Basically Tailback what Reagan did to the National Debt was to put policies in place that led to the reductions in the national debt in the late 90's that Clinton took credit for.
U.S fought WW1, WW2, Vietnam and Korea and when Jimmy Carter left the White house we were 500 million in debt. Reagan and Bush took us over 5 Trillion. Some how Reagan had a plan to erase that debt that Clinton took credit for? I don't think so. U.S. is bankrupt, Reagan and Bush are to blame.
As long as I can remember politicans have railed against the Nat'l Debt, yet our country and the economey just rolls on and we continue to be the greatest economey in the world. People want to move here in droves, we haven't gone bankrupt as has been predicted. Capital still flows to the US markets as the safest and most productive place to put your money. Now I don't really understand it, because it seems to me that balanced budgets and no debt would be a good thing. But the dire consequences that politicans predict haven't seemed to actually occur. The Business cycle which has been around for as long as there has been business, is still around. We have ups and downs in the economey. I'm not for a big Nat'l debt, and I'm not for big spending by Govt, but it just doesn't seem to matter. Reading Tailbacks comments reminds me of all the times he used to post that some stockmarket guru that he followed was predicting dire things during the tech bust, yet here we are. More people own homes than ever before, employment and growth in the economey are something the Western Europeans could only dream of for their economeys. Tax revenues are at an all time high, apparently that Tax Cut for the Rich that the dems like to rail against, hasn't hurt the economey.
The following graph (note the blue one adjusted for inflation) would appear to support Tailback's assertions. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html But your "U.S. is bankrupt" line is a little over the top, I think. stu
Looking at raw numbers isn't very helpful. Is there a chart somewhere that shows year-by-year national debt as a percentage of GDP?
:!: Good point JO'Co... http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Not quite so scary, but still the point is made. stu
8) I grow tired with the politicians in both parties who wail about the national debt...as if they weren't the direct cause of the problem. The dirty little secret that neither party wants you to know about, is that a little debt is not really a bad thing, while having no debt at all could be a disaster. Read the article that Stu posted. Please note, that the national debt was at its lowest points at the end of the Hoover and Carter Administrations... Let that sink in and roll around in there for awhile... Hoover and Carter... Imagine that you had a factory and never borrowed money. Your competitors would bury you. As demand for your products rose, you wouldn't be able to increase your efficiency, production speed or brand recognition. Meanwhile, other factories would borrow money to increase their efficiency and production speed. As their unit costs drop, their products become cheaper than yours. Their new equipment creates products that are of higher quality than yours too. Soon, everyone is buying their products instead of yours and you go out of business...debt free. Now your competitors use their increased profits to buy your business and your debt free balance sheet for pennies-on-the-dollar, which they then turn into another bonanza when they sell off your land and assets or use them as collateral to borrow even more money... The Democrats must spend money on social programs and the Republicans must spend money on defense. They both spend money on infrastructure boondoggles like roads, bridges, and highways to nowhere. The debt load is not high by historical standards, especially when you toss a few new wars and natural catastrophies into the mix. It will all be paid off out of new tax revenues, created by new and even wealthier taxpayers, as it always has been... .....................TP
Phantom, Very nice common-sense, knowledgeable analysis, which should put to rest the debate here on the national debt. Alas, I don't believe it will. Re: Jimmy Carter. I loved the guy. He was in the right place at the right time, following the Nixon scandals and a band-aid Ford presidency. Ford was a nice, honest, smart guy, but he was a former Michigan football player. What can you say? Back to Carter. As his presidency moved through its seemingly interminable four years, I became embarrassed to be a democrat. The economy was the most disastrous of my lifetime. Tailback, if you want to point fingers at politicians for screwing up the economy, point no farther than your fellow Georgian. Under his watch, the ship almost sunk. Then.....the hostage crisis. In an ironic twist of fate, Reagan in 1980 was in the same right place at the same right time that Carter had been four years earlier. These circumstances, together with the dem party's increasingly in-your-face, amoralistic approach to the issues of our time, have caused me for the past 26-plus years to ignore my party's platform and most of its candidates. That's just the way it is for me.
I voted for Carter in 1976. It was knee jerk reaction to the Nixon years of scandal. Carter was in way over his head and his inner circle was laughable. I think the backlash against him now by folks like me is less about his actual job performance, which was very poor, than it is about his constant need to trash sitting presidents, a practice that was always somewhat taboo but one that he has perfected. That last thing a guy who did an awful job wants to do is whine about others.... I call him the Father of the Republican Party. :wink:
Those are interesting charts Stu. However I've never seen a chart that takes into account lag time that policies may take to have an effect. I am convienced that the good times that we had during the Clinton era were due to actions taken a number of years earlier in the Regan years. I don't know how to prove that one way or another but it seems logical to me that policy changes don't have an immediate effect. Also with what happened on 9/11 2001 and what is now happening to the price of oil world wide due largely to incresed demand by China, I don't see how that can be laid on Bushes doorstep either. I do however understand that what happens during a presidents term is going to be largely deemed to be his legacy. I just don't think that is totally realistic.
What a bunch of unadulterated crap! In fiscal 2006, the US would have to increase its deficit 10-fold before it approaches the levels reached during WW2. My own personal debt has increased almost 200 times since 1976 and I've never been in better financial health and I assure you, I ain't bankrupt. Bankrupt....what a crock. The United States is arguably further away from bankruptcy than any nation-state has ever been on Earth. The notion that the US is bankrupt is pure, childish nonsense with as much basis in fact as Elvis' martian love children. It's great comedy listening to such uninformed, ignorant nonsense being pandered about by the left. I continue to be dumbfounded by those that blindly regurgitate it without doing a shred of independent thought and research. May God help us....:roll: btw Tailback, your Dow 10,000 is a "given" prediction is running out of time. I hope you covered your shorts...... Terry
I would like to finally put to rest these ridiculous rumors that Elvis has left the building, or that he has Martian love children. No less an authority than Doc O'Keefe...himself...has assured me that old swivel-hips is alive and well. He's currently employed as the pastor of Our Lady of the Sweet, Bleeding, Heart of the Packers in Milwaukee, where he shepherds his flock at the Seventh Day Church of Monday Night Football...
....and there is more! He has also been relied on heavily as an expert on US economic policy by Howard Dean the remainder of the DNC leadership.... I know, I know..... "Don't Be Cruel" :lol: Terry