This is what I said about the subject back on 01/07/10 in response to the post Truth About National Debt(82% of our national debt was spent by Republicans):
I'm as angry as the next guy about deficit spending by the GOP (especially under George W. Bush, when it really skyrocketed), but the 82 percent figure is misleading by not considering the following:
1) Whose debt is being considered? The original post at Swash Zone is from April 2009 and only includes figures through the end of the Bush Administration. It doesn't consider the enormous debt that the Obama Administration has incurred in just its first year in office. [UPDATE: This latest chart doesn't either.]
2) When and how was the debt incurred? Most of the debt incurred during the Reagan and first Bush Administrations went towards building up the military, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. This in turn led to the "peace dividend" which allowed the Clinton Administration to bring down the debt.
3) What percentage of the Gross Domestic Product did each deficit comprise? This is important, because just as a rich man can comfortably carry more debt than a poor man, a country with a booming economy can incur new debt more safely than a a country in a recession. The deficits of the Reagan years were a smaller percentage of the GDP than are the deficits of the Obama years.
Which brings us to the other 82 percent.
Last March, in the first independent analysis of Obama's budget proposal (see this Washington Post article), the Congressional Budget Office reported that Obama's policies would result in "an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 -- double last year's [2008]level -- and threaten the nation's financial stability." [Emphasis added]
That's the 82 percent we should be worried about.
[UPDATE: Depending on whose figures you use, the latest budget proposal of the Obama Administration projects a deficit of $1.56 to $1.6 trillion. Your chart only goes up to $600 billion.)
Actually Curious, you're being intellectually dishonest. The war for no reason in Iraq, coupled with the 100% unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, are both still expanding their percentages of the debt. Even if we draw down to nothing in Iraq, the costs of the Medicare program are stunning.
If we had left tax rates at the Clinton-era levels, moreover, we wouldn't be facing the interest payments we now face. I know how the right wing loves cutting taxes for the rich, but the simple fact of the matter is this: any tax "cut" without a spending cut is a de facto tax INCREASE. It might take a little while for it to catch up, but when it does, it can be quite nasty. Just ask the people down in Buenos Aires.
"Actually Curious, you're being intellectually dishonest. The war for no reason in Iraq, coupled with the 100% unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, are both still expanding their percentages of the debt."
Maybe you missed where I wrote, "I'm as angry as the next guy about deficit spending by the GOP (especially under George W. Bush, when it really skyrocketed)..." That includes Iraq and the Medicare prescription drug program. (Both of which received bipartisan support, by the way.)
Bottom line: George W. Bush helped get us into a horrific fiscal mess. Barack Obama has yet to do anything to make it any better, as sympathetic as I may be to the hand he was dealt.
"I know how the right wing loves cutting taxes for the rich..."
I personally love cutting taxes across the board.
"...but the simple fact of the matter is this: any tax 'cut' without a spending cut is a de facto tax INCREASE."
I couldn't agree with you more.
"It might take a little while for it to catch up, but when it does, it can be quite nasty. Just ask the people down in Buenos Aires."
The same can now be said of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and especially Greece (at least from the spending side). Except in the case of these countries, they've abdicated their monetary autonomy. Not that printing more money is the answer (just look at the Weimar Republic), but the interdependence of the Euro countries means that when Athens sneezes, Berlin catches a cold.
But I digress. Getting back to our plight here in the States, someone (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent - I don't care) is going to have to level with the public that when the interest on our debt exceeds our GDP, it's game over. Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see will get us there in a hurry.
Perhaps we should consider ending the wars, stop spending 20% of our GDP on a broken health care system and return the taxes on the rich back to the percentages they were during the times we were all doing better. The rich lived lavishly then, and I'm sure they will still live a nice pampered life with a return to pre Reagan levels.
I'd make the case that the Bush/Reagan military build up had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, which was already an economic shambles at the time and teetering on its last leg.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
From the great blog Reconstitution 2.0.
Must be all the wars and tax cuts.
ReplyDeleteSigh...not again!
ReplyDeleteThank heavens for "cut and paste."
This is what I said about the subject back on 01/07/10 in response to the post Truth About National Debt(82% of our national debt was spent by Republicans):
I'm as angry as the next guy about deficit spending by the GOP (especially under George W. Bush, when it really skyrocketed), but the 82 percent figure is misleading by not considering the following:
1) Whose debt is being considered? The original post at Swash Zone is from April 2009 and only includes figures through the end of the Bush Administration. It doesn't consider the enormous debt that the Obama Administration has incurred in just its first year in office. [UPDATE: This latest chart doesn't either.]
2) When and how was the debt incurred? Most of the debt incurred during the Reagan and first Bush Administrations went towards building up the military, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. This in turn led to the "peace dividend" which allowed the Clinton Administration to bring down the debt.
3) What percentage of the Gross Domestic Product did each deficit comprise? This is important, because just as a rich man can comfortably carry more debt than a poor man, a country with a booming economy can incur new debt more safely than a a country in a recession. The deficits of the Reagan years were a smaller percentage of the GDP than are the deficits of the Obama years.
Which brings us to the other 82 percent.
Last March, in the first independent analysis of Obama's budget proposal (see this Washington Post article), the Congressional Budget Office reported that Obama's policies would result in "an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 -- double last year's [2008]level -- and threaten the nation's financial stability." [Emphasis added]
That's the 82 percent we should be worried about.
[UPDATE: Depending on whose figures you use, the latest budget proposal of the Obama Administration projects a deficit of $1.56 to $1.6 trillion. Your chart only goes up to $600 billion.)
Actually Curious, you're being intellectually dishonest. The war for no reason in Iraq, coupled with the 100% unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, are both still expanding their percentages of the debt. Even if we draw down to nothing in Iraq, the costs of the Medicare program are stunning.
ReplyDeleteIf we had left tax rates at the Clinton-era levels, moreover, we wouldn't be facing the interest payments we now face. I know how the right wing loves cutting taxes for the rich, but the simple fact of the matter is this: any tax "cut" without a spending cut is a de facto tax INCREASE. It might take a little while for it to catch up, but when it does, it can be quite nasty. Just ask the people down in Buenos Aires.
"Actually Curious, you're being intellectually dishonest. The war for no reason in Iraq, coupled with the 100% unfunded Medicare prescription drug program, are both still expanding their percentages of the debt."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you missed where I wrote, "I'm as angry as the next guy about deficit spending by the GOP (especially under George W. Bush, when it really skyrocketed)..." That includes Iraq and the Medicare prescription drug program. (Both of which received bipartisan support, by the way.)
Bottom line: George W. Bush helped get us into a horrific fiscal mess. Barack Obama has yet to do anything to make it any better, as sympathetic as I may be to the hand he was dealt.
"I know how the right wing loves cutting taxes for the rich..."
I personally love cutting taxes across the board.
"...but the simple fact of the matter is this: any tax 'cut' without a spending cut is a de facto tax INCREASE."
I couldn't agree with you more.
"It might take a little while for it to catch up, but when it does, it can be quite nasty. Just ask the people down in Buenos Aires."
The same can now be said of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and especially Greece (at least from the spending side). Except in the case of these countries, they've abdicated their monetary autonomy. Not that printing more money is the answer (just look at the Weimar Republic), but the interdependence of the Euro countries means that when Athens sneezes, Berlin catches a cold.
But I digress. Getting back to our plight here in the States, someone (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent - I don't care) is going to have to level with the public that when the interest on our debt exceeds our GDP, it's game over. Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see will get us there in a hurry.
Perhaps we should consider ending the wars, stop spending 20% of our GDP on a broken health care system and return the taxes on the rich back to the percentages they were during the times we were all doing better. The rich lived lavishly then, and I'm sure they will still live a nice pampered life with a return to pre Reagan levels.
ReplyDeleteI'd make the case that the Bush/Reagan military build up had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, which was already an economic shambles at the time and teetering on its last leg.
ReplyDelete