GeorgiaDon 362 #26 September 26, 2012 Quote...but my glass ball has never really worked very well.As long as the other one works, you should still be OK. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #27 September 26, 2012 QuoteIt will be sophomoric in context and it will obfuscate the issue. But then wouldn't everyone think it's coming from you? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 September 26, 2012 I tend to look not at the presidents so much as I look at Congress. Particularly the makeup of the House of Representatives because it is the House that has primary control of the purse strings of the country. For proper reading of the below data (not adjusted for inflation), one must look one year past the house makeup to see what the effects are. I personally think that it paints a different picture. If you note what you see, it doesn’t matter what party is in power at President. Note something else – there is no good reason for the deficits in the mid-2000’s. The economy was humming and revenues were the highest in history. Problem is that spending increased more rapidly, particularly mandatory spending in Medicare and Social Security. The "balanced budgets" were balanced by borrowing money from those "off budget" items. Check out national debt during those years - it rose every one of them because the government had to borrow money off-budget. Yes, I blame the GOP for this fraud, too. Also note: Stabilizing the growth of the deficit is not the same as getting control over the debt. And - using national debt as a percentage of GDP is also ripe with risk. The economy, as we have seen, is prone to shocks. A debt deemed “manageable” one year may be crisis the next due to an economic shock. While tying the debt to the GDP is a useful point-in-time measurement it is very risky with regard to future management because the economy is unstable and the actual cost of the debt itself is linked to other factors. Thus, if the GDP drops 10%, the public debt remains the same and further borrowing is more difficult and more expensive. 1981 $79 Billion Deficit D 1982 $128 Billion Deficit D 1983 $207.8 Billion Deficit D 1984 $185.4 Billion Deficit D 1985 $212.3 Billion Deficit D 1986 $221.2 Billion Deficit D 1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit D 1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit D 1989 $152.5 Billion Deficit D 1990 $221.2 Billion Deficit D 1991 $269.3 Billion Deficit D 1992 $290.4 Billion Deficit D 1993 $255.1 Billion Deficit D 1994 $203.2 Billion Deficit D 1995 $164 Billion Deficit R 1996 $107.5 Billion Deficit R 1997 $22 Billion Deficit R 1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus R 1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus R 2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus R 2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus R 2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit R 2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit R 2004 $413 Billion Deficit R 2005 $318 Billion Deficit R 2006 $248 Billion Deficit R 2007 $161 Billion Deficit D 2008 $459 Billion Deficit D 2009 $1413 Billion Deficit D 2010 $1294 Billion Deficit D 2011 $1299 Billion Deficit R 2012 $1100 Billion Deficit R My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #29 September 26, 2012 While Congress certainly has a significant amount of responsibility for our budgets in theory, I'm hesitant to give them much credit or blame. In part, that's just because I do not remember a respectable House in my adult life. I've seen kindergarteners with more maturity that that bunch of cry-babies and drama queens (regardless of party). But also, Presidents submit a proposal and Congress generally gets pretty close to it. They cut a little here, add some pork there, but my perception is that it generally matches the proposal, at least on the big parts. The government shutdown in '96 was significant, but this most recent threat was more bluster than anything else. The House knows they can't get what they want past the Senate and the Oval office, so they do their damndest to ensure the other side doesn't get anything either. Boehner isn't as bad as Pelosi was, but he's either unwilling or not allowed to find common ground and sell it to the other R's. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #30 September 26, 2012 >If and when the interest rates go up the debt servicing amount will >increase sharply. Agreed. Offsetting that is inflation; if debt service increases by 10% and inflation drives prices up 15% you are overall paying less on the debt as a percentage of GDP. However this is a very poor strategy overall (IMO.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #31 September 26, 2012 Quote>If and when the interest rates go up the debt servicing amount will >increase sharply. Agreed. Offsetting that is inflation; if debt service increases by 10% and inflation drives prices up 15% you are overall paying less on the debt as a percentage of GDP. However this is a very poor strategy overall (IMO.) I agree with you, but I think that is what the Gov will do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites