparity will likely decline in the near future (considering the positive news on tax income and GDP growth), but based solely on budget projections, Bush will leave office having witnessed a continuous increase in the debt burden (normalized by GDP) for every single year was in office (I'm just guessing on his first year though). But then so did Reagan, and the people who loved him are still around and are trying to get his mug carved into Mt. Rushmore and printed on the $5000 bill. I guess the Bush lovers are now just waiting for him to die so that they can memorialize him in some equally ostentatious manner.

Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike_W
Member
Member # 202

 - posted      Profile for Mike_W   Email Mike_W   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All vitriol and condescension aside, I don't see how you can find an improvement in any of the numbers from the the last 5 years, or in those projected for the next couple. As I said, the sky is not falling. The debt/GDP ratio is still manageable. But, the direction aint great, and the ability of the USA to either pull back spending or increase taxes to deal with it is limited.
Posts: 1352 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
BTW, because certain people completely failed to notice, my original post here was a nearly verbatim mirror image parody of phil's ill-worded post "What happened to the people who hate Bush?"(I was mocking phil gently for the awkward and self-defeatingly ineffective way in which he worded his post). It was a mere exercise in satire, but for certain people, such satire did go over their heads.

On the other hand, it was amusing to see Tez and War play the straight men to my sardonic parody of phil's post "What happened to the people who hate Bush?"

Thank you for being gentle [Smile]
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if you include inflation in the picture, you would only count it on both sides of the ledger. Those GDP numbers are nominal GDP growth rates, not real GDP growth rates. Thus, real national debt/real GDP is still going to end up greater than 1 (real debt burden is increasing).

And despite the ways in which you want to hedge your economic measures, it is still clear that the debt burden (national debt/GDP) has still gone up in the last six months.

I still challenge you to find any time period during the Bush Administration when the debt burden has actually gone down. So far, you still have utterly failed to do so.

[ May 31, 2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's just take War's preferred numbers and compare the annualized increase in nominal GDP versus the annualized increase in nominal national debt.

GDP annualized growth at 3.48% versus national debt annualized growth of 5.41% ($410 billion projected 2005 deficit/2004 national debt level of $7.578 trillion).

If we look at the debt burden, 5.41%/3.48% = 1.55% annualized increase in the debt burden over War's preferred dataset of the last six months.

Again, War, go ahead and choose any dataset during the Bush Administration, and you will still find that the debt burden goes up significantly in any timeframe.

[ May 31, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Again, War, go ahead and choose any dataset during the Bush Administration, and you will still find that the debt burden goes up significantly in any timeframe."

That national debt, both private and governmental, has risen excessively since -- what? sometime in the 90s? -- is a truth so blatant and well known it's become practically folkloric.

Folks USA are amortized to the dust mites in their underwear. The government is so leveraged that it fears the results of foreign nations like Japan and China no longer buying its bonds, or allowing a currency revaluation to occur (quite likely, I'm told) that would have a similar effect on our debt structure.

The USA is a lot of things: most powerful and sophisticated militarily; most dynamically open society overall; birthplace of the blues and cinema and alternate current energy grids and the petroleum industry.... but it is financially stuck out on a limb of its own sawing.

"You seem to be the one wound up tight, I'm surprised you could read a whole spectrum of delicate undertones to my 3 word post. And you also figured out that I don't have a sense of humor? You need to go into palm reading."

No delicate undertones. He just called you a wooden reactionary.

Warsaw, David is nicely out in the open about calling you a condescending jerk (although I don't that phrase used on this thread). I don't think you're a jerk: but you ARE condescending. I don't know how many times I read you telling folks 'that's not how you have a civilized/meaningful/quality/rigorous debate'. More than two times, and more like too many times.

At which point many people (rightly) told you to suck noise.

The cult of personality is alive and well at Ornery.

Congratulations, Ricardo, on being canonized a Condescending Jerk. It's oaficial, right here:

"Wow. Somehow, you actually being the superior self-congratulatory condescending jerk comes off heavier than me faking it for amusement as I did in my last post."

See? No doubt. No ambiguity. No mere seeming but bona fide BEING. You ARE the established fact: a Condescending Jerk.

You venomous jackanape, you. You sly guttersnipe of a six-pack needing abdominizer overhaul. You charlatan. Poltroon. Villein.

You...you... GUNKY!!! (Only connosieurs of vintage Bill Cosby 60s comedy routines will understand the importance of such an appelation.) I salute you.

By the way, Junior Barnes wants your auotgraph. Preferably inscribed on a frozen slushball.

Sorry, War, merely seeming like a Condescending Jerk won't cut it. No canonization for you, senor.

P.S. Just for fun, I hold up these two mutually referential statements for comparison:

a) "And David - Your idea of "light sarcasm" and "gentle mockery" is pretty inept from where I'm standing. Maybe a smilie or something next time?"

b) "You guys are wound up way too tight. Sheesh. I was just gently mocking the other similarly-worded thread with some light sarcasm. I am happy to see that Tez and War both seem to have their deafness to humor intact. Sometimes I wonder if you guys have a sense of humor at all."

They refer to this original post:

"As I have watched the biased media non-coverage of democratic elections and school construction in Iraq and the spread of fledgling democracy throughout the Middle East, I wonder, what happened to the people who love Bush? Why haven't they jumped all over this positive news in the War on Terror? Have the anti-American leftists shamed them into silence on the terrorism front? Have they gotten a memo from someone higher up to stop gloating over our sweeping foreign policy successes? Personally (as a fervent anti-American traitor) I'm more than a little disappointed by the successes which have been made known, and very suspicious by the silence from the people who routinely make up stuff just to support Bush blindly."

If a fella needs a smilie to gather that the above is not to be taken seriously, one deserves to remain in the Land of the Seeming rather than that of the Being.

Next time, I say, just throw a frozen smilieball at Ricardo and call him a gunky.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That national debt, both private and governmental, has risen excessively since -- what? sometime in the 90s? -- is a truth so blatant and well known it's become practically folkloric.
Picking a nit here...

It has risen excessively since the 1930s. You can blame Roosevelt and the "New Deal" since that is when it first became fashionable to borrow in order to "stimulate the economy."

Better to say that it has been "abused since the 1990s" but I, personally, don't believe that to be true.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Junior Barnes... ahhh the memories. You know, my friends were even inspired to improvise their own version of the fabled "buck buck" game. I can only assume my father was inspired by "the belt"...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It has risen excessively since the 1930s. You can blame Roosevelt and the "New Deal" since that is when it first became fashionable to borrow in order to "stimulate the economy."
It's an important nit.
(Tangent, in which we all take a moment to visualize, as I have done, a very important nit in an Armani suit lounging in the CEO's chair at a mahogany table somewhere amongst the clean and tidy hair follicles on somebody's scalp)

Could I borrow the time and attention of some economists and have them explain to me why it's accepted wisdom that growth based on debt is a good idea?
(It's more than possible that I just don't know what I'm talking about...)

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
BTW, because certain people completely failed to notice, my original post here was a nearly verbatim mirror image parody of phil's ill-worded post "What happened to the people who hate Bush?"

That's not exactly brilliant and original wordplay, David. It happens all the day on Ornery. See "was Jesus a Liberal"/ "was Moses a Conservative." Such gentle mockeries either get ignored, or they start discussions in their own right. No one ever comes and pats you on the back and says "what a nifty idea, David, I wish I'd thought of doing that with a thread title." Yes, cute, but not worth actually mentioning. Don't assume that just because no one gave you a medal, that no one understood what you were doing. They just took your thread and responded to it. That's what Ornerians do.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by EDanaII:
quote:
Picking a nit here...

It has risen excessively since the 1930s. You can blame Roosevelt and the "New Deal" since that is when it first became fashionable to borrow in order to "stimulate the economy."

Better to say that it has been "abused since the 1990s" but I, personally, don't believe that to be true.

Ed.

I daren't say that you're wrong -- the part about Roosevelt and his Deal is right -- but this graph seems to say the opposite, and mostly confirm what David has been saying (keeping in mind that the projections may be a little bit out of date). The only administrations that can be said to have abused it (when normalized by GDP, yadda yadda yadda) seem to be Reagan, Bush and Bush the latter. Quite shocking, really.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Could I borrow the time and attention of some economists and have them explain to me why it's accepted wisdom that growth based on debt is a good idea?"

The original idea was that debt would be accrued to stimulate growth during slow times, and the debt would be paid back during the boom times (partly to help slow down the boom). Going into why this is no longer the theory would take a while. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Could I borrow the time and attention of some economists and have them explain to me why it's accepted wisdom that growth based on debt is a good idea?
(It's more than possible that I just don't know what I'm talking about...)

I'm not an economist, but I can give you an answer (at least with regards to the federal government).

First, see Tom's reason for why it's a good idea for spurring growth.

Now let me tell you why it's not necessarily a bad idea, and why "paying it back" need not even be a consideration. Simply put, if economic growth (GDP growth in this case) out paces debt growth percentage-wise (plus a little extra to negate the added cost of debt service), then the size of the debt relative to GDP will shrink. The reason that this is important is that tax income is more or less proportional to GDP, so as long as the GDP is growing faster than the debt, the cost of the debt as a percentage of the federal budget ought to go down over time. This is a pretty non-intuitive concept, but it is probably one of the main reasons why we will never see a true balanced budget.

Having said that, if debt grows faster than GDP, then the main long-term problem is that the cost of servicing the debt (as a percentage of the budget) will increase unsustainably.

Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm..

Alberta just payed off our provincial debt and Canada is operating on tightly controlled budgets guaranteeing surpluses every year, much of which is going toward paying down our naional debt.

Why would we be doing this if it held no benefit?

Also:

That is one damning graph!

[ May 31, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David - You're either mistaken or lying about the inflation. The BEA clearly states that its 3.1% and 3.48% number are "real GDP."

quote:
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the first quarter of 2005, according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 3.8 percent.

The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data than were available for the advance estimates issued last month. In the advance estimates, the increase in real GDP was 3.1 percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).

Wanna take a bet on whether inflation was over 1.55%?

And 3.48% isn't my "preffered numbers." It's the number the BEA uses. They revised their earlier estimate ("advance estimate") of 3.1%, which you and CNN and everyone else was using. My preferred number is 3.62% because historically, Connover's 2-quarter method has been more reliable.
-=-=-=-=-
kenmeer -
quote:
Warsaw, David is nicely out in the open about calling you a condescending jerk (although I don't that phrase used on this thread). I don't think you're a jerk: but you ARE condescending. I don't know how many times I read you telling folks 'that's not how you have a civilized/meaningful/quality/rigorous debate'. More than two times, and more like too many times.
I can be condescending in a lot of ways, true. I can even be a condescending jerk.
But the way to have a good debate has seemed pretty simple since I got here. Is it terribly condescending to say that people shouldn't call each other names or speculate on motives? Isn't that just an obvious way to improve the quality of a debate? I have been on a couple of forums in my time, as I'm sure you have, and you know how bad it can get when people are too busy flaming each other to talk about the issue. Heck, read this thread: I'm guilty of it, and so is David.
quote:
At which point many people (rightly) told you to suck noise.
'Rightly'?
Why, because I was interrupting their perfectly constructive flame war? Show me an example here.

[ May 31, 2005, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Slander Monkey

Take a closer look at the graph you posted and consider these points:
  1. The chart begins at 1950, ignoring some 10+ years of national debt.
  2. The chart begins with a decline at a level HIGHER than either debts by Reagan or Bush, infering a peak higher than any of them.
  3. During ALL MAJOR inclines (including Roosevelt's), we were at war.
  4. The web site ignores these facts and implies that this is the fault of Republican's rather than politicians making me question its bias.

And, yes, we were at war during Korea and Vietnam but our level of spending was sufficient to support those wars. By the time of Reagan, et al, it had dropped below our ability to fight Reagan's Cold War and the Gulf War.


@ OpsanusTau

The idea started with John Maynard Keynes who proposed that:
quote:
In order to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing. That's because the private sector won't invest enough. As their markets become saturated, businesses reduce their investments, setting in motion a dangerous cycle: less investment, fewer jobs, less consumption and even less reason for business to invest. The economy may reach perfect balance, but at a cost of high unemployment and social misery. Better for governments to avoid the pain in the first place by taking up the slack.
Keynes was adamant about paying back the debt during the good times, something that some politicians (Reps and Dems both) seem to forget.


@ Canadian:
quote:
That is one damning graph!
Only because you want it to be...

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
canadian - Let's look at another graph and compare notes:

Debt as % of GDP since ~1950

National Debt Burden: Full History (USA since 1792, and Today relative to other countries)

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, I found where I've been a "condescending" person recently when I interrupted a thread that was just BOUND to be constructive called "Right Wingers are More Hypocritical."

You got me, kenmeer.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't forget there is a difference between a debt and a deficit. Deficit refers to the budget shortfall, while debt refers to the overall money owed by the entity.

Keep that in mind while reading this, umm, fascinating stuff.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
what notes are we comparing, warrsaw?

and ed:

why would I want a graph to be damning?

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1