Wow, just wow

[AzCat]

Any of you lefties want to comment on the sustainability of the rate of change in US federal debt?

[Rage Against the McKee]

It looks like the trend starts getting out of hand in 1980. Reagan's fault?

[AzCat]

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? 

[chum1]

Coincides with increase in GDP almost exactly.   

[Sugar Dick]

This is frightening

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

[AzCat]

Coincides with increase in GDP almost exactly.   

No:

[ednksu]

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 .

[AzCat]

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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.

[Kat Kid]

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?

[AbeFroman]

Leveled off from 1996 to 2000. Ahhhh the late 90s, those were the days......

[AzCat]

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).   



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. 

[sys]

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.

[AzCat]

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. 

[Deez Nutz]

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.   

[pike]

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.

 

[sonofdaxjones]

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.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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")

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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

[Rage Against the McKee]

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.

[Dugout DickStone]

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.

[Sugar Dick]

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.