Yeah. There's a reason Burr shot that son of a biatch.

That guy wasn't even an American Citizen. Check his birth certificate if you don't believe me.

Actually, and hear me out, please, a reasonably-sized amount of managed federal debt is a good thing for the economy, because it gives a low-risk base point for investors and keeps money churning though the system. When Clinton was running surpluses the bond markets were weirded out by the fact that there weren't as many Treasuries being auctioned as expected.

Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

Define "excessive".

GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

Because socialism, of course.

GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

The reverse is true as well, you putz.

The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected. Now, it's all good because you think you're going to get something for free.

theorellior: Actually, and hear me out, please, a reasonably-sized amount of managed federal debt is a good thing for the economy, because it gives a low-risk base point for investors and keeps money churning though the system. When Clinton was running surpluses the bond markets were weirded out by the fact that there weren't as many Treasuries being auctioned as expected.

To be fair, the bond markets had settled into a pattern after 12 years of Republican largesse to the defence sector

Yeah, well he got his ass shot off, didn't he.

JacksBlack: The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected.

Funny how it wasn't important that it was then.

JacksBlack: GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

The reverse is true as well, you putz.

The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected. Now, it's all good because you think you're going to get something for free.

It was ridiculous, but it wasn't strangling our nation. And just think- if we hadn't blown a budget surplus, cut the hell out of taxes and the immediately raised spending in 2001, threw over a trillion dollars into the Iraqi desert, Medicare-D, NCLB, DHS, etc, etc, we'd have more than enough money right now to take care of this recession and not worry about it.

Oh, and TANSTAAFL. Don't be a partisan farkwit.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
-Dick Cheney

Hamilton was a putz that both Jefferson and Adams mistrusted with good reason.

I wonder if Hamilton ever heard the word "trillion".

"Ow, I can't believe he SHOT me." - Alexander Hamilton

Of course this was back when the dollar was backed by gold.

Bucky Katt: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
-Dick Cheney

Proved in the same way that Fen-phen was shown to be a safe anti-obesity medication with no serious side effects.

Crosshair: Of course this was back when the dollar was backed by gold.

Well that's an interesting post. A gold standard is irrelevant in a default situation, because gold is only worth what it's worth, and there's always the opportunity to incur debts exceeding one's assets.. As an example: an alarming number of people, companies, local, county, state, and national governments exist on negative balance sheets. Net of any collateral repossessions (in default), they are insolvent, if not bankrupt to creditors.

The governments (the guys with the most guns) are capable, after default, of simply stealing more from the people. I'm looking at you, Argentina.

It's got nothing to do with gold.

/Debt is a tool.
//That benefits ONLY the lender.

Funny story about Hamilton during the American revolution:

He was very handsome and quite wealthy, and he was also known in social circles for his promiscuity. So much so that Martha Washington (visiting George in camp one Christmas) noticed a tomcat that would try to screw anything that moved. She named him "Alex," not thinking it fair that such a cat should be named Tom (as in Jefferson), and the name stuck with the soldiers for the rest of the winter until they moved and left the tom behind.

Bucky Katt: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
-Dick Cheney

There's a difference between deficits and debt.

GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

Hey! I beg to differ! As a smartass 8th grader, I threw out that Hamilton quote at my social studies teacher the dat after the '84 election and the teacher was complaining about the huge national debt. He pretty much took my argument apart, since he was the teacher and I was distracted by the massive rack on the girl who sat in front of me. I still got an A in that class and she hated me for years. Worth it.

And I know there were and are conservatives ticked off by President Bush's spending. But I do see where the Left is, well, at least bemused by what they see as blatant hypocracy in the Republicans seeming to now be concerned with spending and the debt. Still, I think it's a fight the GOP needs to make. I think the Republicans need to back off the whole quaigmire of social issues and stick to more bread and butter stuff. Yes, our guy spent money like a drunken sailor and we look stupid complaining about the new guy spending like a drunken sailor. So be it. It's better for the GOP to take a stand on fiscal responsability and responsable spending and such, even looking like hypocrites, than to make fights over social and religious issues. I think so, anyway, but I'm not in charge.

"May be?" Our "next" crisis? Cheese and rice, what the fark do these people think is going on right now?

GreenAdder: "May be?" Our "next" crisis? Cheese and rice, what the fark do these people think is going on right now?

The Obama Recession. Y'know, the one that started January 21st.

Occam's Chainsaw: The Obama Recession. Y'know, the one that started January 21st.

Oh. Right. Dude's been President for six months and he's supposed to have everything solved. He should go back to some old clips of his acceptance speech and campaign. "This could take years," he said.

Got Milk?

NewportBarGuy: Since then, the nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.

You're welcome.

Go fark yourself, Andrew!

His amazingly myopic economic policies and the destruction of the national bank led directly to the boom-and-bust economic cycle that nearly tore this country apart at regular intervals over the course of the 19th century and into the 20th.

It wasn't until after the Great Depression, almost a century later, that we got things under control through regulation and giving power to the Fed.

Thank you, FDR.

Yeah and in last almost 30 years we've had one party who has moved us away from debt and one that has got us much deeper in debt at a huge rate.

Remember when Bill Clinton's tax budget plan in the early 90's were going to "destroy our economy"? Those people were very wrong.

Hamilton was a cock who tried to re-align us with Britain and fark over Adams, not to mention trying to start a war with France and usurp control of a standing army for personal control. too much ambition, and of the wrong kind. Mr. Burr did us a favor.
/i lol'ed at the andrew jackson snipe
//also at citizenship joke. farking hamilton. fark that guy

JacksBlack: The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected. Now, it's all good because you think you're going to get something for free.

we are? what are we getting for free? first I've heard of it.

Legalize it.

Interesting blog post by Glenn Greenwald about the author of that AP article.

This is interesting to me because as I was reading the article I felt a sudden twinge of "something is not quite right here" and I felt I detected a faint wiff of opinion presented as fact - a quick google search later confirmed that perhaps my bullshiat detector is not only functioning, but evidently extremely sensitive.

Most of what the guy says actually is fact, but the way in which he portrays certain facts shows some bias that perhaps does not mesh with reality.

Awwwon Buhhhhh!

/hot!

Last One Left: There's a difference between deficits and debt.

since they did nothing about the debt either then it also must no matter

Your_Huckleberry: But I do see where the Left is, well, at least bemused by what they see as blatant hypocracy in the Republicans seeming to now be concerned with spending and the debt. Still, I think it's a fight the GOP needs to make. I think the Republicans need to back off the whole quaigmire of social issues and stick to more bread and butter stuff. Yes, our guy spent money like a drunken sailor and we look stupid complaining about the new guy spending like a drunken sailor. So be it. It's better for the GOP to take a stand on fiscal responsability and responsable spending and such, even looking like hypocrites, than to make fights over social and religious issues. I think so, anyway, but I'm not in charge.

THIS.

Although that girl with the massive rack seems to still be distracting you from correctly spelling here and there.

(Use that excuse now, farkers - for it will NOT work when you're married. Unless your wife IS the girl with the massive rack, in which case what are you doing here?)

Dwight_Yeast: NewportBarGuy: Since then, the nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.

You're welcome.

Go fark yourself, Andrew!

His amazingly myopic economic policies and the destruction of the national bank led directly to the boom-and-bust economic cycle that nearly tore this country apart at regular intervals over the course of the 19th century and into the 20th.

It wasn't until after the Great Depression, almost a century later, that we got things under control through regulation and giving power to the Fed.

Thank you, FDR.

You simply must be joking.

Oh wait you're not, you actually think that the best way to solve a problem is to hand complete, total, and unquestioned power over to a small group of unaccountable power brokers who never have to report to anyone and act strictly in their own interest.

//The fed has screwed us over and over, time for some transparency,

///Pick up a copy of "The Forgotten Man" and learn why FDR actually turned a depression into a great depression,

//hint: no other country on Earth refers to it as the "Great" depression.

Don't blame me, I voted for Jefferson.

/Suck it, Federalists!

GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

Because defending the nation is a tad more important over all then paying for some idiot to keep screwing up.

One political goal of Reagan and the Bush's was to increase the national debt so much so that there would be no money to pay for programs like Social Security. That way they could say that if even if they wanted to pay for some social program there was just not the money available.


from zfacts.

Eowunyth: Because defending the nation is a tad more important over all then paying for some idiot to keep screwing up.

So you support the socialistic make-work employment of thousands upon thousands of REMF bureaucrats, so long as they wear a uniform. Gotcha.

Occam's Chainsaw: Eowunyth: Because defending the nation is a tad more important over all then paying for some idiot to keep screwing up.

So you support the socialistic make-work employment of thousands upon thousands of REMF bureaucrats, so long as they wear a uniform. Gotcha.

Spending trillions preparing ourselves for the coming conventional war with Soviet Russia is important.....

..oh wait...

I would like to just pay the 37K share i own and opt out of this whole neverending business.

If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Gulper Eel: Your_Huckleberry: But I do see where the Left is, well, at least bemused by what they see as blatant hypocracy in the Republicans seeming to now be concerned with spending and the debt. Still, I think it's a fight the GOP needs to make. I think the Republicans need to back off the whole quaigmire of social issues and stick to more bread and butter stuff. Yes, our guy spent money like a drunken sailor and we look stupid complaining about the new guy spending like a drunken sailor. So be it. It's better for the GOP to take a stand on fiscal responsability and responsable spending and such, even looking like hypocrites, than to make fights over social and religious issues. I think so, anyway, but I'm not in charge.

THIS.

Although that girl with the massive rack seems to still be distracting you from correctly spelling here and there.

(Use that excuse now, farkers - for it will NOT work when you're married. Unless your wife IS the girl with the massive rack, in which case what are you doing here?)

Hey, I'm typing with one hand here, mistakes happen.

(Torn bicep tendon, not memories of the girl with the rack)

log_jammin: since they did nothing about the debt either then it also must no matter

One might assume. However, Congress had a part to play, too.

Our current debt is excessive. Debt, in an of itself, is not a bad thing. People who think that it is are morans.

HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

beantowndog
I wonder if Hamilton ever heard the word "trillion".

Thread over...thank you goodnite.

trueaustinite:
Our current debt is excessive. Debt, in an of itself, is not a bad thing. People who think that it is are morans.

For one thing, debt allows a country to get things done when they need to be done, not when the money is in pocket. I can save up for a new washing machine if I don't want to use credit... A government can't "save up" for a program that has to be implemented NOW. And a stitch in time often saves nine, on a national financial level (conservatives often understand this principle when it is convenient for them big business, but decry it when it is used for social welfare applications).

"The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied." - Thomas Jefferson

badhatharry: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution Declaration Of Independence, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

I'm not trying to ba jerk or anything, I second your thoughts on Jefferson, he was a great man. But James Madison wasn't chopped liver and the Constitution was mostly his baby. Jefferson was still in France.

I still don't think it's overstating things to be amazed by how brillant that group of men of that era were. Not perfect, but possibly the most impressive collection of intellect in our history. And Jefferson was probably a full head smarter than the rest.

"The greatest collection of intelligence to reside in this room since Thomas Jefferson dined in here alone."

badhatharry: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

Funny, I was just thinking he had the ability to see into the future:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

It's almost like he saw our current congress coming.

Corvus: Remember when Bill Clinton's tax budget plan in the early 90's were going to "destroy our economy"? Those people were very wrong.

Yea, luckily he only had 2 years to implement it before the nation went in the opposite direction.

Also this FTA:
Over the past several decades, it has climbed sharply - except for a respite from 1998 to 2000, when there were annual budget surpluses, reflecting in large part what turned out to be an overheated economy.

...
Some spending items - such as emergency appropriations bills and receipts in the Social Security program - aren't included, either, although they are part of the national debt.

The debt grew even through 1998-2000. There stopped being a budget defecit thugh thanks to Social Security and others buying treasury bonds. The author made a common mistake.

Your_Huckleberry: badhatharry: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution Declaration Of Independence, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

I'm not trying to ba jerk or anything, I second your thoughts on Jefferson, he was a great man. But James Madison wasn't chopped liver and the Constitution was mostly his baby. Jefferson was still in France.

I still don't think it's overstating things to be amazed by how brillant that group of men of that era were. Not perfect, but possibly the most impressive collection of intellect in our history. And Jefferson was probably a full head smarter than the rest.

"The greatest collection of intelligence to reside in this room since Thomas Jefferson dined in here alone."

Oops, yes, he wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution did include a lot of his ideas though. And the Declaration was better written anyway.

Gulper Eel: (Use that excuse now, farkers - for it will NOT work when you're married. Unless your wife IS the girl with the massive rack, in which case what are you doing here?)

She's sleeping off a cold ;(

Alexander Hamilton also wanted us to model ourselves after England after the Revolutionary War, complete with a King and all.

Debt in and of itself is not a bad thing as long as it's manageable, ours is not. In the last 5 months this country has spent more money that we don't have than the previous 6 administrations combined. Complete irresponsibility.

Triaxis: Alexander Hamilton also wanted us to model ourselves after England after the Revolutionary War, complete with a King and all.

LOLWUT?

You should be able to come up with some sort of cite right? He's only one of the most documented public servants in American history.

Alexander Hamilton was a poophead.

rohar: You should be able to come up with some sort of cite right? He's only one of the most documented public servants in American history.

This touches on it. Not really a King, but a very strong federal executive, perhaps even a lifetime election for the position. Republicans would sometimes call the Federalists monarchists because of it.

"Deficits don't matter." ... Dick Cheney

Geez, what is it with the Republicans? The Democrats agree with them, and they don't like it?

Number41: rohar: You should be able to come up with some sort of cite right? He's only one of the most documented public servants in American history.

This touches on it. Not really a King, but a very strong federal executive, perhaps even a lifetime election for the position. Republicans would sometimes call the Federalists monarchists because of it.

Did you read the link you posted? It said nothing of Hamilton's thoughts of the office of the executive, only that he had to deal with the question of if it had too much power. Even then, he promoted a strong senate and a strong judiciary to counter a strong executive.

Where's this whole king thing and references to England again?

This is the thread where cons (the people that broke the economy) come to pretend they know economics.

hetheeme: ///Pick up a copy of "The Forgotten Man" and learn why FDR actually turned a depression into a great depression,

LOL. You keep believing that, Sparky.

hetheeme: Oh wait you're not, you actually think that the best way to solve a problem is to hand complete, total, and unquestioned power over to a small group of unaccountable power brokers who never have to report to anyone and act strictly in their own interest.

If I learned anything from reading Ayn Rand or listening to Fark Independents it is always better to live in a society where we let people act in their own interest. This will be better for all of us right? The truth is that a relatively small group of people control things in every part of our society. 1% control a third, the next 9% control another third and the other 90% get the other third. If you are looking to create a society where there is not a relatively small number of power brokers controlling everything you really need to look toward socialism.

theorellior: hetheeme: ///Pick up a copy of "The Forgotten Man" and learn why FDR actually turned a depression into a great depression,

LOL. You keep believing that, Sparky.

Revisionist Rightwing History And Economics FTW!

/Pro tip: Books and "research" funded by people who are justifying their agenda (instead of looking at facts and drawing conclusions) is not to be trusted.
//Selling that crap to idiot rightwingers is a business I should get into, you don't need facts or anything. But my mom told me it's not nice to take advantage of the retarded.

HairBolus: One political goal of Reagan and the Bush's was to increase the national debt so much so that there would be no money to pay for programs like Social Security. That way they could say that if even if they wanted to pay for some social program there was just not the money available.

The problem with your graph is that our GDP is currently about 70% consumption and only 30% production. The GDP is a statistic that was created to be manipulated. Inflation continually works to eat away at the national debt while the government has under reported inflation for decades.

the_be_sharps: Well that's an interesting post. A gold standard is irrelevant in a default situation, because gold is only worth what it's worth, and there's always the opportunity to incur debts exceeding one's assets.

You are missing the point. A gold standard financially handcuffs a government, preventing them from printing money. It forces fiscal restraint on a government. If they want to spend more they either have to get more gold and/or tax more. They can't just raises everyone's taxes through inflation like they do now.

When we left the gold standard in 1971, we essentially defaulted on our debts. The government managed to convince us that having money backed by something was bad and the world continued to take our checks despite the fact there was no money in the account.

Governments hate gold standards in the same way that a prisoner hates his handcuffs. It makes it very difficult for both to do things they shouldn't do.

No Such Agency: For one thing, debt allows a country to get things done when they need to be done, not when the money is in pocket. I can save up for a new washing machine if I don't want to use credit... A government can't "save up" for a program that has to be implemented NOW. And a stitch in time often saves nine, on a national financial level (conservatives often understand this principle when it is convenient for them big business, but decry it when it is used for social welfare applications).

So, when and how are we going to pay this money back that we have borrowed? Running the money off a printing press is going to causes its purchasing power to collapse and we we be unable to borrow any more money for our social programs.

ghare: theorellior: hetheeme: ///Pick up a copy of "The Forgotten Man" and learn why FDR actually turned a depression into a great depression,

LOL. You keep believing that, Sparky.

Revisionist Rightwing History And Economics FTW!

/Pro tip: Books and "research" funded by people who are justifying their agenda (instead of looking at facts and drawing conclusions) is not to be trusted.
//Selling that crap to idiot rightwingers is a business I should get into, you don't need facts or anything. But my mom told me it's not nice to take advantage of the retarded.

I concur, I doubt Amity Shlaes came anywhere near the truth in that book, but that does not excuse FDR from our debt issues. If it were not for the despotic work of the congress and FDR to overthrow the supreme court in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, the general welfare clause would not be interpreted as granting the congress any powers. Without that, the congress would have been restricted from a huge percentage of the spending it engaged in for the past 80ish years. Without massive spending, there is no debt.

JacksBlack: The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected. Now, it's all good because you think you're going to get something for free you're not using it to find weapons of mass destruction.

FTFY

badhatharry: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

There were, in my view, three indispensable Founders - Washington, Hamilton and Madison, in that order. The rest were fungible, perhaps none more so than Jefferson.

HappyDaddy: badhatharry: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Yes, if you don't think things like writing the Constitution, seperation of church and state, and founding the first secular university are good things. We live in a Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson is the man. Hamilton was a putz.

There were, in my view, three indispensable Founders - Washington, Hamilton and Madison, in that order. The rest were fungible, perhaps none more so than Jefferson.

Wow.

/eyeroll

it'll be a blessing alright....to the Banking Industry.

Da Swank said; If you are looking to create a society where there is not a relatively small number of power brokers controlling everything you really need to look toward socialism.

Yes, countries like Cuba, N. Korea, China, Venezuela and N.Vietnam come to mind.

Moran

HairBolus: One political goal of Reagan and the Bush's was to increase the national debt so much so that there would be no money to pay for programs like Social Security. That way they could say that if even if they wanted to pay for some social program there was just not the money available.


from zfacts.

Like all debt to GDP graphs, I rarely find one that's accurate.

Yours is inaccurate in that it mislabels where Obama's debt level started. The graph puts it at around 80%. In reality, it was closer to 74%.

/Looking for a source now

Even though the miniseries was plagued by historical inaccuracies, whenever someone brings up Hamilton the first thing that pops into my mind is how much of a d-bag he was in "John Adams"

HairBolus: One political goal of Reagan and the Bush's was to increase the national debt so much so that there would be no money to pay for programs like Social Security. That way they could say that if even if they wanted to pay for some social program there was just not the money available.


from zfacts.

that's not really a fair way of characterizing it.

The most important thing about this chart, which is fairly typical of the obscenely excremental misinformation that liberals are constaintly foisting in the early 21st century, is the information that's missing, i.e.

WHO HELD A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE during most of those years.

Congress, NOT the president, ultimately decides how money gets spent on what and votes on the budget. During the 1970's and 1980s, Congress finished expanding a system where the annually growing entitlement system could not be easily altered, otherwise known as "non-discretionary" spending. This made it much harder to make spending cuts and virtually ensured that the U.S. would be running huge deficits by the earely 20th century. After Congress overrode his spending vetoes (new window), Reagan switched to a "starve the beast" approach and allowed all kinds of spending to grow while taxes were held down. Which was a mistake - if he were truly a fiscal conservative, he would have fought assholes like Tip O'Neill all the way down.

But, while you're blaming Reagan, you should be very aware that "the beast" is a Congress controlled by democrats marching relentlessly toward a socialist republic with massive entitlement spending that is out of control. They are expert at shifting the blame for their actions and at bringing the bacon home so they can stay in office. Unless we tame the beast, ie. kick their asses out and and elect people with brains and heart instead of political acumen, America is going into a long decline.

That's just the way it is, Pelosibama has just made it really obvious that it could happen a lot faster...

Yes, by the end of 4th quarter 2008, debt was $10.7 trillion, and GDP was $14.2 trillion. That ratio is around 75%.

source for debt
source for GDP

On further looking, my eyeballing of their graph was off. Their enlarged graph does hit that 75% ratio. My bad.

JacksBlack: GAT_00: Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Reagan was ballooning the debt to never before seen levels to buy some new toys for the military. Funny how nobody was saying stuff like that when Dubya was destroying a surplus in two years and then spent trillions on an idiotic war in Iraq for false causes. Then it was good debt. But spend money on Americans, and on man, that's bad debt.

The reverse is true as well, you putz.

The national debt was strangling the nation until your guy got elected. Now, it's all good because you think you're going to get something for free.

QFT, you got em with that one.

the_be_sharps: /Debt is a tool.
//That benefits ONLY the lender.

And the borrower, otherwise there would be no (or at least very little) debt.

theorellior: Actually, and hear me out, please, a reasonably-sized amount of managed federal debt is a good thing for the economy, because it gives a low-risk base point for investors and keeps money churning though the system. When Clinton was running surpluses the bond markets were weirded out by the fact that there weren't as many Treasuries being auctioned as expected.

Clinton never ran surpluses. Ever. But he projected surpluses under various scenarios that were unlikely ever to have happened, years after he left office.

/ You forgot to blame Reagan for deficits the Democratic Congress ran up when he was President.

Truncks1:

Wow.

/eyeroll

Washington has been called "The Indispensable Man" for good reason. I think Jefferson's contributions are overestimated. Hamilton's are under-appreciated by people less conversant with the history of the founding than am I. Don't feel bad though - that's an incredibly long list of people.

helix400: Yes, by the end of 4th quarter 2008, debt was $10.7 trillion, and GDP was $14.2 trillion. That ratio is around 75%.

source for debt
source for GDP

During WW2 the US carried around a 120% debt/GDP ratio. I don't know if it's escaped people's notice, but we've been carrying on two extremely expensive military operations for going on 8 years now.

PBS has a fantastic biopic on Hamilton. It's clearly pro-Hamilton, but reasonably fair and extremely well made. Hamilton's adversarial and hilarious relationship with Jefferson is pure gold. Anyway, if you're flipping around the channels and run into it, give it a spin.

/did not fully realize the real motivation for Assumption until I watched the film.

TwistedFark: helix400: Yes, by the end of 4th quarter 2008, debt was $10.7 trillion, and GDP was $14.2 trillion. That ratio is around 75%.

source for debt
source for GDP

During WW2 the US carried around a 120% debt/GDP ratio. I don't know if it's escaped people's notice, but we've been carrying on two extremely expensive military operations for going on 8 years now.

The total cost of 7 years of folly in Iraq/Afghanistan is about the same as 2 years of Medicare and Medicaid. While ending our drunken brawl in the middle east would be a good start, in another year the cost of Medicare/Medicaid will increase enough that the savings from the war won't matter much.

TwistedFark: During WW2 the US carried around a 120% debt/GDP ratio. I don't know if it's escaped people's notice, but we've been carrying on two extremely expensive military operations for going on 8 years now.

Not really. They're not as expensive as most Farkers assume. Typically Farkers think they've cost trillions and are the top contributor to our current debt. Not so. The Iraq War AND Afghanistan War have cost a total of roughly $875 billion. (I generally don't trust advocacy sites, but this site does have pretty accurate numbers. http://www.costofwar.com/). If you were to include the two wars as part of the budget, it would cost us roughly ~5% or so. It pales in comparison to normal budget expenses like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Net Interest on the Debt, Defense spending, and Unemployment/welfare.

The national debt increased from $5.6 trillion to $10.7 trillion over Bush's presidency. Lets assume we never fought those two wars. Then the debt would be ~$0.8 smaller by the end of Bush's term. Or in other words, many other things are contributing to the debt faster than the wars (That's assuming we wouldn't have had any extra debt spending had there been no war spending, an argument I don't buy for one second).

rohar: The total cost of 7 years of folly in Iraq/Afghanistan is about the same as 2 years of Medicare and Medicaid.

It's much closer to to 1 year of Medicare and Medicaid, not 2 years. You're right that with the cost increasing, it's going to get worse.

Obama's budget projections (these are his rosy projections, not the CBO or GAO), that by 2016 the debt will rise to $20 trillion, with a debt to GDP ratio of about 100%.

rohar: While ending our drunken brawl in the middle east would be a good start, in another year the cost of Medicare/Medicaid will increase enough that the savings from the war won't matter much.

Very much so. I sometimes wonder why people spend so much time whaargarbling about this and that expenditure when there is a huge white elephant in the room. Regardless of individual Farkers' politics, the one thing we can ALL agree on is that the feasibility of this nation going bankrupt. The sheer size and better health of the Boomer generation (and the entitlements they were promised) is a major cause for concern. My belief is that the Boomers will get paid, and the rest of us will suffer.

Stay Cool Babylon: My belief is that the Boomers will get paid, and the rest of us will suffer.


Because all of them vote.

JacksBlack: Yeah. There's a reason Burr shot that son of a biatch.

Perhaps you should consider reading an actual book about Hamilton's accomplishments before emitting your sophomoric wiseassery.

NewportBarGuy: Since then, the nation has only been free of debt once, in 1834-1835.

You're welcome.

Jackson was an UTTER economic disaster as a president. His insane policies created the panics of 1836 and 1837. This was the result of his Bush-like politics of cronies and dumb ideology.

Sheesh. My vagina finds this to be a sand-intensive environment. Well, it would if I had one.

HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Without question, Jefferson has to be one of THE most over-rated U.S. presidents.

bronyaur1: HappyDaddy: If one were to magically erase the historical impact of Jefferson and Hamilton, Hamilton's would be by far the most missed. In fact, Jefferson's only significant contribution was the Louisiana Purchase.

Without question, Jefferson has to be one of THE most over-rated U.S. presidents.

Also, if you're talking about debt, Jefferson was notorious for being unable to manage his finances, constantly borrowing money and staying just one step ahead of his creditors, and was still deeply in debt by the time he died.

As a percentage of GDP, our debt is beginning to be excessive, but it's not there yet. People see "11 trillion dollars" and they freak out, but that's really not so bad considering the size of our economy.

hetheeme: Oh wait you're not, you actually think that the best way to solve a problem is to hand complete, total, and unquestioned power over to a small group of unaccountable power brokers who never have to report to anyone and act strictly in their own interest.

Well, it worked for the Constitutional Convention.

Personally, I wish we'd gone whole hog and set up a true central bank, rather than the asshattery that is the Federal Reserve system, but that's just me.

You really don't have a grasp at how bad the economic situation in the late 19th century was, do you? Read up on the Panic of 1893 and get back to me about how great an uncontrolled market economy is.

NobleHam: As a percentage of GDP, our debt is beginning to be excessive, but it's not there yet. People see "11 trillion dollars" and they freak out, but that's really not so bad considering the size of our economy.

Well, yeah true.
Our economy is flourishing, the job market is fantastic and the stock market is through the roof.

I say more debt is better. Probably another 800 billion dollar stimulus bill would be perfect.

So you think you're smarter than Hamilton? Do you even know why he said that?

He wanted a debt so that the rich folks who loaned us the money would have a stake in the very new and unprecedented government. So they wouldn't try to overthrow it. He was smart as hell.

/My favorite Founding Father, the crafty SOB.

Call me when we are at 120%.
I'd rather make sure the engine is running.

Hamilton was a genius.
The debt consolidated the states' own under the Fed...and all that implies.

/The original nation builder.

Is there a difference between spending money on infrastructure that goes back into the internal economy? Also you get improved roads, ect.

As compared to 'spreading democracy' by spending $10,000 on an Iraqi and pouring money down corrupt 'no-bid' contractors bank accounts.

I didn't hear teabaggers asses biatching and whining about the debt when it was going outside the circle of the U.S. economy and killing people. But when it is spent on constructive infrastructure, like OMG.

/After the economy clicks back up a peg, we will have to pay for it and practice financial discpline.

rogue49: Call me when we are at 120%.

We are well past that if you only count the "Goods production" aspect of the GDP. Our consumption makes up most of the GDP numbers.

It is wildly accepted that the government statistics are horribly manipulated

HairBolus: One political goal of Reagan and the Bush's was to increase the national debt so much so that there would be no money to pay for programs like Social Security. That way they could say that if even if they wanted to pay for some social program there was just not the money available.


from zfacts.

The problem with that conspiracy theory is that the Clinton Administration orignally forecasted budget deficits through the year 2000 until the GOP gained control of the Huse of Representatives in the 1994 elections. Need I remind of the budget fights between CLinton and the House of Reps with Clinton wanting to spend more?

Under the Reagan Years the Democrats controlled the House for both his terms and the Senate of them. That very same Congress passed a larger budget than what was then asked for in every fiscal year except 1985.

You might as well blame the likes of Tip O'Neil and Jim Wright for spending to much as Bush and Reagan. There is an old saying that goes "The President proposes Congress Disposes.

NeauxFear: Funny story about Hamilton during the American revolution:

He was very handsome and quite wealthy, and he was also known in social circles for his promiscuity. So much so that Martha Washington (visiting George in camp one Christmas) noticed a tomcat that would try to screw anything that moved. She named him "Alex," not thinking it fair that such a cat should be named Tom (as in Jefferson), and the name stuck with the soldiers for the rest of the winter until they moved and left the tom behind.

There's a black cat joke in there somewhere, I just know it.

rogue49: The debt consolidated the states' own under the Fed...and all that implies.

No, it didn't. The Fed didn't exist until the 19-teens.

I'm a big fan of Hamilton, along with Madison and Jay, his fellow writers on the Federalist Papers.

I think the collective Federalist Papers are one of the more important books in American political history. It is a blueprint to a damn good democratic society.

Also, the whole thing with Hamilton wanting a king is a bit off. He was a big supporter of a powerful federal government that would take the trump over the state governments.

It was a thought process that, at the time, seemed extreme. Our government system now, post-Civil War, is actually more Hamiltonian than anything.

The guy was smart. His battlefield knowledge was impressive too. His commanding during the Battle of Yorktown helped Washington secure a victory.

And, hey, he has one of the more badass war portraits from the Revolution.

Given that at the time the U.S. was a fledgling nation could Hamilton not be speaking to the fact that credit given to the U.S. from other nations was a sign of support and legitimacy?

Not to mention the article fails to mention how going into the red in 1790 was a result of the ratification of the constitution and without the assumption of state war debts by the federal government the states would have not joined the union in the first place.

Article full of fail.

Darth_Lukecash: Jefferson

Jefferson died millions of dollars in debt ... and no not millions accounting for inflation - actual millions in 1826 money.

Funny you'd mention both Jefferson and Adams in one breath on July 4th though ... they both died on July 4th, 1826.

/random facts
//i is fulls of them