http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009630

thought it was interesting.

2/6/2007 3:31:33 PM

We're gonna need more that that. Just posting a link and saying "this is interesting" doesn't fly.

2/6/2007 3:32:16 PM

im having a hard time working up the motivation to click that link.

2/6/2007 3:57:56 PM

how does this figure into the national debt?

2/6/2007 4:00:28 PM

Quote :

"The news Mr. Conrad won't broadcast is that over the past three years the federal deficit has shrunk by 58%. The Congressional Budget Office--not the White House--is estimating that the current year's deficit (for fiscal 2007) will fall to $172 billion."

WOW. We deserve a pat on the back!

2/6/2007 4:03:21 PM

It is an interesting article worthy of debate, but we're going to need some prompt as to what direction you want this debate to go. Otherwise, we'll be talking about Red Zionist-Mormon Eskimo cabals quietly plotting the rise of the North American Union by the end of this page...

2/6/2007 4:04:51 PM

people, mostly on the liberal side, have been arguing for years about the deficit getting worse and worse. if these numbers are correct, then the Bush years have been positive toward the deficit... i'm curious what those that have been bashing the administration about it have to say to these numbers

2/6/2007 4:21:11 PM

the national debt and the federal debt are different though. the national debt is the one that is still growing and i have a feeling that the federal deficit only feeds into it.

2/6/2007 4:24:05 PM

"What the hell did you just say?"

2/6/2007 5:26:13 PM

For the life of me I'll never understand what's so complicated about keeping the terms "deficit" and "debt" properly segregated.

2/6/2007 5:48:01 PM

What blog did you find this on?

2/6/2007 5:53:48 PM

fark.com pinky

2/6/2007 7:39:43 PM

Quote :

"people, mostly on the liberal side, have been arguing for years about the deficit getting worse and worse. if these numbers are correct, then the Bush years have been positive toward the deficit... i'm curious what those that have been bashing the administration about it have to say to these numbers "

I hope you don't literally mean "positive"

2/6/2007 9:13:43 PM

LOL, you use fark.com.

SomethingAwful, all the way. And then some.

2/6/2007 9:21:36 PM

2/6/2007 9:24:16 PM

^FTW

2/7/2007 12:20:00 AM

Easiest way to think of it: The national debt is simply the accumulation of past budget deficits.

Quote :

"the national debt and the federal debt are different though. the national debt is the one that is still growing and i have a feeling that the federal deficit only feeds into it."

SkankinMonky

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What nation do you think the US federal government represents concerning budget and debt management? Could you be confusing the terms at issue with gross domestic product and gross national product?

2/7/2007 1:24:02 PM

Ok, so essentially Bush is balancing the current budget but not doing anything to pay off the national debt by making the budget have a surplus?

I don't understand why Bush's (coming close to) balancing the budget after tripling the national debt is a big deal other than the fact that it might finally show some fiscal restraint, though it's at the expense of domestic projects while the military gets more funding.

2/7/2007 1:35:53 PM

tripling the national debt? and you got that from where? Countries been in debt for over 40 years. But like dennis miller says," who do we owe that to? Other countries? If so, fuck em. Dont pay them, they dont pay us back either. "

2/7/2007 4:16:53 PM

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

In 98 the debt was 3.7 tril and falling. now it's 8.7. not quite tripling, but more than doubling.

2/7/2007 4:26:27 PM

I could have sworn that Bush came into power in 2000.

Also, there's that whole inflation thing that you have to account for.

2/7/2007 4:32:00 PM

So you're saying that the fact that paying off the national debt interest which climbed to $243.7 billion (+13.4%) last year is not significant enough to try to eliminate?

ie. Why not try to tackle the national debt so we can spend money on things other than the debt's interest?

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 4:52 PM. Reason : clarification]

2/7/2007 4:41:22 PM

ummmm, where did I say that?

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ps that sentence makes no sense]

2/7/2007 4:48:03 PM

You seemed to be defending massive debt spending based on inflation.

2/7/2007 4:50:50 PM

No, I was saying that 1998 dollars are not the same as 2006 dollars, so the national debt hasn't come anywhere close to tripling under Bush.

If you want to talk about money over different time periods, you have to adjust for inflation. They should have taught you that in middle school.

As far as deficit spending goes, I don't condone it, but it happens. Almost every government does it, but as long as you keep it to a manageable level, it doesn't become too much of a drag on the economy. Right now our deficit is a tiny fraction of our GDP.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2007 4:54:30 PM

Then let's talk about it by the percent of GDP.

Under Bush's first term the national debt grew over 8% to 67.5% of the GDP. It's projected to rise another 2% by the time his term is over. Under Clinton the percentage dropped by 9%.

2/7/2007 4:59:09 PM

dude, bush didnt triple the national debt, dont try to make some facts spin to your favor. Did he increase it? sure, wars will do that.

2/7/2007 5:07:03 PM

^^Under Clinton we experienced our greatest economic boom in our nation's history. Does Clinton deserve credit for that? Well, he deserves credit for not fucking it up.

But it's not like his economic policies created the tech boom that skyrocketed revenues and allowed the budget to be balanced.

Spending is up under Bush, and thats unfortunate. I blame a lot of that on a pork-laden congress as well. But revenues are up as well, which contrasts with democrats cries about the negative effects of tax cuts on the wealthy.

2/7/2007 5:13:33 PM

^^ you are an idiot.
grew over 8%

^im not sure about the level of revenue, but i am more than willing to continue saying that bush's tax cuts have been a horrible idea.

2/7/2007 6:19:28 PM

Of course you are. Despite evidence that the tax cuts have benefited the economy without significantly cutting into short-term revenues. When judging over a longer scale, it could be argued that the tax cuts have actually increased revenue.

2/7/2007 6:45:36 PM

I agree, the tax cuts helped our economy recover quickly after 9/11. I believe we saw the biggest growths during these times. However, I dont claim bush and im a republican. But tax cuts are a good thing, but you typically dont want a war going at the same time.

2/7/2007 10:38:19 PM

i dont feel like reading the article...somebody read the article and give me their own biased opinion of that already-biased article, so i can make up my own mind based on my bias against you

2/7/2007 10:42:46 PM

2/7/2007 10:44:48 PM

just concisely explaining typical tsb protocol

2/7/2007 10:46:39 PM

^x5 The United States is a free market economy, which means the price of each item or service is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. No president controls such an economy; however, the president sets fiscal policy--and the president can have an effect on the economy through words, action or inaction, and so on. In addition, the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy, which also has an effect on the economy but does not control it. And, of course, there are many sociopolitical and geopolitical factors that affect a given budget deficit and consequently the national debt.

BTW, if my numbers are correct, the real GDP for the United States in 2006 was about $13 trillion. As you can see, we can easily service our debt.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 11:34 PM. Reason : x5 BTW, the Republicans DO have a spending problem.]

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 11:33:05 PM