News Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?

[syano]

This YouTube clip analogously talks about the rate at which US Presidents increase the national debt in terms of miles per hour when driving a car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Basically everyone was moving along slowly… then Bush speeds up to 64 miles per hour then Obama speeds up to 174 miles per hour.

How accurate is this? Is it a fair analogy?

Thanks,

 

[mgb_phys]

It might be a little unfair to blame the global economic crisis on the new president.

Rather like saying there was only a little blaze but when the fire-chief arrived the whole building was burning.

 

[seycyrus]

But Obama's past ridicule of Bush's spending certainly raises an eyebrow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This probably provides the best perspective on debt - the debt as a percentage of GDP
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Interestingly, it looks like the tax-and-spend democrats win hands down.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But Obama's past ridicule of Bush's spending certainly raises an eyebrow.

Obama was handed a failing economy and was forced to take drastic action in order to prevent either a complete meltdown, or a decade or more of stagflation - no growth - according to most economists and experts. Japan is often cited as an example of what can happen if the government responds too slowly or with too little stimulus, when responding to a crisis. Their economy went flat for more than a decade.

Up until the very end, much of Bush's spending, as in Iraq, was elective. He was handed a relatively thriving economy that nearly collapsed by the time he left.

IMO, one of the few things that Bush did right was to sign the bailout bill. Obama had no objections; in fact he worked to gain support for the bill. Consider the graph and compare that to the actual debt at any time, and the importance of sustained growth becomes clear. Growth is how we keep our debt from burying us. Note that the graph is essentially our national debt to income ratio, over time.

 

[russ_watters]

It might be a little unfair to blame the global economic crisis on the new president.

It isn't the crisis but the response to the crisis that is creating the scale of the deficit. It isn't like Obama held spending flat while income dropped. Income dropped and Obama massively increased spending.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama was handed a failing economy and was forced to take drastic action in order to prevent either a complete meltdown, or a decade or more of stagflation - no growth - according to most economists and experts.[emphasis added]

I think that would be a very difficult claim to substantiate.

Up until the very end, much of Bush's spending, as in Iraq, was elective. He was handed a relatively thriving economy that nearly collapsed by the time he left.

No, Bush was handed an economy dropping into recession. He actually happened to be in office for the entire cycle: down for a year, up for 6, down for 1.

 

[BoomBoom]

Basically everyone was moving along slowly… then Bush speeds up to 64 miles per hour then Obama speeds up to 174 miles per hour.

Hmmm, I wonder how fast Bush was really going since he didn't include the wars or natural disasters into his budget?

I bet Reagan was quite the speedster as well...he did single handedly triple the national debt, did he not?

 

[ExactlySolved]

I agree with Ivan that the debt to GDP ratio is a much more meaningful measure of the national debt than the nominal value of the debt in dollars, since nominal spending increases with the price level of goods and so inflation makes it look like the national debt has been increasing exponentially for decades.

I bet Reagan was quite the speedster as well...he did single handedly triple the national debt, did he not?

I have heard this claim, which refers to nominal dollars, but since Reagan also presided over a massive increase in the rate of inflation it looks like acoording to Ivan's plot above that reagan only doubled the debt in terms of real purchasing power.

Acoording to the plot, the Bush-Reagan years presided over by far the largest increase in the debt (in terms of real purchasing power) since world war 2. Clinton and Bush2 are mostly irrelevant; it's good to see that George W's innovative :) cut taxes and spend lead to a mostly nominal increase in the debt, since the inflation was so high. Inflation is a big part of the current crisis however.

All these warhawks (Reagan, Bush, Cheney) must look at world war 2 and drool about debt purchases totalling ~20% of the GDP for several consecutive years --- no wonder Ike told us to beware of these folks.

 

[rkhoja]

I think the base number of the national debt with some calculation for inflation would be the fairest way to figure how much each spent. Or in Obama’s case is going to spend.

If we do not hold Obama responsible for the recession then we cannot hold bush responsible for 911 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq. Bush did not cause 911 (or at least no one has proven it) so he is not really responsible for the cleanup and rebuilding of newyork. Hurricane Katrina was not bushed fault, the cost of the rebuilding after that. It was not Obama’s fault for the rescission, or the mess with health care.

If we don’t consider them responsible for what happens, intended or not during their terms then who do we blame for the expenses or more so how do you remove the expenses from the total national debt.

The Buck Stops With The President.

 

[Jasongreat]

So who is it that spends? Congress or the president? The president might come up with the budget, but isn't it congress that passes or denies(and they arent even limited to just what's in the budget). Just looking at the last two yrs of bushs term, when democrats controlled congress, how fast did spending increase? Or when clinton was in office with a republican controlled congress, how fast did spending decrease. And the great economy clinton left bush was the dot-com boom-bust wasnt it? Stats are misleading unless you use all the facts not just the ones you want to use to prove your point.

 

[WhoWee]

This is the best graphic I've seen to date - Obama is losing tax revenue AND spending at 4 (?) times Bush - the Obama "speed" may be under-stated - it doesn't include health care.

 

[byronm]

I think it dumbs down debt too much that we ignore what we're trying to do as a nation and it equates things that aren't equal.

Bush told me the cost of inaction with Iraq was a mushroom cloud over New York. We gave him 8 years of the benefit of doubt and it was proven wrong. Obama told me the cost of inaction on the US economy was more expensive than the cost of action and we haven't even given him a year of the benefit of the doubt..

but guess what.. there are key indicators that Obama was right. There are indicators that his debt spending wasn't merely spending debt but investing in ourselves, investing in our ideologies and investing in our future. Sure.. not all investments pan out but i think Obama's investments have been all the wiser compared to BUsh's

so with that said, i think debt charts are deceptive unless you you break down those expenditures into the verticals or silohs of the spending and then you have something objective and rational to speak to.

 

[WhoWee]

but guess what.. there are key indicators that Obama was right. There are indicators that his debt spending wasn't merely spending debt but investing in ourselves, investing in our ideologies and investing in our future. Sure.. not all investments pan out but i think Obama's investments have been all the wiser compared to BUsh's

Please post supporting info.

 

[Cyrus]

This is the best graphic I've seen to date - Obama is losing tax revenue AND spending at 4 (?) times Bush - the Obama "speed" may be under-stated - it doesn't include health care.

It would be nice if you could give context to what you state. This isn't the Glenn Beck audience that tolerates such trivialities.

 

[byronm]

Please post supporting info.

1. DJIA is now higher than when he got elected
2. Government has started earning profits on TARP investments
3. JObs are being created
4. Roads are being repaired
5. Airports are expanding services
6. Businesses are starting to see an upswing in consumer confidence
7. unemployment rates fell in several states

Housing market is still holding a lot of people back and i think it will be another year before banks are settled out of a good chunk of their non mortgage related junk debt.

However, if all you read was WSJ you wouldn't know any of this ;)

 

[WhoWee]

1. DJIA is now higher than when he got elected
2. Government has started earning profits on TARP investments
3. JObs are being created
4. Roads are being repaired
5. Airports are expanding services
6. Businesses are starting to see an upswing in consumer confidence
7. unemployment rates fell in several states

Housing market is still holding a lot of people back and i think it will be another year before banks are settled out of a good chunk of their non mortgage related junk debt.

However, if all you read was WSJ you wouldn't know any of this ;)

I realize that you are new to PF. Do you have specific links to support your list?

 

[byronm]

I realize that you are new to PF. Do you have specific links to support your list?

2 minutes on news.google.com man.. I'm not publishing a research paper for you ;)

NYT on tarp itself:

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-profits-on-tarp-funds-enough-feel-free-to-change/

Finance.yahoo.com is all you need to see DJIA history.

jobless rates finally declining in many areas

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/09/14/daily44.html
http://www.ncnn.com/content/view/4955/123/
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/18/business-financial-impact-us-indiana-unemployment_6904748.html

Should i keep going?

 

[WhoWee]

2 minutes on news.google.com man.. I'm not publishing a research paper for you ;)

NYT on tarp itself:

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-profits-on-tarp-funds-enough-feel-free-to-change/

Finance.yahoo.com is all you need to see DJIA history.

jobless rates finally declining in many areas

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/09/14/daily44.html
http://www.ncnn.com/content/view/4955/123/
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/09/18/business-financial-impact-us-indiana-unemployment_6904748.html

Should i keep going?

You need to learn the rules.

That aside, I'll comment on your analysis of TARP. When all of the TARP funds are returned - PLUS $4 billion then we'll have a $4 billion profit.

 

[byronm]

You need to learn the rules.

That aside, I'll comment on your analysis of TARP. When all of the TARP funds are returned - PLUS $4 billion then we'll have a $4 billion profit.

I would really like to know why you think i need to learn the rules?

Do you have evidence that shows the stimulus is already a failure and that the TARP fund is a complete loss and there is no recovery happening what so ever? Do you have evidence that shows if we did nothing we would be better off now?

If you want to "play by the rules" then please, show me that evidence. I didn't know i was playing the bad guy arguing against the status quo here.

 

[WhoWee]

I would really like to know why you think i need to learn the rules?

Do you have evidence that shows the stimulus is already a failure and that the TARP fund is a complete loss and there is no recovery happening what so ever? Do you have evidence that shows if we did nothing we would be better off now?

If you want to "play by the rules" then please, show me that evidence. I didn't know i was playing the bad guy arguing against the status quo here.

Did I make those specific statements? If I had, then you'd be correct in asking me to support the claims.

I'm really not trying to label you as a "bad guy" - just challenging you to support your comments as the rules prescribe.

I don't normally engage in discussions of the PF rules. It might be better if you consult with a moderator.

 

[byronm]

Did I make those specific statements? If I had, then you'd be correct in asking me to support the claims.

I'm really not trying to label you as a "bad guy" - just challenging you to support your comments as the rules prescribe.

I don't normally engage in discussions of the PF rules. It might be better if you consult with a moderator.

Personally i feel you played the rule card to "assassinate my character" more than anything else.. and no, i don't feel offended, i just felt it was a typical move to avoid addressing the positive outcomes of Obama to sustain your negative views of them regardless of what i say. (and showed through evidence)

I was enjoying the debate.. bu now i realize were to hard headed people debating the debate and not the issue again ;)

 

[WhoWee]

Personally i feel you played the rule card to "assassinate my character" more than anything else.. and no, i don't feel offended, i just felt it was a typical move to avoid addressing the positive outcomes of Obama to sustain your negative views of them regardless of what i say. (and showed through evidence)

I was enjoying the debate.. bu now i realize were to hard headed people debating the debate and not the issue again ;)

I haven't assassinated your character. Again, please learn the rules. If you want a fair debate, you'll have a fair debate.

 

[mheslep]

1. DJIA is now higher than when he got elected
2. Government has started earning profits on TARP investments
3. JObs are being created
4. Roads are being repaired
5. Airports are expanding services
6. Businesses are starting to see an upswing in consumer confidence
7. unemployment rates fell in several states

Housing market is still holding a lot of people back and i think it will be another year before banks are settled out of a good chunk of their non mortgage related junk debt...

The question is how do you show that Obama's "debt spending " is any way related to any of these things. The sun came up this morning too, but I don't claim that Obama's "investment in ourselves" (as you call it) made it happen, though I'm sure some do.

 

[mheslep]

...

jobless rates finally declining in many areas...

And still climbing in, e.g. Michigan, California, New Jersey, Florida.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...dim=state:ST260000:ST340000:ST120000:ST060000

Is this because of government "investment in ourselves" or despite it?

 

[turbo]

Something missing from this discussion is any mention of ROI on spending. It's one thing to spend a billion dollars on a weapons system that benefits few, and another thing entirely if more of that money ends up in the pockets of wage-earners who will spend it and boost their local economies.

What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on infrastructure, expanded power-distribution capacity, renewable energy sources such as wind-farms, and the like? There is a difference.

Edit: I dumbed-out and typed ROE instead of ROI. I'm sure you all know what I meant, but I changed it anyway. Our governmental spending ought to be evaluated in light of investment potential, not just bottom-line wrangling.

 

[WhoWee]

Something missing from this discussion is any mention of ROE on spending. It's one thing to spend a billion dollars on a weapons system that benefits few, and another thing entirely if more of that money ends up in the pockets of wage-earners who will spend it and boost their local economies.

What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on infrastructure, expanded power-distribution capacity, renewable energy sources such as wind-farms, and the like? There is a difference.

It seems every time I suggest we should turn our military into a productive asset by charging other countries (or the UN) for protection - I'm (mildly) chastised?

I do have a point. The Government could make direct investments in technology (such as wind farms). In turn, they could SELL the power at a rate at or below the cost (of production in a coal plant for instance) to the power companies - who would then re-sell and deliver to customers at a profit. In this manner, the Government would realize a long term return on investment, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on coal, and hopefully lower our electric costs.

Substantial tax incentives for "clean coal", oil shale or algae (go Ivan) research and development would also be a good thing.

 

[turbo]

It seems every time I suggest we should turn our military into a productive asset by charging other countries (or the UN) for protection - I'm (mildly) chastised?

I wouldn't chastise you for that, but we are already too far into the "protection racket" model with mercenaries (contractors) acting in lieu of our armed military. (Edit: Does France owe us for saving them them from Germany twice in the 20th Century? They helped us with shipments of Charleville muskets during the Revolutionary War, though they were well-served by using our colonist ancestors in a proxy war against an old enemy - England.)

Anyway, I propose that we cut military spending drastically, and adopt a defensive stance, or else change the name back to the "Department of War" in the interests of honesty.

For a billion dollars, we can get 5 F-22 fighters, though that's just the up-front cost. Maintenance costs are projected at $50K per hour. Talk about a "money pit"!

What do we get if we invest in wind-farms? People have to do surveying and site-studies, upgrade transmission capacity, load-switching, etc, build roads, build foundations, build the wind turbine-generators, install them and maintain them. Each of these activities would generate US jobs, including mining and transporting sand and gravel, running concrete mix-plants, etc. We can do this entire project in the US and not outsource any jobs. T Boone Pickens is no dummy - this would be a win-win for the US - I just don't want to see him siphoning billions off it in sweetheart deals. Our country should do projects like this and put our citizens back to work building systems that will benefit us all. Roosevelt had the WPA to help put people back to work - it is foolish to pretend that we cannot do as well. I'd rather pay people decent wages to produce stuff that will benefit us all instead of sitting around wailing about lost jobs and trying to make up the income gaps with unemployment and charity programs.

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't chastise you for that, but we are already too far into the "protection racket" model with mercenaries (contractors) acting in lieu of our armed military.

I propose that we cut military spending drastically, and adopt a defensive stance, or else change the name back to the "Department of War" in the interests of honesty.

For a billion dollars, we can get 5 F-22 fighters, though that's just the up-front cost. Maintenance costs are projected at $50K per hour. Talk about a "money pit"!

What do we get if we invest in wind-farms? People have to do surveying and site-studies, upgrade transmission capacity, load-switching, etc, build roads, build foundations, build the wind turbine-generators, install them and maintain them. Each of these activities would generate US jobs, including mining and transporting sand and gravel, running concrete mix-plants, etc. We can do this entire project in the US and not outsource any jobs. T Boone Pickens is no dummy - this would be a win-win for the US - I just don't want to see him siphoning billions off it in sweetheart deals. Our country should do projects like this and put our citizens back to work building systems that will benefit us all. Roosevelt had the WPA to help put people back to work - it is foolish to pretend that we cannot do as well. I'd rather pay people decent wages to produce stuff that will benefit us all instead of sitting around wailing about lost jobs and trying to make up the income gaps with unemployment and charity programs.

I have 2 responses.

First, I never agreed with Reagan's military spending - regardless of outcome. Once you start down the military build up path, what do you do for an encore? Unless you use the weapons and need replacements - jobs will end.

Second, I agree that T. Boone is no dummy. However, I don't believe in giving anyone an instant monopoly.

There is a place for Government investment in research, the power grid, and even health care. The Government owns massive tracts of land and has (for practical purposes) unlimited resources.

If the Government invested in facilities and leased them to private companies to operate - on never ending operating leases - it would both realize a return on investment and stimulate the economy.

An example, (according to Wiki) the US Postal Service operates 32,741 post office locations in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service Accordingly, it's scheduled to lose $7 billion this year. That's a loss of $213,799 per location?

WHAT, that can't be correct - someone please go behind my analysis. I wasn't expecting this outcome, but it's going to be very easy to make my point now.

I don't know the cost basis or even how many of these locations are owned by the Government or how many are leased - and that doesn't really matter. If the Government could learn to manage their properties better (maybe lease space to Starbucks for $2,500 base per month plus 6% of revenues?) they could realize a return. A rental profit of only $1,000 per month per location would yield nearly a $400 million annual return.

Debate on the topic isn't new.

I found this from 1922 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9401EFDB1F30E433A2575BC0A9639C946395D6CF

I know it's unfair to pick on the Post Office. But this strategy could be applied to hospitals/clinics, office buildings, nuclear plants, wind and solar plants, and yes - even housing. If the Government makes an investment, it should be entitled to a normal return on investment.

However, we all know what would happen. Congress (NBH (Nancy, Barney, Harry) & Co.) would require that people who aren't qualified to lease from the private sector be given preferential treatment and nobody would pay their rent.

 

[Al68]

What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on infrastructure, expanded power-distribution capacity, renewable energy sources such as wind-farms, and the like?

The invading power would possesses more windfarms.

It amazes me that the federal government spends ~18% of its budget on its main purpose, and some would suggest that's too much.

And the majority of the budget is spent violating the constitution, and they say that's not enough.

 

[russ_watters]

1. DJIA is now higher than when he got elected

So what?

2. Government has started earning profits on TARP investments

That fact has nothing to do with Obama

3. JObs are being created

Factually true but intentionally misleading, since unemployment is rising...rapidly

4. Roads are being repaired

As if they weren't being repaired before? Yes, I know a big part of the stimulus was money for road projects. These will be a big let-down in 6 months when the paving stops and those workers lose their jobs.

5. Airports are expanding services

No, flights are at their lowest levels since just after 9/11: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-09-13-big-airline-cuts_N.htm?POE=TRVISVA

6. Businesses are starting to see an upswing in consumer confidence

True.

7. unemployment rates fell in several states

Possibly true, but so what? Unemployment rates rose in most states.

 

[turbo]

The invading power would possesses more windfarms.

Now that is some impressive paranoia! Can you name one country capable of invading and occupying the US? I thought not.

 

[russ_watters]

Now that is some impressive paranoia! Can you name one country capable of invading and occupying the US? I thought not.

Uh, turbo, you just said you would eliminate the US military. So after that, just about any country could invade and occupy the US!

 

[russ_watters]

It amazes me that the federal government spends ~18% of its budget on its main purpose, and some would suggest that's too much.

And the majority of the budget is spent violating the constitution, and they say that's not enough.

Agreed. I'm sure it would boggle the minds of the founding fathers to see how our government spends money (and how much!).

 

[Al68]

Now that is some impressive paranoia! Can you name one country capable of invading and occupying the US?

lol. No, but I could name a couple hundred of them if we had no military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

 

[Office_Shredder]

lol. No, but I could name a couple hundred of them if we had no military.

Even if we had no military, the vast majority of nations would still be incapable of moving an actual invasion force to our country. And of those who do have the technology and money, many don't have the population necessary (for example, Finland has 5 million people in it... which simply isn't enough to support an occupation of a country this size).

So while there would be countries capable of invading and occupying the US, the number would not be very large actually

 

[Al68]

Even if we had no military, the vast majority of nations would still be incapable of moving an actual invasion force to our country. And of those who do have the technology and money, many don't have the population necessary (for example, Finland has 5 million people in it... which simply isn't enough to support an occupation of a country this size).

So while there would be countries capable of invading and occupying the US, the number would not be very large actually

Sure, the actual number would be much less. Due also to the fact that any small country that tried it would have to contend with the more powerful countries.

But my response was intended as humor, not actual analysis.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sure, the actual number would be much less. Due also to the fact that any small country that tried it would have to contend with the more powerful countries.

But my response was intended as humor, not actual analysis.

No, they would simply be incapable of invading the US. Take Fiji. The Fijan navy is designed solely to ensure sovereign control over its territorial waters. It is completely, 100% incapable of moving an attack force from Fiji to the United States of America, and supplying it during the invasion. Even if it was, the entire miltary of Fiji, including reserves, is less than 10,000 people. With numbers like that, it's physically impossible to invade a nation the size of the United States of America.

The population of San Fransisco is 8,000,000. The number of people in Iraq is less than 4 times that, yet we had about 20 times the size of Fiji's military in Iraq. Fiji's military would be incapable of taking and occupying the city of San Francisco.

Fiji isn't unique in this. The vast, vast majority of nations are not organized enough, technologically capable and large enough to enact an invasion of the United States. The United States has difficulty occupying a country 1/10th its size in the form of Iraq, how many countries would truly be able to hold onto a country the size of the US? My guess at the moment is nobody. Especially considering the US has little natural resources for its size, and its main economic strength is in its political stability and strong infrastructure, invading the country would have little benefit.

While the comment may have originally been for humorous purposes, it definitely brings to light the question of: Is there an actual threat of invasion and occupation by a foreign power? Who's capable of doing it, and what advantage would they gain by doing it?

 

[turbo]

Uh, turbo, you just said you would eliminate the US military. So after that, just about any country could invade and occupy the US!

I didn't say that I would eliminate the military. We just don't need all the weapons systems (especially offensive capabilities) that we have currently. That's very different.

 

[vociferous]

This probably provides the best perspective on debt - the debt as a percentage of GDP
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Interestingly, it looks like the tax-and-spend democrats win hands down.

I think that is a rather simplistic and disingenuous way of looking at the data, since it does not acknowledge the branch of government that actually controls the purse strings of the government, the congress.

Like, for instance, during the Reagan years, Democrats were firmly in charge. The deficit spending should largely be looked at as a compromise between the Reagan administration which wanted to dramatically cut taxes and cut spending on social services while increasing the military budget and the Democrat-controlled congress, which wanted to preserve social services.

Likewise, during the Clinton administration, the balancing of the budget was done by Clinton and the Republican-dominated congress, so they both deserve credit for that.

During the Bush years, most of the budget was passed while congress was split or while Republicans controlled it, so the combination of increased spending with decreased taxation (leading, of course, to massive national debt) was mostly the responsibility of President Bush and the Republicans in congress.

Neither party has a monopoly on fiscal responsibility (not spending more than the government makes in revenue).

As for Obama, a lot of economic experts are advising spending over balancing the budget to stimulate the economy. I have no idea how fiscally sound that theory is, but I think we should probably wait to judge the current leadership in Washington until their term is over, when we can get a better idea of how the policies being enacted today will affect the economy and the national debt.

 

[mheslep]

Now that is some impressive paranoia! Can you name one country capable of invading and occupying the US? I thought not.

After 9/11, 7/7, and on and on, obviously invasion is not the main threat.

 

[turbo]

After 9/11, 7/7, and on and on, obviously invasion is not the main threat.

So did the Bush/Cheney war, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens make you feel safer?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so using that as a justification for more war is irrational. If you want to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, freeze the bank accounts of wealthy Saudis who fund the radical fundamentalists who actually did the deed. Don't slaughter innocent people in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

 

[WhoWee]

Like, for instance, during the Reagan years, Democrats were firmly in charge. The deficit spending should largely be looked at as a compromise between the Reagan administration which wanted to dramatically cut taxes and cut spending on social services while increasing the military budget and the Democrat-controlled congress, which wanted to preserve social services.

I'm doing this from memory. I seem to recall Carter being on TV quite often with charts and graphs discussing our military capabilities versus the Soviets. Carter whined and flipped through his information, while inflation and unemployment soared and hostages lingered in Iran.

Reagan was elected with a promise of change and assured the nation. The timing of the release of hostages helped to calm fears. He basically said don't worry - I'll take care of it - and everyone seemed to rest easier.

As for spending, Reagan spent so much money in an arms escalation that many believe he collapsed the Soviet Union. I happen to think their collapse was inevitable. But, Reagan is largely credited.

A by-product of his spending was defense jobs and a huge up-tick in the economy - and lower interest rates followed. Both of those ingredients, along with tax cuts to spur direct investment in business took us out of Carter's recession.

Clinton faced a different set of problems - apples to oranges. Clinton had to put the brakes on spending and top priority became the balanced budget. Clinton got credit, but Congress cooperated and made it happen. Again, this is off the top of my head and mostly opinion.

 

[mheslep]

So did the Bush/Cheney war, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens make you feel safer?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so using that as a justification for more war is irrational. If you want to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, freeze the bank accounts of wealthy Saudis who fund the radical fundamentalists who actually did the deed. Don't slaughter innocent people in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

A whatta what? Iraq? Bush/Cheney? Can we have any kind of coherent conversation any more? We are talking about the size and scope of military spending. My first instinct is not to punish anyone, especially since most of them are dead, but to prevent the like from happening again, especially from those who still say that's exactly what they want to do.

 

[turbo]

Lets look at recent history here. I said that making investments in our infrastructure would be healthier for our country than all this runaway military spending. Then Al said that the US could be invaded and Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation) and then you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. You guys are pretty nimble - misrepresenting my stance and dodging from excuse to excuse.

 

[mheslep]

You didn't qualify. You left the question open as to as what you meant:

[...]What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on [...something else]

.. you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. ...

It absolutely does have relevance to military spending. These kind of attacks illustrate what can be done by para military and guerrilla groups if left to themselves. Suggesting that all the US has to do to prevent such threats is to lock some Saudi bank accounts is not reasonable. The US president as well as many of the leaders of NATO have made clear that part of what's needed to prevent more of the same is to deny the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan. It is vastly expensive to project the force the US currently fields in Afghanistan. No other nation has anywhere near enough military means to do the job (that far away).

BTW, I don't believe the US needs some of its big ticket defense items, and I'm glad to see Gates killing them. But that would never lead me to make the open ended statement you did above.

 

[WhoWee]

Lets look at recent history here. I said that making investments in our infrastructure would be healthier for our country than all this runaway military spending. Then Al said that the US could be invaded and Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation) and then you dragged 9/11 into it as if it had some sort of relevance to the concept that reducing military spending is dangerous. You guys are pretty nimble - misrepresenting my stance and dodging from excuse to excuse.

I thought we were talking about the National Debt - hence my "Reagan was the mother of all subsequent spenders" rant.

However, Clinton and Gingrich realized where we were headed and pulled us back. But apparently we haven't learned a thing.

If you look closely at the posted chart - Obama is taking us to the exact point we would have been if Clinton and Gingrich did nothing.

 

[turbo]

I thought we were talking about the National Debt - hence my "Reagan was the mother of all subsequent spenders" rant.

However, Clinton and Gingrich realized where we were headed and pulled us back. But apparently we haven't learned a thing.

If you look closely at the posted chart - Obama is taking us to the exact point we would have been if Clinton and Gingrich did nothing.

My point (though misrepresented and dragged into la-la land) was that not all debt is created the same. If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy. Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

 

[WhoWee]

My point (though misrepresented and dragged into la-la land) was that not all debt is created the same. If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy. Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

And to bring us full circle - I'll say it again - unless we can charge countries protection money, the investment in military hardware doesn't provide a return on investment the way a direct investment in an economically productive asset could.

 

[turbo]

And to bring us full circle - I'll say it again - unless we can charge countries protection money, the investment in military hardware doesn't provide a return on investment the way a direct investment in an economically productive asset could.

That's true. It's lost money. Fiscal conservatism is the first victim when the hawks control the DoD and have free rein to establish spending policies. If you oppose wasteful spending on projects that don't address our country's needs, the flag-waving and chest-thumping starts, cowing the ignorant and silencing the fearful. Few in DC have the guts to try to rein in waste in the military or bring our troops home, for fear of being accused of not "supporting our troops". Eisenhower knew that we were heading into this problem decades ago, and our country has not managed to address it effectively. Starting and perpetuating unjust, unnecessary wars is not a conservative activity by a long shot and the wasted revenue is a threat to our country's economic health.