Oh Fuck. that's a big mother fucker deficit!!!
 

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/defic...03_graphic.gif


The White House is expected on July 15, 2003 to project record-breaking budget deficits this year in excess of $400 billion. Just six months ago, the White House said it expected a deficit of $304 billion for the current fiscal year.


BTW, do they have a partner program, and if so does it convert?

Someone should hire you to research the United States policies and overall status. You seem to be quite good at it.

Stil amazing that " adjustment " of 100 billion!!!

war war war :BangBang:

Hey conservatives, if you really want a smaller government, you better elect a Democrat! :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

Spending $1 billion a week on Iraq adds up I guess

why do you care? you seem to have a lot of bad things to say about someplace you know nothing about other than what you see in the movie theater.

*for future reference

- Terminator is not a real robot. its an actor portraying a futuristic robot.
- Armegeddon did not really happen. no one flew to an asteroid, landed on it and blew it up.

To properly evaluate such data you have to consider scale. If you scale by GDP, you'll see that over the past 15 years, the US debt to GDP ratio is right at the average.

I used date from:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm and
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/Ta...wFixed.asp#Mid

to compile the following:

year Debt/GDP Ratio (%)
2002 59.6
2001 57.6
2000 57.8
1999 61.0
1998 62.9
1997 65.1
1996 66.9
1995 67.2
1994 66.5
1993 66.4
1992 64.3
1991 61.2
1990 55.7
1989 52.1
1988 51.0
1987 49.6
1986 47.7

The average over that time is 59.6%. It was 59.6% last year.

If you don't consider scale the data is meaningless. The average debt-to-GDP ratio for ALL countries rated AA credit by Standard and Poor's is 55%. This is quite a normal ratio for large industrial countries.

Note that the time series are off by 3 months because this is end of year GDP compared to the debt on 9/30 of each year (available date). Won't make any real difference though.

Colin, you can spin it any way you want with your year old numbers put out by the Bush administration. :)

Bush is spending money like crazy and pushing the U.S. into massive debt.

This is something that Republicans claimed they were against during the 90's.

You either support borrow and spend economics or you don't?

Republicans said it was wrong to run the U.S. into massive debt until Bush got into office. Now they have changed their story.

So were you wrong three years ago, or are you wrong now? :1orglaugh

Mr. Fiction,

What I presented is a time-series of data over a 15 year stretch that shows a peak in debt/GDP data in 1995.

You somehow think it's amazing that the US has a much higher debt than any other country and fail to note that it has a much larger economy than any other country. Countries like Italy, France, Japan, Germany, and Canada have or have recently had debt to GDP ratios similar to and in some cases much higher than the US'. The US economy is almost 20x larger than the 10th largest economy in the world (Spain). Without that context, the data is completely meaningless.

A man with $80,000 in debt and an income of $800k/year is in a much different position than one with $80,000 in debt and an income of $35,000/year.

"Support borrow and spend economics"? Every major industrial country in the world is a major debtor because they increase government spending and lower taxes during economic slowdowns. Isn't that the great lesson that Keynes and his followers taught us after the Great Depression? "Liberal" economists like nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz are in favor of reducing taxes and increasing spending during economic downturns also. Where they tend to differ from say a conservative like Milton Friedman is not that this should be done but where it should be done.

If you read Stiglitz' book "Globalization and Its Discontents" you'll read his endorsement of these Keynesian policies. What he disagrees with is the concept that it is better to reduce taxes for the top wage earners than the bottom. Some of that is philosophical (liberals tend to favor policies that encourage a more uniform economic distribution) and some of that is his due to his opinion of what the economic data indicates is the better place to put it.

Many conservative economists have the opposite belief. They tend to believe that it is not the role of government to encourage a more uniform economic distribution. These economists look at the same data and believe that stimulus is better placed in the top income brackets.

I would imagine it would take a century or more to resolve the second half of that dispute and it is unresolvable by evidence as far as one's philosophical beliefs of what one thinks the world should be like.

The only time I know of where taxes were cut and government spending reduced during an economic downturn was at the start of the Depression in the US (I'm not sure of economic policies in other countries at the time). The economy shrunk but a balanced budget agreement forced the government to cut spending because less money was coming in. As a result, GDP shrunk further (less government spending) which in turn forced higher taxes and further government spending cuts. This downward spiral helped deepen and lengthen the greatest recession in US history. After the depression, economists turned to the question of how to prevent such a catastrophe again. The result is the current economic practices which have served us quite well for 50 years. There have been less recessions and of much weaker magnitude than in the previous 50 years. Is there an inherent problem with these policies? Maybe. We're not sure. I'd say to date we've been much better off than the old alternative either way.

If the question is "how does one best respond to economic downturns", what is the answer? What is acceptable? Take out the recent increase in government spending and you would find the US would be in a recession (just subtract the government spending back out of the GDP). Would that be better? Why or why not?

There have been 32 recessions total during the past 32 American presidencies (32 presidents not 32 terms). Recessions are the norm. One per president. The question is how should one react to them? Should one spend more and decrease taxes to lessen the effects of the recession or let it go into free fall (laissez faire) in the belief that the market is always right and will self-correct eventually?

BTW, I don't understand what you are asking me about three years ago.

Colin, you pull out more statisical amo to defend the Bush administration than Ari Fleischer at a White House press conference. Are you sure you're not picking up a government check as a consultant?:winkwink:

I think the problem is a bit more subtle than that. The deficit is not unmanagable, nor unreasonably large for the GDP. The problem is more likely to be the bleed.

For a long time now the US standard of living has been greater than other countries, and greater than US industry can support. In simplistic terms, this has based in large part of the sheer strength of the dollar as 'the worlds currency'.

The dollar is under pressure now. Other countries are selling dollar reserves in favour of Euro reserves. This is not a major problem at the moment. The amounts involved are not substantial enough, but a steady trickle has been increasing. A couple of minor, and in the scope of things, insignificant countries have even swapped to the PetroEuro.

In tandem with the deficit, it puts pressure on the dollar. Obviously US industry still has much clout and the dollar is still the worlds premier currency, but running a deficit that high at a time when the dollar is just losing a tini little bit of it's shine is not confidence building. And we all know how important confidence is to markets.

There are interesting parellels with Sterling, Bretton Woods and the British attempts to defend Sterling. The major difference between the scenarios is that British military world power was waning at the time. Here, US military world power is at an all-time high.

It remains to be seen whether moving Iraq from the PetroEuro back onto the PetroDollar, plus securing a solid Oil supply, has any affect on dollar-confidence and helps keep that 'bubble' secure in the long run, or the costs of Iraq (or any other military intervention) build up so high that it actually hastens any decline. (A scenario that has happened many times in history previously, but it seems can only be spotted with hindsight)

Whatever happens, if invading Iraq delays or prevents OPEC from moving to the PetroEuro (which has been discussed by OPEC), it will have helped keep the 'bubble' intact as well. That would be good for the US.

The more interesting thing for me is the affects moving Sterling to the Euro would have. Having the worlds fourth largest economy move to the Euro would certainly have an impact on the Dollar. Would the UK move north sea oil to the PetroEuro ? Be hard to see how they could avoid that eventually if they join the Euro. Would Britain speed up it's selling of Dollars for Euros in it's reserves ? (a process that has already began).

Worse case scenario, OPEC goes PetroEuro. UK joins the Euro. Countries previously needing Dollars in their reserves migrant to Euros because they need them now to buy from the 'Euro zone' and PetroEuro countries. The affects of the dollar would not be small. A re-alignment would be on the cards.

This is not an anti-american post, I just don't know. The subject justs interests me and I'm talking decades here, not tomorrow :)

Just my two cents.

Where do you see a "defense of the Bush administration"? I am simply making the point that the world is pretty business-as-usual right now. For the record, I have no real problems with the Bush administration. No more than for Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, or Carter anyway.

Some people look at a bit of information and say "What does this say negative about the US government"? Anti-Americans. Some people look at a bit of information and say "What does this say negative about Republicans"? We call them Democrats. Other people look at information and say "what does this say negative about Democrats"? We call them Republicans. Party politics is a waste of time in the sense that you can't begin by asking the question .. "what is wrong with ... this party/government/" and
learn very much about the world.

The world is business-as-usual. The US is business-as-usual. Think about the major problems in each decade and one sees that the world is in a pretty good place, average or
better than average.


1910s WW I
1920s Start of depression.
1930s Depression and beginning of WW II. Rise of Nazism.
1940s WW II
1950s Korean War
1960s Cold War. Civil Liberties issues and riots. Buildup in Vietnam.
1970s Vietnam War
1980s Rise of Michael Jackson
1990s Gulf War

You will note that I have never made a negative comment about Bill Clinton or the Democratic party. I don't have anything negative to say. Both parties have good points and bad. That is only by my criteria of course. It's largely subjective. If I am liberal because I don't believe in a death penalty or conservative because am not in favor of socialist policies like free health care, so be it. I'll defend Bill Clinton too and have. The 1990s were one of the best decades in American history if you ask me. Regression towards the mean. It will be a difficult decade to top.

what elemtary school is it that gives kids access to the internet during recess?

what caused the deficit? just a casual choice by stupid politicians with nothing to do?

as far as i recall, there were two wars in addition to a domestic and global recession.

in your black and white world of "either you support it or you dont" - would you kill 7 children to save 8? lifes not full of perfect choices.

but keep posting and remember:
"there are no stupid questions. just inquisitive idiots"

Bullshit.

Travel a bit and you might change your mind.

And then there are those who look at a bit of information and say "How can this help me prove that the USA is the best country on Earth?" :1orglaugh

Bush cant use a calculater let alone run a country economic policy.

i bet Bush can spell calculator

It's 50-50 at best.:1orglaugh

look, its joe dickpack back under a new name.
still hating his betters,:thumbsup

Ahhhh... 12shits.

Still avoiding the issues I see. :1orglaugh

issues?
lets see, I agree with colin, the deficit, just like during the reagan years means nothing.
The standard of living in the US is higher than anywhere else.
(regardless of what the joe dickpacks have to say)

here's another issue. aren't you banned?

Just because I defend the US against your hatred doesn't mean I think it's the best. Debating you is like debating grade school kids. You just don't pay attention. Ever. Yawwwwn.

Joe: The US has the highest debt ever. The country is going bankrupt.

Colin: Compared to the other major industrial powers it's debt/GDP ratio is average. Compared to the size of it's economy, the US debt is average for the past 15 years.

Joe: You must think the US is the best because you don't think it's the worst like I do. You must think the IS is the best because you don't believe in its imminent demise like I do.

It's a strange world when the Democrat candidates plan to redce government spending. It's nice to see, though. Socially liberal but more libertarian sounds like a winning combination to me.

Of all the places I've visited, Monaco has the highest standard living. Joe couldn't even afford a souvenir pen there.

Are you quoting me there Colin or just paraphrasing? :1orglaugh

Well you're wrong.

But that's not unusual.

:1orglaugh

the best thing about Monaco is that they intentionally keep out idiots.

Yes Colin all, what is it, nine countries.... and staying at the Hilton... I'm sure it was a very cultural experience for you :1orglaugh

P.S. Colin, I hope you're not counting Monaco as a country!

Yeah? Well that didn't stop me from getting in!

Er... Monaco is a country.

Joe, you're by far the biggest idiot I've ever read the words of. You constantly vomit forth assumptions that fit your narrow world-view. It's not your fault though. You're just a below average kid stuck in the latest zeitgeist trying to make sense of it all.

For the record, JR has visited many more places than you so you should bow to his authority in all matters.

Colin "US Stamps are 37 cents".

Joe "No, they're not. I've visited more countries than you".

and as usual, you'll supply proof.:1orglaugh

I know... but if you fart at one end, you can smell it at the other.

I don't need to.

I know it.

:1orglaugh

No, I've just travelled more than you Colin.

And that makes you the one with the narrow world view.

No, you didn't know. You had no idea. This just proves my point. You learn more about a place reading about it than visiting it. You've been to Monaco and you probably thought it was part of Frace or something. You don't even know where you've been. You just know what it looks like.

Sure Joe.

Colin: "Monaco is a country"

Joe: "Joe, no it's not. I've travelled more than you"

Joe: "Oh, wait. Now I see!"


I know more than YOU because I have a better education, both formal and informal. ;-) You stick to places visited. I'll stick to knowledge.

Colin, I knew Monaco was a country. I have been there. I was being sarcastic because of Monaco's tiny size.

By the way... how do you know what my level of education is, formal or informal?

Serge told me. He knows everything about you. Wanna test it again?

hahahaha. I rest my case.

It's the Bush economic plan... Spend enough money until you have to cut back on everything. You want a smaller government? There you go.

Wow, this thread deteriorated quickly. Colin, not like you to get drawn into a mudslinging contest. But there must be some history here.:winkwink:

Is a principality a "country"?

Colin, very good points, your knowledge of mathematical theory is impressive. (of course it was very expensive too...LOL)

The problem I have with those numbers is that our actual debt is alot higher than the number the CBO gives us.

Back during the LBJ administration congress decided to include the social security surplus in the regular federal budget to make the deficit look smaller.
The social security trust fund has run a surplus every year since its inception (with the exception of 82, when Reagan increased the payroll tax to avoid a deficit)

We have a monstrous bill coming due when the baby boomers retire, and there is zero money in the social security trust fund. There's nothing but a big stack of IOU's from the federal government, and when the bill comes due there will be massive tax increases and benefit reductions.

During Clinton's second term when republicans wanted to cut taxes because there was a surplus, he said he wanted to "save social security first" and I wholeheartedly agree with that policy.
The plan was to use the surplus to pay down the debt, do that over a long enough period of time and the money we save on interest payments on the debt would be enough to cover the shortfall in social security.
In other words, pay a little higher taxes now, or pay MUCH HIGHER taxes later.

I also was a big fan of Gore's idea of putting social security in a "lock box", separating it from the regular federal operating budget to allow the surplus to grow.

My parents and yours have been paying into social security for several decades now, and its ridiculous that alot of our parents might have to live their golden years in poverty so that rich people can pay 35% instead of 39% today.

oh, how fucking sad.
Class warfare at its lowest.

"hey, the rich should pay a higher % of tax because they're rich"
how assinine. how indefensable.

for you liberal dummies out their replace "rich" with "black"
and don't give me the liberal whine about it being different. discriminating against a class of people is discrimination, no matter what.

Monaco is not as rich as you think because a lot of the really rich residents are not Monaconiums :) It just looks really rich because of the 'tourists' :)

Looks can be decieving.

You seem to think that every administrations are doing a perfect job and shit just happen...

Is the US economy in the hole? No... and you demonstrated that...

Has the Bush administration doing a great job with the economy? Did they made mistakes? You dont know that! Ressessions, wars can explain some things... however.. if the deficit would be $600 billions instead of 400... would you have given the same reasons to explain the deficit and say that everything is fine...Bush is doing good?

The question is what a near perfect administration could have done... and you then compare.. But then again, $400 billions is maybe the best any government could have done... But nobody here knows it.. people just speculate!

i would say that an area of less 8 sq kilometers with over 65 Billion Dollars in foreign deposits is doing quite well for itself.