I think James, in all fairness, it'd be most helpful if we could see this chart next to the chart that depicts the growth of the National GDP. I'd be real curious to see what percentage the national debt is compared to the national GDP. I seems as though they're both accelerating at the same rate (I'm just eyeballing it). Heck as fast as the National GDP is growing, perhaps we should all get up and give ol' W a standing ovation ;)
I came across this last night in preparation to respond to your comments; I'm no economist but it seems to me that he's just increasing our debt in relation to the GDP, no?
First of all, I'm no Bush apologist. And I'm about as middle of the road as you can get when it comes to politics. But I think it's too simplistic to imply that any one person, even the president of the united states, can influence the economy on a large scale. I think being a president is alot like being a head football coach. You can call whatever tricked up plays you want, but if you don't have talented players (industries and corporations) who can perform on the field, you are screwed. And vice versa. Presidents are merely surfing the crests of booms and the troughs of busts.
I pretty much agree with you on all points except that I feel the president has the ability to manipulate markets to an extent through the use of his pulpit, ie. his effects are more psychological than substantive. But the fact remains that he's added about four and a half trillion to our national debt in seven years; he makes the budget, so I lay that squarely at his feet.
I still think you give that guy a lot more credit than you should. 1 man's (albeit the PUSA) opinions/statements/declarations are certainly not affecting the uber-wealthy or poor... and as a middle-classer, I'm just not convinced that Bush really pulls that kind of sway with my peers. People's poor spending is less related to the president and more related to MTV/billboards/commercials.
Reviewing Matt's link (GREAT find, Matt) led me to a few different conclusions...
1. Bush ain't doing half-bad if you stack him next to Reagan & his dad. Sheesh... occasionally I hear Democrats say that they didn't mind H.W. as much as W. Well, fiscally, I don't know why the hell not! Check out their federal debt & spending increases per term at the top of the 2nd table. Yikes.
2. I'm curious why each Bush increased spending 6% in his first year... and the only other PUSA to do so was Carter.
3. Last year's numbers look better.
4. All in all, it ain't great, but put in historical perspective, he's done considerably better than I thought.
What year did the two parties do that thing where they basically swapped ideals?
While I agree with you that the President can manipulate markets to an extent, any action he takes will only have very short term effects. Plus we live in a global economy. Any action the POTUS takes to manipulate the US markets will affect other countries as well. So that effect has to be taken into consideration as well, as the global economy is not something you want to take lightly.
While I'll agree with you that the federal debt has increased by $4.5 trillion over the past 7 years, the National GDP has increased by nearly as much. It's like getting a raise at work and then watching your monthly rent go up by nearly the same amount. If the National GDP hadn't grown as fast as it has in the past 7 years, we'd really be up a creek. I really don't think the current budget situation is an alarming one when you look at all the numbers involved (but I'm certainly no accountant).
And while the President's administration (let's face it, Jorge isn't exactly sitting down all by himself and finding new ways to make a bigger budget) keeps increasing the budget, the budget itself has to be approved by both the House and Senate. So in a very indirect way, we're all responsible for approving the fiscal policy of the United States. SO LET'S ALL VOTE VERY CAREFULLY IN EVERY RACE THIS NOVEMBER!!! (stares at Florida)
Again, I'm no economist and I find economics rather dull; I just hear a lot of noise from fiscal conservatives about the debt the current administration has foisted onto future generations. I'm not talking Bush haters but old school, Libertarian-leaning Republicans. And even that I could overlook if we were doing important and necessary things with the money but many of Bush's social and foreign policies run counter to what I believe is best for this country.
After all of the (mostly valid) criticism Bush has gotten I just have a hard time believing that this many political/economic/historical experts are all wrong. But as W frequently intones, ultimately history will judge his administration, and I don't think it's going to be kind.
Well, I will start with the line of "I'm no economist", but it seems that most of the people in this country including our political leaders do not understand the concept of spending less than what we make. Then it seems that people die with a ton of debt, and they never have to suffer the consequences of being fiscally irresponsible.
Except that our political leaders don't die, they just leave office and move on to lucrative private industry jobs; all of the freedom from responsibility that you get from dying with none of the death. Sweet deal.
Timely op-ed for this thread. Krugman says that while Bush's economic policies are junk and have certainly hurt, most of the economic hardship of today rests at the feet of others. More of those "others" are red versus blue.
I'm most concerned that another republican in office will delay an energy policy which helps us move away from the oil tit.
Brain Rage is the home of James B. Webb, intellectual elitist, political junkie and Southern food addict. He grew up in Texas but he got to California as soon as he could.
13 comments:
I think James, in all fairness, it'd be most helpful if we could see this chart next to the chart that depicts the growth of the National GDP. I'd be real curious to see what percentage the national debt is compared to the national GDP. I seems as though they're both accelerating at the same rate (I'm just eyeballing it). Heck as fast as the National GDP is growing, perhaps we should all get up and give ol' W a standing ovation ;)
http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges08.png
See if I can't actually link the graph here:
http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenges08.png
James you'll love this chart: It shows the national debt as a function of national GDP for every presidential term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
I came across this last night in preparation to respond to your comments; I'm no economist but it seems to me that he's just increasing our debt in relation to the GDP, no?
First of all, I'm no Bush apologist. And I'm about as middle of the road as you can get when it comes to politics. But I think it's too simplistic to imply that any one person, even the president of the united states, can influence the economy on a large scale. I think being a president is alot like being a head football coach. You can call whatever tricked up plays you want, but if you don't have talented players (industries and corporations) who can perform on the field, you are screwed. And vice versa. Presidents are merely surfing the crests of booms and the troughs of busts.
I pretty much agree with you on all points except that I feel the president has the ability to manipulate markets to an extent through the use of his pulpit, ie. his effects are more psychological than substantive. But the fact remains that he's added about four and a half trillion to our national debt in seven years; he makes the budget, so I lay that squarely at his feet.
<-- Also not a Bush apologist.
I still think you give that guy a lot more credit than you should. 1 man's (albeit the PUSA) opinions/statements/declarations are certainly not affecting the uber-wealthy or poor... and as a middle-classer, I'm just not convinced that Bush really pulls that kind of sway with my peers. People's poor spending is less related to the president and more related to MTV/billboards/commercials.
Reviewing Matt's link (GREAT find, Matt) led me to a few different conclusions...
1. Bush ain't doing half-bad if you stack him next to Reagan & his dad. Sheesh... occasionally I hear Democrats say that they didn't mind H.W. as much as W. Well, fiscally, I don't know why the hell not! Check out their federal debt & spending increases per term at the top of the 2nd table. Yikes.
2. I'm curious why each Bush increased spending 6% in his first year... and the only other PUSA to do so was Carter.
3. Last year's numbers look better.
4. All in all, it ain't great, but put in historical perspective, he's done considerably better than I thought.
What year did the two parties do that thing where they basically swapped ideals?
While I agree with you that the President can manipulate markets to an extent, any action he takes will only have very short term effects. Plus we live in a global economy. Any action the POTUS takes to manipulate the US markets will affect other countries as well. So that effect has to be taken into consideration as well, as the global economy is not something you want to take lightly.
While I'll agree with you that the federal debt has increased by $4.5 trillion over the past 7 years, the National GDP has increased by nearly as much. It's like getting a raise at work and then watching your monthly rent go up by nearly the same amount. If the National GDP hadn't grown as fast as it has in the past 7 years, we'd really be up a creek. I really don't think the current budget situation is an alarming one when you look at all the numbers involved (but I'm certainly no accountant).
And while the President's administration (let's face it, Jorge isn't exactly sitting down all by himself and finding new ways to make a bigger budget) keeps increasing the budget, the budget itself has to be approved by both the House and Senate. So in a very indirect way, we're all responsible for approving the fiscal policy of the United States. SO LET'S ALL VOTE VERY CAREFULLY IN EVERY RACE THIS NOVEMBER!!! (stares at Florida)
Again, I'm no economist and I find economics rather dull; I just hear a lot of noise from fiscal conservatives about the debt the current administration has foisted onto future generations. I'm not talking Bush haters but old school, Libertarian-leaning Republicans. And even that I could overlook if we were doing important and necessary things with the money but many of Bush's social and foreign policies run counter to what I believe is best for this country.
After all of the (mostly valid) criticism Bush has gotten I just have a hard time believing that this many political/economic/historical experts are all wrong. But as W frequently intones, ultimately history will judge his administration, and I don't think it's going to be kind.
Well, I will start with the line of "I'm no economist", but it seems that most of the people in this country including our political leaders do not understand the concept of spending less than what we make. Then it seems that people die with a ton of debt, and they never have to suffer the consequences of being fiscally irresponsible.
Except that our political leaders don't die, they just leave office and move on to lucrative private industry jobs; all of the freedom from responsibility that you get from dying with none of the death. Sweet deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/opinion/07krugman.html
Timely op-ed for this thread. Krugman says that while Bush's economic policies are junk and have certainly hurt, most of the economic hardship of today rests at the feet of others. More of those "others" are red versus blue.
I'm most concerned that another republican in office will delay an energy policy which helps us move away from the oil tit.
Agreed, amigo. It's become a cliched line at this point but it still holds true: we can't drill our way out of this mess.
Post a Comment