goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: AzCat on January 13, 2011, 06:19:03 PM
-
Any of you lefties want to comment on the sustainability of the rate of change in US federal debt?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2Fmedia%2FdeRugy1.12.11.gif&hash=a0357a3dbe142962af095c9c2cf8cae2a376bc86)
-
It looks like the trend starts getting out of hand in 1980. Reagan's fault?
-
It looks like the trend starts getting out of hand in 1980. Reagan's fault?
Did it grow while the economy got smaller like it's doing under Obama? :confused:
-
Coincides with increase in GDP almost exactly. :zzz:
-
This is frightening
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DUS%2520Federal%2520Deficit%2520As%2520Percent%2520Of%2520GDP%26amp%3Byear%3D1940_2010%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dl%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D3.02_3.73_12.04_28.05_22.35_24.07_9.06_-1.32_-4.33_-1.48_0.43_-2.30_-0.06_1.52_0.49_0.37_-1.21_-1.15_0.01_1.59_-0.48_0.65_1.22_0.77_0.89_0.20_0.47_1.04_2.77_-0.33_0.27_2.04_1.89_1.08_0.41_3.25_4.04_2.64_2.58_1.59_2.65_2.53_3.93_5.88_4.72_5.03_4.96_3.16_3.04_2.78_3.81_4.49_4.58_3.83_2.87_2.21_1.37_0.26_-0.79_-1.34_-2.37_-1.25_1.48_3.39_3.48_2.52_1.85_1.14_3.18_9.91_10.64%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b&hash=3e4581654e4e22714b656275a6d63c94344aef2e)
-
Coincides with increase in GDP almost exactly. :zzz:
No:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acontrario.org%2Ffiles%2Fpics%2Fus-gdp-chained.preview.png&hash=8544e276d77882849bf4e5502abc2b12e00f8a57)
-
AZ i hope you aren't actually defending Republicans. They were the first to speak about this for the incoming congress. NEITHER SIDE is defensible .
-
This is clearly a bipartisan problem. However, the debt explosion has been of staggering and unprecedented proportions since Queen Nancy took control of drafting the federal budget in January of 2007.
-
This is clearly a bipartisan problem. However, the debt explosion has been of staggering and unprecedented proportions since Queen Nancy took control of drafting the federal budget in January of 2007.
It's remarkable how many people don't understand that Congress's greatest power is the power to Tax and Spend.
-
This is clearly a bipartisan problem. However, the debt explosion has been of staggering and unprecedented proportions since Queen Nancy took control of drafting the federal budget in January of 2007.
It's remarkable how many people don't understand that Congress's greatest power is the power to Tax and Spend.
Declare war?
-
Leveled off from 1996 to 2000. Ahhhh the late 90s, those were the days......
-
Leveled off from 1996 to 2000. Ahhhh the late 90s, those were the days......
Don't forget to thank the one-time buildout of a few of the most rapidly deployed technologies ever ... and the Reagan era defense spending that made some of that development possible ... and the Reagan era tax policies that allowed companies driving the buildouts to do business in the US profitably (at least for a while). :woot:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3554%2F3574787140_d92f315369_o.jpg&hash=deb5e4873351f05abea91b41bbcd7ed3d1844c13)
But don't count on anything that large coming along to bail out our profligate spenders in DC again. At least not in the lifetimes of anyone reading this.
-
if i'm reading that graph correctly, it makes me feel pretty bad that here we are some 90 years following the invention of fixed-wing aircraft, and i'm apparently the only person in the world (in the us?) without a plane.
oth, it feels good to be part of the privileged elite, flashing our cell phones at the serfs as they fly by.
-
Not the best example of those curves I've seen and a bit dated WRT the newest technologies included. The Y axis is probably market penetration into the relevant market not necessarily of all persons.
But the point remains: Clinton benefitted from an almost perfect storm of the rise to ubiquity of pagers then cellular phones and personal computers along with the explosive commercialization of the Internet all on his watch though he had nothing to do with any of it it was merely his good fortune to be in the right place at the right time. And the epicenter of much of that activity was the US. Combine that one-time mass of economic activity with Clinton's good fortune to have a Republican House draft his final six budgets and you've a set of circumstances that Obama cannot recreate.
Nothing on the horizon is going to bail out the Obama economy the way those technological buildouts bailed out the Clinton one. Nor will this Republican House be able to balance Obama's budget the way previous Republican Houses balanced Clinton's. Four years of furious federal government expansion under Queen Nancy and two which saw Obama slam us with massive future federal growth that's now on cruise-control thanks to his policies guarantee that.
-
Not the best example of those curves I've seen and a bit dated WRT the newest technologies included. The Y axis is probably market penetration into the relevant market not necessarily of all persons.
But the point remains: Clinton benefitted from an almost perfect storm of the rise to ubiquity of pagers then cellular phones and personal computers along with the explosive commercialization of the Internet all on his watch though he had nothing to do with any of it it was merely his good fortune to be in the right place at the right time. And the epicenter of much of that activity was the US. Combine that one-time mass of economic activity with Clinton's good fortune to have a Republican House draft his final six budgets and you've a set of circumstances that Obama cannot recreate.
Nothing on the horizon is going to bail out the Obama economy the way those technological buildouts bailed out the Clinton one. Nor will this Republican House be able to balance Obama's budget the way previous Republican Houses balanced Clinton's. Four years of furious federal government expansion under Queen Nancy and two which saw Obama slam us with massive future federal growth that's now on cruise-control thanks to his policies guarantee that.
Dude you totally knocked the cover off of that ball. :thumbsup:
-
if i'm reading that graph correctly, it makes me feel pretty bad that here we are some 90 years following the invention of fixed-wing aircraft, and i'm apparently the only person in the world (in the us?) without a plane.
oth, it feels good to be part of the privileged elite, flashing our cell phones at the serfs as they fly by.
:lol:
-
The level of acceleration under the Neo-Liberal Bush was staggering . . . but it cannot top the acceleartion rate that started in 2006 with the Dems taking control of Congress, and then Barry Obama getting elected.
Then again, what most ObamaTards can't understand is that Barry isn't the least bit interested in fixing anything, he wants the economy to blow up.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
Limestone uses the name Rockefeller when he makes restaurant reservations.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
Rockefeller didn't have control over the money supply, and therefore cannot control inflation. I'm also guessing he didn't care whether or not he amassed more fortune than Bill Gates (to throw another irrelevant statement out there).
The graph is only more meaningful inflation adjusted if your purpose in using the graph is to downplay the disgusting amount of deficit spending currently occurring. If your purpose is to display how absurd the deficit is, then the graph, as displayed, is more meaningful.
I still wonder how much inflation is caused by deficit spending.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
Rockefeller didn't have control over the money supply, and therefore cannot control inflation. I'm also guessing he didn't care whether or not he amassed more fortune than Bill Gates (to throw another irrelevant statement out there).
The graph is only more meaningful inflation adjusted if your purpose in using the graph is to downplay the disgusting amount of deficit spending currently occurring. If your purpose is to display how absurd the deficit is, then the graph, as displayed, is more meaningful.
I still wonder how much inflation is caused by deficit spending.
Rockefeller actually had about 1.5% of all the money in the United States economy when he was alive.
Any graph comparing quantities (not percentages) of money over a 70 year time period is completely meaningless if inflation is not accounted for. It doesn't matter if the deficit causes that inflation. $1 in 1940 is much more valuable than $1 today.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
Rockefeller didn't have control over the money supply, and therefore cannot control inflation. I'm also guessing he didn't care whether or not he amassed more fortune than Bill Gates (to throw another irrelevant statement out there).
The graph is only more meaningful inflation adjusted if your purpose in using the graph is to downplay the disgusting amount of deficit spending currently occurring. If your purpose is to display how absurd the deficit is, then the graph, as displayed, is more meaningful.
I still wonder how much inflation is caused by deficit spending.
Rockefeller actually had about 1.5% of all the money in the United States economy when he was alive. irrelevant
Any graph comparing quantities (not percentages) of money over a 60 year time period is completely meaningless if inflation is not accounted for.gmafb It doesn't matter if the deficit causes that inflation. not the point, just wondering (for the third time) $1 in 1940 is much more valuable than $1 today. no crap
:bang:
Would love to hear about inflation as it pertains to the cost of gasoline (consumer) or oil (national economy) and why we urgently need to find alternative fuel sources. This ought to lead nicely into my "man-made climate change" thread.
Just curious, which inflation metric would you use. CPI? Seem inappropriate. PPI? seems inappropriate. We're talking about government spending, not someone taking their wages to buy milk and bread or a manufacturer selling its output.
-
For that graph to have any true meaning at all, the dollar amounts need to all be converted to either 1940 dollars or 2010 dollars, accounting for inflation. I'm not saying this will make things look better, but it would be much fairer.
Why? (assuming you're talking about the "deficit as a % of GDP graph")
I was referring to the "increasing the debt limit" graph.
I wonder how much inflation is caused by the national deficit. Would have to readjust
That doesn't change the fact that a $15 trillion deficit today is nowhere near as catastrophic as it would be in 1940. It's like saying that Bill Gates is 43 times wealthier than John Rockefeller ever was. If you account for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune was worth more than 3 times Bill Gates' fortune.
Rockefeller didn't have control over the money supply, and therefore cannot control inflation. I'm also guessing he didn't care whether or not he amassed more fortune than Bill Gates (to throw another irrelevant statement out there).
The graph is only more meaningful inflation adjusted if your purpose in using the graph is to downplay the disgusting amount of deficit spending currently occurring. If your purpose is to display how absurd the deficit is, then the graph, as displayed, is more meaningful.
I still wonder how much inflation is caused by deficit spending.
Rockefeller actually had about 1.5% of all the money in the United States economy when he was alive. irrelevant
Any graph comparing quantities (not percentages) of money over a 60 year time period is completely meaningless if inflation is not accounted for.gmafb It doesn't matter if the deficit causes that inflation. not the point, just wondering (for the third time) $1 in 1940 is much more valuable than $1 today. no crap
:bang:
Would love to hear about inflation as it pertains to the cost of gasoline (consumer) or oil (national economy) and why we urgently need to find alternative fuel sources. This ought to lead nicely into my "man-made climate change" thread. The need to find alternative fuel sources has more to do with the finite supply of oil than the cost of oil.
Just curious, which inflation metric would you use. CPI? Seem inappropriate. PPI? seems inappropriate. We're talking about government spending, not someone taking their wages to buy milk and bread or a manufacturer selling its output. It doesn't matter. Inflation leads to increased tax revenue, just as it leads to increases in costs for consumers and producers, and leads to increased wages and profits for workers and producers.
I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here. The graph should be adjusted so that $1 in 1940 is equal to $1 in 2010. This would show a decreasing debt limit from 1944 to 1980 and 1996 to 2000. Otherwise, the trends would be largely the same, but much less dramatic.
-
If you already know the answer, then why do you need a graph??? I'm guessing your answer is bogus, but just an honest question.
Inflation doesn't increase tax revenue, it correlates with it. If you have inflation without wage growth you will not have an increase in tax revenue. Your smarter than this.
Is your assertion that the growth in federal deficit over the last 70 is immaterial years if you adjust for inflation? That seems likely a pretty asinine belief.
-
Actually it's more relevant like this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DGross+Public+Debt%26amp%3Byear%3D1900_2015%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D10.37_9.61_17.70_17.20_18.18_16.85_16.43_15.94_19.20_18.67_18.74_19.31_18.70_18.75_21.23_21.61_19.00_20.25_28.47_44.77_38.86_45.10_45.06_38.96_38.03_36.71_34.48_34.97_34.15_32.25_36.76_45.81_65.91_73.77_69.67_65.35_63.55_60.81_65.74_65.40_62.38_54.28_56.68_78.10_99.40_123.51_128.46_112.91_100.69_102.60_95.84_83.21_80.72_79.05_81.54_76.84_73.53_70.17_71.60_68.85_67.68_66.81_64.71_63.28_60.87_57.96_54.20_52.84_51.52_49.50_49.55_49.44_48.57_46.74_45.42_45.99_47.21_47.18_45.89_44.12_44.61_43.55_47.52_51.81_52.84_56.72_62.42_64.80_65.83_66.70_70.57_76.46_79.47_81.38_81.40_80.71_80.10_79.62_77.44_75.11_71.61_71.57_72.98_77.15_78.62_79.27_79.92_81.10_86.81_101.97_113.38_118.15_119.79_120.36_120.47_121.08%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g&hash=ddf4ad465bec862c105176397ac27d081605d9d9)
But that's still misleading if we're interested in ability to repay the debt.
-
If you already know the answer, then why do you need a graph??? I'm guessing your answer is bogus, but just an honest question.
Inflation doesn't increase tax revenue, it correlates with it. If you have inflation without wage growth you will not have an increase in tax revenue. Your smarter than this.
Is your assertion that the growth in federal deficit over the last 70 is immaterial years if you adjust for inflation? That seems likely a pretty asinine belief.
The whole point of the graph is to compare the federal debt at different points in US history. If the graph were adjusted for inflation, this comparison would be fair. Instead, we get the "Oh my god, why can't the government function like they did in 1940?" graph.
Wages do increase with inflation, though usually not at the same rate. The reality is that there are times when federal debt is necessary, especially in a poor economy. The real problem is that other than Clinton's administration, we run a deficit even when times are good. Neither party really cares about paying off the debt, and we will pay for that sooner or later.
Actually it's more relevant like this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DGross+Public+Debt%26amp%3Byear%3D1900_2015%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bsize%3Dm%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Bspending0%3D10.37_9.61_17.70_17.20_18.18_16.85_16.43_15.94_19.20_18.67_18.74_19.31_18.70_18.75_21.23_21.61_19.00_20.25_28.47_44.77_38.86_45.10_45.06_38.96_38.03_36.71_34.48_34.97_34.15_32.25_36.76_45.81_65.91_73.77_69.67_65.35_63.55_60.81_65.74_65.40_62.38_54.28_56.68_78.10_99.40_123.51_128.46_112.91_100.69_102.60_95.84_83.21_80.72_79.05_81.54_76.84_73.53_70.17_71.60_68.85_67.68_66.81_64.71_63.28_60.87_57.96_54.20_52.84_51.52_49.50_49.55_49.44_48.57_46.74_45.42_45.99_47.21_47.18_45.89_44.12_44.61_43.55_47.52_51.81_52.84_56.72_62.42_64.80_65.83_66.70_70.57_76.46_79.47_81.38_81.40_80.71_80.10_79.62_77.44_75.11_71.61_71.57_72.98_77.15_78.62_79.27_79.92_81.10_86.81_101.97_113.38_118.15_119.79_120.36_120.47_121.08%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g&hash=ddf4ad465bec862c105176397ac27d081605d9d9)
But that's still misleading if we're interested in ability to repay the debt.
Yes, that graph is much better.
-
The more staggering number is the amount of debt combined in the world. It will never be repaid, then again, that's the endgame.
-
But that's still misleading if we're interested in ability to repay the debt.
imo, when it comes to debt the only thing that matters is ability to repay
-
The level of acceleration under the Neo-Liberal Bush was staggering . . . but it cannot top the acceleartion rate that started in 2006 with the Dems taking control of Congress, and then Barry Obama getting elected.
Then again, what most ObamaTards can't understand is that Barry isn't the least bit interested in fixing anything, he wants the economy to blow up.
Question, my friend. Do you really think the rapid deterioration of our economy under B. Hussein is by intent? That would mean Obama is a genius, albeit an evil one. I just can't believe that jive turkey is that smart and that Democrats are that stupid to go along with him. Oh, sure, Democrats are stupid--that's a proven fact. But if a super charming leader told the Democratic leadership t launch missles at our country's own major cities, killing thousands for the "good of the country" (without a real explanation of how it is good for the country), do you really think Reid and company would go along?
-
The level of acceleration under the Neo-Liberal Bush was staggering . . . but it cannot top the acceleartion rate that started in 2006 with the Dems taking control of Congress, and then Barry Obama getting elected.
Then again, what most ObamaTards can't understand is that Barry isn't the least bit interested in fixing anything, he wants the economy to blow up.
Question, my friend. Do you really think the rapid deterioration of our economy under B. Hussein is by intent? That would mean Obama is a genius, albeit an evil one. I just can't believe that jive turkey is that smart and that Democrats are that stupid to go along with him. Oh, sure, Democrats are stupid--that's a proven fact. But if a super charming leader told the Democratic leadership t launch missles at our country's own major cities, killing thousands for the "good of the country" (without a real explanation of how it is good for the country), do you really think Reid and company would go along?
Well, maybe
-
Question, my friend. Do you really think the rapid deterioration of our economy under B. Hussein is by intent?
No, Obama and his ilk are exhibiting Hayek's "fatal conceit".