Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Read 'em and Weep

  1. Sep 26, 2004 #1

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Here, courtesy of poster Ann on Brad de Long's blog, is a http://www.cepr.net/publications/debt_trends.htm [Broken]. Whovever gets elected in November, he will be facing an economy headed for the toilet, and likely to drag the world economy down with it. Great Depression, second act?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 26, 2004 #2
    Yes, the end of the world. Do you have any locust population trends?
     
  4. Sep 26, 2004 #3

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is it just me or does anyone notice that whenever someone mentions something that *might* point towards Bush's direction, Dubya gets defensive?

    The thing is, SelfAdjoint didn't even have to mention Bush, and Dubya became defensive.
     
  5. Sep 26, 2004 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    SA, I'm confused by your title - are you happy about this?

    In any case, I share JD's objection: you can't apply a trend to everything - especially something known to by cyclical. Consumer debt is high because interest rates are low. As interest rates rise, consumer debt will decrease. I'm not seeing a crisis here.
     
  6. Sep 26, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Hmm.... in fact, the only one so far to mention Bush is you....
     
  7. Sep 26, 2004 #6
    Extrapolation is a nasty thing.
     
  8. Sep 26, 2004 #7

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If either of you had read the article, the first sentence mentions the "Bush Administration."

    Not reading, and replying is a nasty thing, also.
     
  9. Sep 26, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
     
  10. Sep 26, 2004 #9
  11. Sep 26, 2004 #10

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  12. Sep 26, 2004 #11
    Edit: Misread the timeline
     
  13. Sep 26, 2004 #12
    Damnit! now im all wondering what he said =(
     
  14. Sep 26, 2004 #13

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    He was going to say that the line was already in decline before Bush came in office.
     
  15. Sep 26, 2004 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.well.com/~sunbear/deficit.jpg

    Hmmm...looks like every Republican President (with the exceptions of Nixon and Bush Jr., who converted surpluses into deficits) has, by the end of his term, nearly doubled the deficit he inherited. Among the Democrats, only Carter caused the deficit to increase - by about 25%. Johnson and Clinton converted deficits into surpluses.

    Umm...just paraphrasing the data here, for those people unable to access that link for whatever reason. No political bias is intended. :wink:
     
  16. Sep 26, 2004 #15

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I wouldn't be suprised if I see an outcry from one of the republicans here for some sources of the data displayed in the image. That's what *always* happens..
     
  17. Sep 26, 2004 #16
    I started to reply, but this thread has already turned into cess pool. You people REALLY need to get off the partisan garbage. Before anyone even responds, there's already been multiple "Republicans......"
    You think that is going to bait us in?? Or are you just trolling to do so?


    EDIT - wait, all of the Republican bashing replies were due to Graphic7. When is this crap going to be cleaned up?
     
  18. Sep 26, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Oh you should add Gokul too, and while you're at it, add me; I think Bush is a disaster. But the deficit and the foreign debt is a bipartisan stupidity; Congress just waggled another unfunded tax cut*, a "middle class" one that Bush will certainly sign, nd the Democrats had their noses in the trough right along with the Republicans.

    And no, I am not happy to see another Great Depression threatening. I am one of the few posters here who can just remember the original; the joy of finding a dollar bill stuck under the upholstery of our couch, when we weren't going to have any money over the week-end till Daddy's (diminished) allotment check cleared. I live like that again now on Social Security, and people are saying the SS trust fund is the first place they'll look if the general fund comes up short, as it will, in a year or two.


    *Yes, I know they were really extending a tax cut that was up for rnewal, but they had two responsible choices: Let it die a decent death, or if they had to have it, fund it with other taxes.
     
  19. Sep 26, 2004 #18

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Excuse the bashing or rather the "trolling" some of you may call it, but I'm really sick of you people stating the economy was already in decline before Bush took office and that it was Clinton's fault.

    The reason I'm bashing the republicans is simply you're the *only* ones that support Bush. How many democrats or liberals (they wouldn't be liberals or democrats then) support Bush? Not many I bet, therefore, I have to bash you.

    And Phatmonky, perhaps you should get off some of that Bush propaganda, eh?
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2004
  20. Sep 26, 2004 #19
    They're just stating their opinions.

    I am heading out. Over the last week we have had a new slur of posters and the arguments have really degenerated. It seems we have about six Adams in here now, and the forum is beginning to look like the Democratic Underground, complete with conspiracy theories in every thread. I don't even care that much. Kerry winning wouldn't be the end of the world for me, especially since it keeps you-know-who at bay for another four years.
     
  21. Sep 26, 2004 #20

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hold your horses, mister !! (I mean, Supreme UberMentor:biggrin:)

    While I share your "Bush is a disaster" sentiment, I won't go so far as drawing up generalized correlations from a National Deficit timeline. I was merely making a joke, while perhaps, at most, raising a suspicious eyebrow.
     
  22. Sep 26, 2004 #21

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    graphic7, I've heard (read) phatmonky (who is clearly a conservative) criticize Bush's economic policy, but haven't come across any Kerry criticisms from you (and surely there are at keast a few out there). If I'm wrong on this observation, ignore me, but it seems that perhaps, phatmonky may be far more objective on this issue than you think.
     
  23. Sep 26, 2004 #22

    graphic7

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Perhaps you're correct in phatmonky's aspect; I haven't read too many of his posts to know much about his policy. As for Kerry, in no way does Kerry have my full confidence, however, I do think he is the lesser of two evils. I've made one comment where I believe Kerry sways in his beliefs too much for me. Just my opinion, I guess you could say.
     
  24. Sep 26, 2004 #23
    My problem isn't debating that Republicans are wrong. My problem is with the prejudice shown before I, or any other "right winger", get a chance to even reply.
    Childish generalizations like "I wouldn't be suprised if I see an outcry from one of the republicans here for some sources of the data displayed in the image. That's what *always* happens.." before anyone even replies is pretty sad. It adds nothing to the conversation and really takes away my want, or hope, to have a real debate.
    I'm just saying, let's try to drop the hyperbole and generalizations.
     
  25. Sep 26, 2004 #24
    I'm sick of not even having a chance to reply before I'm told what I think and WILL reply with.

    Zell miller, an elected democrat, is one. Bashing isn't what this forum is about, so no, you DON'T have to bash me.

    I haven't even had a chance to give an on-topic reply in this thread. How do you know what 'propaganda' I'm believing?
     
  26. Sep 27, 2004 #25

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And the second sentence goes off in a completely different direction. The article was not about the federal budget deficit or the Bush admin. :blushing:
    The economy was in decline before Bush took office. Check the numbers. But IMO, the president doesn't have a whole lot to do with that and even if he does, he doesn't affect it instantly. Sorry, graphic7, but either way, you can't have your cake and eat it too on this one.

    But hey, anyone want to actually discuss the article? It was about consumer debt, not about Bush. Anyone...? Or is anti-Bush blustering all people really want to do in this forum?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook