Cynical Nation

Well, he does have pretty awesome hair. :-)

In all seriousness, I don't know that he really expects to win. It does seem like he wants to spark a movement. And it's interesting, because I know a lot of people who think that he's all image and no substance, and I think a lot of it has to do with his former profession. I would like to see him (or anyone) really try to wipe out poverty.

A war on poverty!
oh yeah... we did that.
Looking at this photo, I am reminded of Dukakis in the tank. Has "The Breck Girl" already achieved self parody?

I know why he's running -- so guys like you all can make crude jokes and feel better about your penis size.

But in all seriousness, would you care to enlighten me as to the long and amazingly successful career of George W. Bush, and how that qualified him to be president? A C student, deserter from the Texas Air National Guard, an admission to Yale as a legacy, a bunch of failed businesses and drilled dry holes bailed out by GHWB's buddies in exchange for access to the old man, oil interests in Bahrain protected by the old man in Gulf War I, and the weakest governorship in the nation. And you worship THAT guy?

Why do Libs think anyone who doesn't revile Bush as they do, "worships" him.

I never understood that kind of naivete on their parts.

Barry and Paul would probably want an even more Libertarian President, while I'd like an even more Conservative one.

But in all seriousness, the real funny thing from my vantage is that all you Liberals, well, y'all are in fah a pretty big soo-prise come January 20th, when it becomes official that more than 20% of the Dems in Congress will be "Blue Dogs"...and they're demanding change from within that Party.

Their slogan is, "There is no majority without US."

Looks like a case of Moore and Franken OUT Pence and Bayh IN.

I can see a time coming...and not far off, when people like myself will actually wonder, "Hmmmm, which Party is going to put up the most Conservative candidate?"

I'm richly looking forward to that Jill, almost as much as I look forward to today's Libs turning to the Workers World Party or some other such group, to throw their support.

> Why do Libs think anyone who doesn't revile Bush as they do, "worships" him.

I've always been mystified about that one myself. The most I ever said about GWB was that I preferred him to John Kerry. Trust me, there's a lot of room between that and "worship." ;-)

"Why do Libs think anyone who doesn't revile Bush as they do, "worships" him." (JMK)
"I've always been mystified about that one myself. The most I ever said about GWB was that I preferred him to John Kerry. Trust me, there's a lot of room between that and "worship." ;-)"

There sure is.

Hell, I can probably stomach this guy, even more than you can and he's still disappointed me greatly on the border, on reining in non-discretionary, non-defense spending and even in not clarifying who our real enemy in this WoT is - Sharia-based Islam, not the non-existent "radical Islam."

I could personally think of a dozen guys who'd be more consistently Conservative and thus better for the country than this guy.

Of course, he's infinitely better than any Liberal...at least in my view.

I like GWB. I don't "worship" him, but I like him.

On the down side, I agree with JMK that he could have done a lot more to contain spending. And, as I have said before, I think the Iraq war (March - May, 2003) and subsequent counter-insurgency were wholly avoidable mistakes.

Of course, my biggest concern is that it now looks like the number of (U.S.) active duty military deaths under Bush will exceed Clinton's 7500 by at least 50%. Hopefully that grim tally will ultimately buy some peace and security.

"I like GWB. I don't "worship" him, but I like him."

it's nice to hear that once and a while.

ps: how is the iraq war a failure when it has been independent for only a year?

Bush,I or II, was/is a twit, but either is infinitely better than that brain-dead pile of human waste that occupies John Kerry's shoes. I wonder why Theresa doesn't insist on his being called Mr Heinz, like he's her bitch. Which he is.

Bush,I or II, was/is a twit, but either is infinitely better than that brain-dead pile of human waste that occupies John Kerry's shoes. I wonder why Theresa doesn't insist on his being called Mr Heinz, like he's her bitch. Which he is.

"Doesn't matter. Let me be the first to say that the guy doesn't stand a chance. "

Hey Barry. I am not sure that you are qualified to make a statement like that...Should I remind you that in 2004 you voted for someone who is now officially the worst president in the history of the United States? Should I remind you that you "officially" regretted your vote for Bush in 2004? If you voted for someone like Bus, what makes you think that your judgement in presidential elections is good? :)

You obviously underestimate John Edwards big time. And so did many in the past. I think he is a highly intelligent ex-senator with good understanding of local and global issues and a very charismatic candidate. Assuming that the next president will be a democrat (after 8 years of continuous disaster), John Edwards has a great chance to be the next president. All he needs to do is beat Hillary and Obama. And that is very possible.

"Should I remind you that you "officially" regretted your vote for Bush in 2004?" (BW)
"The most I ever said about GWB was that I preferred him to John Kerry." (BNJ)
(BNJ)


Given those two choices Bush/Kerry it seems BNJ made a choice he could live with BW.

He's never said that he wished he voted for Kerry, did he?

For my money it's good to see you supporting someone like Edwards instead of a schnook like Kucinich.

Now I'll be interested to see John Edwards (the quintessential "rich white guy") build that "bridge to the other America."

I want to see those construction plans.

So long as it maintains the current tax cuts that have halved the deficit over the past few years and rendered an economy wit low (2.2%) inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment (4.5%), rising personal income, excellent GDP growth and a DOW that topped 12,000, I'll probably support it!

I'm telling you right now, freeze the above numbers, should ANY Democratic plan deliver less, they're officially a failure for having "delivered an economy much worse than the one G W Bush delivered."

Believe me, they're gonna be called on that...early and often.

So, good luck with that.

Rachel: "ps: how is the iraq war a failure when it has been independent for only a year?"

I didn't say it was a failure, I said it was a mistake.

Parts of Iraq are certainly dangerous places for civilian and soldier alike but, to date, I can't see a single instance of the so-called "insurgents" achieving any meaningful objectives.

Any murderous thug can blow up a car bomb in a crowded market place. I'll be impressed when the armed opposition actually pushes a U.S. military unit off of a disputed location.

"Given those two choices Bush/Kerry it seems BNJ made a choice he could live with BW.

I dont know about that. All I know is that Barry has "officially" regretted his vote for Bush in 2004. He posted that a few months ago and the statement was clear and convincing. Anyway, happy new year to all!

"All I know is that Barry has "officially" regretted his vote for Bush in 2004. He posted that a few months ago and the statement was clear and convincing." (BW)
"The most I ever said about GWB was that I preferred him to John Kerry." (BNJ)
(BNJ)


Barry can certainly speak for himself, but the above statement of his, made TODAY, seems to indicate that despite his many frustrations with G W, in the paltry choice between Bush/Kerry and/or Bush/Gore, Bush seemed preferable.

The problem I see you're having is that you take Conservative and Libertarian disappointments with Bush and assume that means such people SHOULD naturally see that the better option is a Liberal one.

Where you fall down, is in failing to make that case.

For instance, as a Conservative, I'm deeply disappointed with Bush on the border issue, but I can't turn to the Left - they're for open borders!

Same with Libertarians, they're disheartened at all the over-spending (so am I), but once again, the answer isn't on the Left, those guys want to spend even more!

Can you see where you're failing is now?

I mean if you could point to a better solution (an open border "solution" to immigration that worked), or better still a Democratic "Closed Door" policy on immigration, that would be something, but naively thinking that since Conservatives have been disappointed by a guy who hasn't always been Conservative, that they're going to consider voting Liberal...well that's beyond naive.

Plain and simple, most Conservatives want someone even more Conservative than G W Bush.

>Should I remind you that you "officially" regretted your vote for Bush in 2004?

I did indeed, Blue. But one thing I don't regret is my vote against John Kerry. ;-)

As a general rule, I vote for the Libertarian Party in most elections. I regret not doing so in 2004.

BTW, welcome back. :-)

> .Should I remind you that in 2004 you voted for someone who is now officially the worst president in the history of the United States?

Who told you I wrote in James Buchanan?

BTW, regarding my qualifications for judging Edwards' chances... I do know a thing or two about the guy. He's from my home state and was frequently in the local news. He was also my senator for 5 years, and a certain member of my family whom I'll decline to name is a senior policy advisor for the Edwards campaign.

Moreover, I fail to see how voting for the winning candidate in 2004 is a knock against my prognosticative abilities. :-)

"Who told you I wrote in James Buchanan?"

Good try, but Buchanan WAS the worst president in history. Now the worst one IS George W. Bush.

"Moreover, I fail to see how voting for the winning candidate in 2004 is a knock against my prognosticative abilities. :-)

No comment on this one. Think it over again :)

You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.

In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best.

I've outlined the economy above, BUT better still is our engaging ourselves FINALLY, in this war against Sharia-based Islam, a war that had been ignored, while being waged relentlessly against us since at least 1993!

Who'd dare say, at this point, "This war on terrorism is a crock?!"

Sub-Saharan Africa is under assault by the forces of Sharia-based Islam as we speak. Large tracts of Europe are in danger of falling under Muslim rule.

There's no way for Medieval Sharia-based Islam to peacefully co-exist with what it sees as "the decadent and immoral West."

Anyone who thinks we can/should forge some sort of peace with global Islam NEEDS to see perhaps the best documentary available http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/ it's not perfect and it's not the complete story (the reality is even worse) but for anyone who thinks "the WoT is a crock" it'd be an eye-opener.

So, forging a great economy out of the post Tech Bubble, post 9/11 chaos and finally engaging America in a war it should've engaged in at least TEN YEARS EARLIER are two GREAT THINGS the current administration's done.

Sure, its failure on the border and its failure to rein in some pretty excessive spending are problems, but they pale in comparison to the debacles that LBJ, and Carter (to name just two) wreaked upon the American people.

Back at the beginning of this thread I asked if "The Breck Girl" had already become a self parody. Notice how all attempts to discuss him here lead inevitably to talk about GWB? I guess that answers my question.

You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.

In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best. - JMK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is:
$ 8,597,657,117,201.24

The Gross National Debt

Yeah that economy is swimming along. You and I must define "Best" very differently.

There is one thing Bush is definately not and that's fiscally conservative. That MBA hasn't helped him run the country like a business, unless he's following the model he used during his baseball years. The only business that could produce the kinds of revenues needed to offset his spending is one where the business is printing money...good thing he's in government.

>The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Jan 2007 at 04:38:06 PM GMT is:
$ 8,597,657,117,201.24

Damn, if you divide that by every man, woman and child in the U.S., you get... a shitload.

Yeah, and since the population of the US is supposed to be 300,616,477 that translates into $28,600 per person. And it climbs an average of about 3 bucks a day per person – which translates to an average of $957 million added each day since September 29th 2006.

And remember that’s per person – your average family of four’s share of the debt is $114,400.

This is the worst thing this president’s done IMO. Whether you want to credit Clinton, the republican congress of the 90’s or both they were able to reign in the debt over a decade. This president has brought us back to square one and left a legacy that amounts to an inevitable tax hike at some point in the future just to pay the bill for today’s excesses.

> This is the worst thing this president’s done IMO. Whether you want to credit Clinton, the republican congress of the 90’s or both they were able to reign in the debt over a decade.

Agreed. Even if the surplus of the 90's was only made possible by including the SS trust fund, it's far superior to what we have now.

The annualk cost of our current debt burden is less than 5% of GDP per year.

In fact every anti-debt poster is advancing Supply Side economics - it's Keynesians who laud debt as "paying back for spending today with tomorrow's cheaper dollars", while Supply Siders are the ones, like Gingrich who support tax cuts, government spending cuts and "growing our way out of the debt."

In fact, our current total debt burden is about 60% of GDP (too high), but far less than our debt burden directly after WW II which stood at 120%

SEE:

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/01/national_debt_b.html

As I said whether you want to lay the success of the 90’s at Clinton’s feet or the feet of the republican congress (led by Gingrich) or a combination of the two is irrelevant. What is relevant is that what they stood for is not what Mr. Bush stands for.

Citing the debt after WWII doesn’t change the reality we’re in today, and frankly it’s a distraction from the real point here. There’s a reason the debt burden was so high after WWII, we were in a war that consumed vast amounts of our resources. It wasn’t like Iraq, I don’t see food being rationed, or gas, etc.

The reason the ratio is so out of whack is that we’ve had tax cuts coupled with almost unrestricted spending. That’s the simple truth, you don’t need to be a Keynesian to understand that.

Let’s remember what prompted my comment. You claimed that using our current economy as a yardstick Mr. Bush stacks “right up there among the best” in terms of American presidents.

I dispute that and the primary reason I do is the debt. He came into office with a surplus, now we’re at over $ 8 ½ TRILLION and rising by almost $ 1 BILLION a day. Your response is to cite Gingrich and our economy following the largest and costliest war this planet has ever seen. Newt Gingrich is not George W. Bush. Why don’t you explain how Mr. Bush’s reckless spending and lack of a veto pen makes him in anyway similar to Newt. There’s not a fiscally responsible bone in the president’s body. If the nation was truly a house it would have been foreclosed on and we’d all have been evicted. Who knows something akin to that might happen if the foreign investors that hold so much of our debt ever decide it’s time to devalue the dollar.

Wars cause debt.

If tax increases could increase revenues somehow, that would then be one possible solution...in fact, it would be a solution worthy of the Nobel Prize in Economics as it would turn modern economics on its head.

The last non-Supply Sider to win the Nobel Prize in economics might have been J M Keynes himself (I'm actually not sure).

Today's Supply Siders claim that it's now intuitive to see tax cuts as "revenue enhancing vehicles" (at least down to about the 20th percentile using the income tax).

For instance, the recent Capital Gains tax cuts saw an increase in actual revenues from Cap Gains sources.

I claim that it's now counter-intutiveTHE primary, in fact, in your above assertion the ONLY economic indicator does indeed change things, for by doing that one of the most inept and very possibly subversive Presidents in American history, Jimmy Carter (Zbignew Brezinski was an out-and-out "One Worlder") looks like an economic champ - with very low national debt.

Unfortunately, and I lived through those years, that economy was wracked with incredibly high unemployment, sky-high interest rates and high inflation, a trifecta called "Stagflation!" That was the actual economy delivered to the people of America.

But your argument would say, "Those things are not all that important, the most important thing is that we had a lot less national debt under Carter, so it was a great economy."

I disagree, because in my view, the ONLY relevant economic indicators are inflation, interest rates, unemployment, personal income, GDP growth, things like that.

Your view that "If the nation was truly a house it would have been foreclosed on and we’d all have been evicted," is wrong considering that the current cost to finance the national debt is still about 5% of annual GDP, which compares to a family owing only 5% of their total net (after tax) income in debt.

That's actually really, really good...and not close to being foreclosed on or facing insolvency.

I dare say, my wife and I have a debt that stands at appx 3X our combined annual income (mortgage and car notes, no other consumer debt) and we've had no problems making the payments on that debt, which stand at nearly half our annual net income.

We're actually expecting to pay that mortgage off early!

With our incomes we could probably be able to take on even more debt, certainly we're approved for much more, but we pay off our consumer spending as we go and there's nothing else we'd need to borrow for at this point.

So, our household has a debt burden of about 300% of our annual income (GDP) and an annual cost of a little over 50% of our annual net income (GDP) leaving us almost 50% of our annual income for "other" non-debt expenses.

By comparison the U.S. government's total debt is merely 60% of its GDP and its debt servicing costs are less than 5% of GDP...If the U.S> national debt at 60% of GDP/net income and 5% annual servicing costs is worthy of foreclosure and eviction, I can only gasp at what you'd consider my wife and I's debt burden to be!!!

You know, since I never really looked at it this way, I have to admit that by your standard of judgment, I'm a far more reckless spender than G W Bush has been.

Well, then it's no wonder I kind of like the guy.

P.S. If the tax cuts have halved the debt over the last few years, isn't it logical to assume that they'll continue to reduce the debt over the coming two?

WoW! I lost some of that post and apparently the bold break as well...anway, "I claim that it's now counter-intutive..."

Should have been "I claim it's counter-intuitive to believe that tax increases can actually increase revenues."

JMK – Where do we begin…?

First off I never said that inflation, interest rates and unemployment are not “all that important”. You have a tendency to get carried away with yourself and put words in other people’s mouths, you really should try to avoid that.

I never said Carter had a glorious economy, or that he was an effective leader for that matter, I think he’s well-intentioned, but that isn’t really enough to be a good president. But again this isn’t about Carter, it’s about Bush.

“Surely we agree that the debt has been halved over the last few years and almost certainly due to those tax cuts enacted by the current administration.” – JMK
Actually what the president has said is that “we have now achieved our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half." I think you’re confusing the deficit with the debt, much as the president does, but hey you said yourself that you and him are similar – must be why you like the guy right?

The deficit is the annual increase to the debt, so if you halve the deficit (which is a step in the right direction) you are not reducing the debt, you are in fact still increasing the debt, just at a slower rate. And it’s not even clear if the reduction to the deficit has anything to do with Bush at all. We just came out of a mild recession, historically speaking the deficit generally increases as we enter a recession and decreases when we come out of one. You might want to argue that the president’s economic plan is the reason we came out of the recession, however that’s still a dubious claim at best.

“I dare say, my wife and I have a debt that stands at appx 3X our combined annual income (mortgage and car notes, no other consumer debt) and we've had no problems making the payments on that debt, which stand at nearly half our annual net income.
We're actually expecting to pay that mortgage off early!” – JMK

Here’s the problem with your analogy. You’re thinking of it in the wrong way. Let’s throw some imaginary numbers at your example. Let’s say you’ve got two car payments of $500 each, and a $1,500 mortgage. That’s $2,500/month in expenses or $30,000/year. Let’s say it’s nearly half your annual income (I’m assuming net income to make it easier) so let’s say you’ve got $65,000/year net income using these numbers. If your debt is 300% of that then it’s roughly $195,000.
So you’ve got $35,000 to play with, let’s imagine that of that 35k you spend another 25k between living expenses and entertainment. That leaves you with a surplus of $10,000 each year.

Let’s imagine another scenario. You still have the $35,000 to begin with but instead of spending 25k on living expenses and entertainment you instead spend 65k. That leaves you with a deficit of $40,000 and you’d be borrowing that amount in the same vein as the federal government. You can’t run with that kind of deficit indefinitely. Because now you’re adding to your overall debt instead of paying it down. If you don’t reduce your spending to below your income then you will never pay that debt down because every year that you borrow more it becomes more difficult, and in the real world you’d eventually be cut off.

See the real problem with your analogy is where you choose to focus. You should be comparing your household budget to the government’s budget. I’m assuming you operate with a budget surplus, or at least break even, the government consistently operates with a deficit. You should be focusing on that aspect in order to construct a reasonable analogy. Even if you defaulted on your loan you’d still have equity, and that plays into this too – but I really don’t want to get into complex modeling. It’s a deceptively simplistic model which really draws the focus away from the real issue – the deficit.

Simply put you could not run your household budget indefinitely with a deficit each year, eventually you would have to start having a surplus in order to rein it in. The problem isn’t that the government has debt, the problem is the rate at which it’s accumulating. If it is not brought under control then in the future it will become increasingly difficult to pay off.
“You know, since I never really looked at it this way, I have to admit that by your standard of judgment, I'm a far more reckless spender than G W Bush has been.” – JMK
If you really understood my standard of judgement you’d realize what a foolish statement that is. Hopefully that’s becoming clearer to you now.
“P.S. If the tax cuts have halved the debt over the last few years, isn't it logical to assume that they'll continue to reduce the debt over the coming two?” – JMK
P.S. – You’ve confused halving the deficit with halving the debt twice now, so it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the difference between the two. In any event I already addressed why the DEFICIT has decreased, it’s the natural result of an economy exiting a recession. The debt however has Risen from $5.67 Trillion in September 2000 to $8.59 Trillion effective December 2006.
Year over year it’s increased as shown below:
$133.3 Billion in 2001
$420.8 Billion in 2002
$555.0 Billion in 2003
$595.8 Billion in 2004
$553.7 Billion in 2005
$574.3 Billion in 2006
So when you ask me if it’s logical to assume that the debt will go down, I ask if you if it’s logical to assume that your mortgage is for a house in bizarre world?

Actually GZ, you made the comment that you disagreed with this being a great economy (despite the great inflation, unemployment, interest rates, GDP growth, rising personal income numbers, etc), saying, "I dispute that and the primary reason I do is the debt."

That statement discounts all the other economic indicators and puts one (the national debt) that isn't actually preeminent into a preeminent position.

Be that is it may, the total U.S. national debt now stands at appx 60% of GDP (see linked chart above), the annual cost of servicing that debt is far less (I believe less than 5% of GDP).

That IS equivalent to my wife and I carrying (as an example) say $600,000 in debt, with a combined net ("after tax") income of say, $150,000/year.

The total debt is going to be huge as a portion of our annual income/yearly GDP (for government)...in the instance above 4X or 400% of annual income or government's yearly GDP, but the annual cost of financing (paying back) that debt is going to be much less, in our case roughly 50% of annual income or a government's yearly GDP.

I'm figuring you looked over that debt chart I posted the link to above (great stuff)...the thought that the debt will overwhelm the U.S. budget, as our GDP won't grow anywhere near large enough to service it is claiming that "Economic growth does not reduce the debt burden," when in fact, of course it does.

You're analogy is like your looking at the total $600K my wife and I owe and claiming "Your combined annual income won't possible service that debt," when in fact, the debt servicing for that amount comes to only 50% of our combined annual income.

GZ, you can't seriously decry "deficit spending" when most economists claim that a "certain amount of debt" (deficit spending) is healthy.

There's little difference between a nation's debt and annual debt servicing costs and a household's debt and its cost of annual debt servicing in terms of the debt to income or debt to GDP ratio.

Beyond that, there is almost to relationship as the federal government can print money, offer more government backed bonds, etc.

In fact the bulk of the national debt is money the government, in effect, owes to itself, much of the rest is interest due on all those past government bonds.

According to the chart I linked to above, our national debt is about 60% of GDP and the annual cost of servicing that debt is much smaller.

I think most American households carry much MORE of a debt burden, NOT merely 60% of annual income/GDP, but like my wife & I, closer to three or four hundred percent!

I wish I had a total debt burden of merely 60% of our annual net income, with an annual servcing cost of only 5% of our annual net income, that would be GREAT!

Of course, even with a higher level of annual debt servicing costs (appx 50% of annual income/GDP) we do not run on a deficit, we can't, while the government (any government) certainly can. Governments can print more money and/or float more bonds.

As you can see by the above linked chart, we do not even have a national debt larger than many other nations. While France & Germany have near our level of national debt, Canada (80% of GDP), Italy (slightly over 100% of GDP) and Japan (near 160% of GDP) all carry much more significant levels of national debt than we do.

“Actually GZ, you made the comment that you disagreed with this being a great economy (despite the great inflation, unemployment, interest rates, GDP growth, rising personal income numbers, etc), saying, "I dispute that and the primary reason I do is the debt."”
That statement discounts all the other economic indicators and puts one (the national debt) that isn't actually preeminent into a preeminent position.
- JMK
-
No. That statement merely says that when I view the economy over the long term I see it as unhealthy and the primary reason for that is the debt. In no way does it discount other economic indicators. Why would I cite other indicators when they aren’t in fact indicating anything bad in and of themselves? The fact is that our current prosperity is borrowed against the future, I never claimed we were suffering now.
You can choose to characterize my words and read into them all you want but it does not mean you are correct. In any event I’m telling you that you are wrong so that ought to be enough.

“Be that is it may, the total U.S. national debt now stands at appx 60% of GDP (see linked chart above), the annual cost of servicing that debt is far less (I believe less than 5% of GDP).
That IS equivalent to my wife and I carrying (as an example) say $600,000 in debt, with a combined net ("after tax") income of say, $150,000/year.” – JMK

It is equivalent if after paying out 75k to service that you still have an additional 85k in expenses causing you to run a household deficit of 10k – bumping up your overall debt instead of paying it down. That’s why your analogy is flawed, because as I already said you aren’t comparing your household deficit/surplus on an annual basis and how it relates to your overall debt and long term plan to finance that debt to the same process on the national level.

“I'm figuring you looked over that debt chart I posted the link to above (great stuff)...the thought that the debt will overwhelm the U.S. budget, as our GDP won't grow anywhere near large enough to service it is claiming that "Economic growth does not reduce the debt burden," when in fact, of course it does.” – JMK

And in so figuring you would again be wrong. You chart as wonderful as it may be was nothing new to me. I’m no novice to these concepts, and I’m not sure why you’re attributing yet another saying to me “this time in quotes and bold faced text” when once again I never said it. Of course economic growth reduces the debt burden, however that’s not the only factor involved by any means, and in any event economic growth will not offset increased spending if the two curves remain roughly the same. If spending remains static then yes economic growth could turn an annual deficit into an annual surplus on paper, thereby drawing down the overall debt, but that’s not an accurate model of the current economy. The current economy has an annual deficit of roughly ½ trillion dollars each year for the past 4 years. The relationship between growth and spending seems to have remained somewhat static in the red.

Two responses…I guess you must have spent the hour and a half between them researching finance on the web…this ought to be good 

“GZ, you can't seriously decry "deficit spending" when most economists claim that a "certain amount of debt" (deficit spending) is healthy.” – JMK

Yes I seriously can. A certain amount is certainly ok, however there has to be a plan to eventually pay it back. When you signed the papers for your mortgage you effectively had one year of heavy deficit spending for your household, If you borrowed 500k and your annual household income is 150k you had a 350k deficit that year. In subsequent years you had a surplus as you serviced that debt; until you made another large purchase, an automobile. Once again you financed it and in so doing incurred another deficit. Then in subsequent years you had surpluses. So yes a certain amount of debt is healthy and that is what most economists are referring to.

“As you can see by the above linked chart, we do not even have a national debt larger than many other nations. While France & Germany have near our level of national debt, Canada (80% of GDP), Italy (slightly over 100% of GDP) and Japan (near 160% of GDP) all carry much more significant levels of national debt than we do.” – JMK

So now you are suddenly enamoured by the Canadian economy? The Italian economy? The Japanese economy? I won’t even bother to post links just google Italy, Canada or Japan and debt and you’ll find plenty of reading material.
The Canadians aren’t as bad – they are only slightly worse than us (although it is worth mentioning that their total debt is about equal to our annual deficit – I know we have a much greater GDP but it does bear mentioning).
The Italian economy is notoriously bad, and it’s recently been compared to Enron in terms of it’s financing structure.
Japan has been in trouble for some time and there are serious concerns about how their current situation will effect the rest of the global economy.
Are you seriously justifying our debt by propping them up as examples? Italy and Japan exemplify the worst case scenario of deficit spending gone out of control and provide an example of where we do not want to go.
Next time you ought to spend a bit more time browsing the internet for facts to prop up your position, 1.5 hours didn’t cut it. The good news is I think you understand the difference between deficit and debt now, however you clearly still have a ways to go in applying those concepts, because I know you’re a smart guy and a smart guy wouldn’t justify our debt using Italy and Japan as examples if he really understood what he was saying.

Again, America's national debt today stands at "ONLY" 60% of GDP.

The annual debt service costs for that debt are something like 5% of GDP.

That's equivalent to a couple with a net annual income of $150,000, having a total debt of $90,000 and an annual debt servicing cost of around $8,000!

Yes, the U.S. government's "other expenses" (spending" runs into a deficit each year.

You've made assumptions that I spoke of both the debt and the deficit...I have not.

The annual cost of servicing the debt (which is the only other thing aside from the national debt that I did mention) is NOT the "deficit."

The national debt IS currently 60% of GDP, NOT the deficit.

YOU made a rather inane statement about "if the government was a household it would be in foreclosure and we'd be facing facing eviction," which I pointed out is not at all close to being true.

A debt total of 60% of one's annual income (or GDP) and an annual debt servicing cost of about 5% of GDP (or annual net income) is not an unreasonable amount of debt.

Your analogy was flawed and I merely pointed that out.

And AGAIN, governments ALL governments can run on deficit spending ad nauseum as they can do something that households (well, most households) cannot - print more money and pay back currently used money with cheaper future dollars AND float more government backed bonds.

Wars cause increased deficit spending.

We are right now at the beginning of a war against the global forces of Sharia-based Islam. A war that I believe may well take over 100 years to complete.

Is it possible that this war could, ultimately break the bank?

Yes, I believe it could do that at some point and yet, we have no apparent diplomatic way out of this, nor in my view, should we look toward that false hope.

We "sucked it up" and fought the Cold War and broke the global "Communist Menace," as we earlier on "sucked it up" and broke the "Nazi Menace" before that.

This one may very well be an even tougher and costlier (in every way)mountain to climb.

“You've made assumptions that I spoke of both the debt and the deficit...I have not.” – JMK

I made no such assumption, what I did was point out that you are confused about the difference between the deficit and the debt as can be shown by your quote below:
“P.S. If the tax cuts have halved the debt over the last few years, isn't it logical to assume that they'll continue to reduce the debt over the coming two?” - JMK

Once again the DEBT has not been halved over the past few years, it has grown at a rate of ½ trillion dollars per year for the last four. The deficit has decreased, at least the president has claimed that to be the case and that is clearly what you were referring to and are still confused about. In any event that’s not even true because as I said the deficit has remained pretty constant at ½ trillion over the last four years, prior to that it was smaller.

“The national debt IS currently 60% of GDP, NOT the deficit.” – JMK

And….uh…so…what? Where have I ever claimed otherwise? You are the one who cannot distinguish between the two terms not I my friend.

“YOU made a rather inane statement about "if the government was a household it would be in foreclosure and we'd be facing facing eviction," which I pointed out is not at all close to being true” – JMK

If you want to hear an inane statement just record yourself the next time you speak, however my current favorite and it pretty much started all of this was:
“You're a might confused there BW, the current occupant isn't even close to the worst President since WW II.
In fact, with the current economy (without any smoke and mirrors Tech Bubble), he's got to rank right up there among the best. - JMK”

That is classic, and ballsy..I have to admit you are shameless. GWB right up there among the best. As to my statement, it was more for dramatic effect, but it’s always funny how you ignore all the real points in an argument and instead choose to dig in on something that was obviously an exaggeration. Even so there is truth in my statement, because if the nation were a house and instead of paying down our mortgage we simply spent more than we earned year after year we would eventually be evicted. That’s how it happens, you borrow, borrow borrow until you’re credit is cut off and then you have a problem. Now the nation won’t have it’s credit cutoff, but an individual living in a house would. I don’t see any similar grains of truth in your GWB – among the best ever storyline.

“Your analogy was flawed and I merely pointed that out.” – JMK

Wrong. YOUR analogy is flawed and I pointed it out. You keep repeating your same tired household analogy of a mortgage and car payments as a percentage of your household GDP, which isn’t inaccurate just incomplete. I’ve pointed out that the real problem with your analogy is that you DON’T take into account deficits/surpluses as well. The funny part is that in this last post you pretty much acknowledge the disparity in your analogy here:
“And AGAIN, governments ALL governments can run on deficit spending ad nauseum as they can do something that households (well, most households) cannot - print more money and pay back currently used money with cheaper future dollars AND float more government backed bonds.” - JMK

And your household cannot run on deficit spending ad nauseum can it JMK?
Unless you are in fact printing money.
And while it’s true that a government could go on indefinitely as you say, there is a danger that they will enter a scenario like Italy or Japan (two stellar examples you gave us of success stories in the debt management game last episode – I wonder why you didn’t choose to discus that anymore?)
Would you like to see the dollar drop to where the lire is? I think it’s around 1400 lire to 1 dollar, or the Japanese Yen which is over 100 yen to 1 dollar.

But anyway let’s get to the real point of all this – since you finally have come back to where it always is with you the 100 year war with Sharia-based Islam.

“We are right now at the beginning of a war against the global forces of Sharia-based Islam. A war that I believe may well take over 100 years to complete.
Is it possible that this war could, ultimately break the bank?
Yes, I believe it could do that at some point and yet, we have no apparent diplomatic way out of this, nor in my view, should we look toward that false hope.” – JMK

If your analogy is really correct and complete as you say, then how could we possibly break the bank? And really the way you throw around the term Sharia is somewhat cavalier. If we are going to war with Sharia based Islam then when do the bombs fall on India? After all they are the only country in the world that “has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia.” Make sure those smart bombs don’t land anywhere near our offshore IT facilities and call centers.
And if this is all really about Sharia based Islam why Iraq? They were about the farthest from it in the region.

“We "sucked it up" and fought the Cold War and broke the global "Communist Menace," as we earlier on "sucked it up" and broke the "Nazi Menace" before that.
This one may very well be an even tougher and costlier (in every way)mountain to climb.” – JMK

It may also be an imaginary mountain, or at least not a mountain at all. With both the communists and the Nazis the focus was overthrowing the governments and freeing the people. Now we’re supporting governments (generally speaking) and chasing down insurgents and/or terrorists. It’s a different dynamic and can’t really be compared accurately.

You're using a semantic argument to try and avoid the fact that I proved to you that a debt of 60% of GDP with an annual debt servicing cost of about 5% (a little less actually) is remarkably managable and not even heavier than that of many other nations with even less robust economies than ours.

We agree (I believe) that (1) governments (ALL national governments) can engage in deficit spending because there are so many ways for those governments to deal with that, that is not available to individuals/households, such as printing more money and floating more government backed bonds, etc.

Moreover, I didn't make the invidious government/household comparison, YOU did," (another bit of semantic legerdemain on your part) with, "If the nation was truly a house it would have been foreclosed on and we’d all have been evicted."

And I NOTED that the difference between national governments and individuals/households is that governments can print more money (pay back current debt with cheaper future dollars) and float more government backed bonds.

But that comparison wasn't ONLY invidious, as you acknowledged national government's ability to eradicate debt differently than individuals/households can - but it's also wrong as I showed you by giving you actual debt to income (GDP) scenarios for individuals/households.
To claim my response to that initial invidious comparison of yours was "an invidious comparison," is inane. The response isn't the probelm, I responded to show that your view of what is a dangerous debt burden is wrong. It was the initial comparison that was flawed.

Suffice to say, a debt that is 60% of GDP with an annual servicing cost of about 5% is very managable....far MORE managable than most debt to income ratios the majority of individual Americans carry (who are not facing foreclosure or eviction). People with a debt total that is over 300% of their annual income and with annual debt servicing costs of around 50% or so, are not engaged in reckless, irresponsible spending that necessarily puts them on the brink of foreclosure and eviction, as you initially stated it would, in that comparison.

The debt's 5% of GDP annual servicing cost is reasonable and therefore only a tiny reason for the overall deficit spending the government generates each year.

Your entire initial argument was semantic - you made an invidious comparison (U.S. government budget to a household budget) that was also clearly wrong, as you inferred that the amount of debt was far larger, more reckless than an average household would take on - obviously not so.

Beyond that, you now apparently claim that tax increases RAISE revenues!

That's been proven completely and utterly UNTRUE by Supply Side economics for the past thirty years.

Tax increases are a good tool to slow down boiling private growth and an overheated investor cycle, by taking money out of that cycle, but they DON'T increase government revenues.

"Humans respond to incentives."

Thus investors and higher income workers all defer more of their monies into tax deferred vehicles when taxes are increased (LOWERING government revenues, or intake), just as they invest more freely and take more of their income up front (non-deferred) when tax rates are dropped down (at least down to about the 22% mark) and that increases government revenues because more people are paying taxes on their monies "up front," or non-deferred when tax rates are relatively low.

The idea that the tax cuts the current administration adopted which greatly INCREASED government revenues, was responsible for the increasing debt, seems to erroneously posit that those tax cuts didn't increase revenues, but decreased them and that's not true!

Where would you get that kind of counter-intuitive idea from?

The current administration's tax cuts INCREASED government revenues and halved our deficit spending gap despite an ongoing war effort and a huge domestic security apparatus that still remains ramped up.

Oh, and India, is NOT a Muslim nation.

India is predominantly Hindu, while Pakistan is predominantly Muslim...and we are currently and hopefully will continue to use "half-friendly" Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Kuwait as allies against the most militant Muslim nations.

In short, the current economy with very low inflation (2.2%), very low unemployment (4.5%), low interest rates, rising personal incomes and a rollicking Dow (over 12,000) without an SEC rules engineered "Tech Bubble" is nothing short of incredible.

Those are the indicators all subsequent administrations will be judged on and compared to.

The national debt's 5% of GDP annual servicing costs is very managable and that tiny amount is hardly responsible for the increased deficit spending gap that's added to the debt each year.

Congress's inability to effectively cut spending has been far more of a factor in that.

GZ, you’ve made a number of demonstrably false claims here and I’ve merely pointed them out and, I must add, NEVER ONCE, in a snarky or even condescending manner and for some reason that’s seemed to irk you.

You initially said you disagreed that this was a “great economy” because of a National Debt out of control.

That view DID indeed discount the other economic indicators (inflation, interest rates, GDP growth, unemployment, etc) since you claimed the reckless level of debt overrode those other indicators in assessing the economy, from your view. You indeed said that this was because “If this government were a household, it’d be in foreclosure and we’d all be facing eviction.”

That statement implies that the current U.S. debt, which is what you based your disagreement with me on, was excessive, even for an average household, as THAT’S the comparison YOU made in that statement.

I proved to you that it wasn’t an excessive debt level even for a household, as most American households easily carry far more than 60% of their annual net income in debt, with an annual debt servicing cost of well over the 5% our government has - that level of debt is NOT reckless, nor would it ever lead to “foreclosure and eviction,” as YOU claimed.

In that very post I noted that the difference between governments and individuals/households is that governments have a lot of alternative means to eliminating debt (printing more money, floating more government backed bonds, etc), making that government to household comparison invidious.

Moreover, so long as GDP rises, the safe debt level also rises, as with a larger GDP, a larger national debt remains at a workable ratio of that GDP.

You also said that, You said, “Whether you want to credit Clinton, the republican congress of the 90’s or both they were able to reign in the debt over a decade.”

Once again, that’s simply NOT true!

In fact, the U.S. National Debt was never trimmed during the Gingrich/Clinton years (I say Gingrich first, because Congress controls the budget).

They merely reduced the amount of the deficit spending, so ironically enough, YOU confused deficit with debt in THAT statement.

There is indeed some serious (and funny) irony there, isn’t there?

In truth, the U.S. National Debt grew from 1993 (and before) and I’ll even give you those numbers; (how about back to 1990?)

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

So, the DEBT has never been reined in, only the deficit (deficit spending gap) was reined in after Gingrich and company took over Congress.

The National Debt has increased EVERY YEAR.

So has the U.S. GDP.

So the percentage of the GDP of the U.S. debt is still not unmanageable, nor at all “out of whack” for a fiscally responsible country.

It would seem that in order to claim that a given level of national debt is reckless and irresponsible you have to show that it’s “out of whack,” or significantly higher than that of most other nations.

Again you can’t do that, so your argument falls flat there too.

Name a nation with a National Debt that’s less than 50% of GDP.

I could only find one (Great Britain at 43.1% of GDP) and still a “sizable” National Debt.

Germany’s is 67% of its GDP, France’s is 66% of GDP, Sweden and Norway’s are both slightly over 50% of GDP. Israel has a national debt of 99.7% of GDP!

Given that all nations have significant national debt, the lowest I found was England’s (43% of GDP), with almost all the rest over 50% (many, many nations with 60% of GDP or higher), than our current national debt of about 66% of GDP is not significantly higher than that of most other nations!

The idea that the current WoT is “imagined” or even exaggerated is the view of most ill-informed people.

That’s not their fault, there’s very little accurate information out there about the real global threat that Sharia-based Islam is to the world.

That’s why I believe that every American should see the documentary Obsession, it’s not complete, but it’s excellent, so far as it goes.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

And India is indeed predominantly Hindu (over 80%) and 13% Muslim, Pakistan is predominantly Muslim (97%).

India does not have Sharia Law, its system of justice is based on English common law; limited judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ (international court of justice) jurisdiction, with reservations; separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus.

The Muslims in India are subject to India’s general laws and like the Muslims in Great Britain they are subject to their own Sharia-Law via their religious courts. Over 90% of all Muslims everywhere are subject to Sharia Laws which are enforced by religious courts, set up through various Mosques.

The fact that India, like many other nations, allows Muslims to be subjected toi Sharia Law in addition (not excluding) its general laws, doesn’t make India, a “Sharia-based nation.”

Again, you make a factually false, semantic argument that belittles you.

It’s OK to be wrong.

If you’d said, for instance, “All other economic indicators being what they are, I think the national debt is a problem,” that would’ve been a valid, sustainable opinion, but to say, that despite the current economic indicators, you feel the economy is not great because of the current debt level, adding that “If the government were a household (invidious comparison) it would be in foreclosure and we’d all be facing eviction,” (suggesting that the government’s debt load was reckless even in terms of a household’s debt...and that is flat out wrong, as I showed.)

Then claiming that the Clinton administration reduced the national debt over a decade was also wrong – only the deficit spending was reduced, NOT the debt, so you confused the national debt with the deficit with that statement.

Those arguments were wrong.

I believe the current debt level is not at all reckless, when compared to other nations and considering our relatively cheap annual debt servicing costs (5%)...you feel differently, but I don’t think the facts bare your view out.

JMK – You do love to talk don’t you (and by talk I mean type) do you ever take time to get a breath of air? I’ve been too busy the last few days to respond to you, and it seems that the lack of a response from me caused you to again respond twice.

I’m torn between again going through with a point by point response to you or keeping it short and sweet. The reason I’m reluctant to go at it again point by point is that you have an annoying habit of repeating yourself again and again and again, ignoring any points made to the contrary previously. You then rely on this sheer tsunami of words to wear down any opposition, and the more one engages you point by point the more the size of your diatribe grows exponentially.

JMK – “You're using a semantic argument to try and avoid the fact that I proved to you that a debt of 60% of GDP with an annual debt servicing cost of about 5% (a little less actually) is remarkably managable and not even heavier than that of many other nations with even less robust economies than ours.”

No, I’m stating the fact that your analogy is an imprecise one because you are only comparing what you want to compare, you ignore deficit/surplus spending as if it’s irrelevant. If you consistently ran deficits each year you would not be able to continue to borrow money the way the government does, that fact alone makes your analogy flawed. You proved nothing to me, I’m not exactly sure what pointing out the stellar economies of Italy and Japan is supposed to prove to me. I’ve already discussed this at length above.

JMK-“ Moreover, I didn't make the invidious government/household comparison, YOU did," (another bit of semantic legerdemain on your part) with, "If the nation was truly a house it would have been foreclosed on and we’d all have been evicted."

Another item I addressed at length above, somehow you missed it? I don’t think so, I think you have selective memory.

JMK – “But that comparison wasn't ONLY invidious, as you acknowledged national government's ability to eradicate debt differently than individuals/households can - but it's also wrong as I showed you by giving you actual debt to income (GDP) scenarios for individuals/households.
To claim my response to that initial invidious comparison of yours was "an invidious comparison," is inane. The response isn't the probelm, I responded to show that your view of what is a dangerous debt burden is wrong. It was the initial comparison that was flawed.”

Alright, first do you even know what invidious means? You certainly are throwing it around a lot, was it on today’s “word of the day” calendar? First I never accused you of making an invidious comparison, I accused you of making an incomplete analogy. What’s truly inane is the fact that you cited “an invidious comparison” in quotes in reference to me when I never even said it to begin with. In fact the word invidious appears 7 times in this entire comment string – all in these last two posts from you. I’ve got to admit, when you learn a new word you certainly do beat it to death, even if you don’t grasp it’s meaning. Of course that’s a side-track from the real issue here, however it is certainly provides an insight into your thought processes, and your tendancy to leap before you look.

JMK-“ Suffice to say, a debt that is 60% of GDP with an annual servicing cost of about 5% is very managable....far MORE managable than most debt to income ratios the majority of individual Americans carry (who are not facing foreclosure or eviction). People with a debt total that is over 300% of their annual income and with annual debt servicing costs of around 50% or so, are not engaged in reckless, irresponsible spending that necessarily puts them on the brink of foreclosure and eviction, as you initially stated it would, in that comparison.”

Again this has been discussed above at length. The essential points (AGAIN) are that my comparison of the nation to a house being foreclosed upon was a bit of wit for comedic effect – as previously stated, which you have chosen to focus upon rather than address anything of real substance. The other essential point (AGAIN) is that your analogy is flawed and incomplete because the people you cite in your example do not consistently run household deficits year over year, they run either a surplus or they break even. If they ran deficits consistently their debt would grow and become unmanageable, much like Italy – your example of a stellar economy.

JMK – “Your entire initial argument was semantic - you made an invidious comparison (U.S. government budget to a household budget) that was also clearly wrong, as you inferred that the amount of debt was far larger, more reckless than an average household would take on - obviously not so.”
Repeat yourself much? Again see above for the answer.

JMK – “Beyond that, you now apparently claim that tax increases RAISE revenues!”

Apparently I missed it when those words came out of my mouth. All I’ve ever said is that increased consistent deficit spending inevitably results in increased taxes. More supposition from you, should I even be surprised anymore?

JMK – “That's been proven completely and utterly UNTRUE by Supply Side economics for the past thirty years.
Tax increases are a good tool to slow down boiling private growth and an overheated investor cycle, by taking money out of that cycle, but they DON'T increase government revenues.
"Humans respond to incentives."
Thus investors and higher income workers all defer more of their monies into tax deferred vehicles when taxes are increased (LOWERING government revenues, or intake), just as they invest more freely and take more of their income up front (non-deferred) when tax rates are dropped down (at least down to about the 22% mark) and that increases government revenues because more people are paying taxes on their monies "up front," or non-deferred when tax rates are relatively low.
The idea that the tax cuts the current administration adopted which greatly INCREASED government revenues, was responsible for the increasing debt, seems to erroneously posit that those tax cuts didn't increase revenues, but decreased them and that's not true!
Where would you get that kind of counter-intuitive idea from?”

I wasn’t aware I had gotten that idea at all..oh wait that’s because I never did. Does everyone argue with themselves on Bizarro World? The last few hundred words were an utter waste, just more hot air from you. It’s one of your standard debate tactics, the straw man, and you do it so much more blatantly than most. First you lay a claim at my feet that I never made, then you proceed to spend entire chapters striking down.
Here’s the facts, the debt has increased along with annual deficits – do you refute that? Why don’t you spend some time explaining why it’s increased instead of proving to me that something I never claimed was the cause in fact isn’t the cause (surprise).

JMK – “The current administration's tax cuts INCREASED government revenues and halved our deficit spending gap despite an ongoing war effort and a huge domestic security apparatus that still remains ramped up.”

Actually I’ve already shown that the deficit has been consistent over the past 3 or 4 years, I forget – you can see above. Prior to that it was lower. So if anything you could argue the deficit has increased. But negatives are positive in Bizarro World right? So I guess I should forgive.

JMK – “Oh, and India, is NOT a Muslim nation.”

Duh really? Did I claim it was? Hmmm I think what I said was that India is “the only country in the world that ‘has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia.’” So I suppose my real point here is that Sharia is another term you like to throw around that you really don’t understand. Or at least you don’t realize whom you’re really talking about when you use it. I thought the global war was against Sharia based Islam? You mean that war excludes the only nation on earth with separate Muslim civil laws (AGAIN) “WHOLLY BASED ON SHARIA”? I guess that’s how it’s done in Bizarro World.

JMK - “India is predominantly Hindu, while Pakistan is predominantly Muslim...and we are currently and hopefully will continue to use "half-friendly" Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Kuwait as allies against the most militant Muslim nations.”

Thanks for the lesson. Obviously I don’t need it. So let me understand…I understand why we attacked Afghanistan, to eradicate the terrorists who were behind 9-11, of course we really let that ball drop didn’t we? Saudi Arabia and Turkey are good even though they’re pretty heavily influenced by Sharia Law, and we’ve already discussed India which is the only nation to officially have it on the books – another “friend of the US”..and Iraq was bad, an imminent threat, yet not big on Sharia law at all, in fact you could argue they were farthest from it in comparison to most of their neighbors. I’m having trouble understanding your logic here – if in fact you really mean we’re at war with Sharia based Islam. If that’s really true then we should be apologizing to Iraq and nuking everything surrounding it (for the record I’m not endorsing this, just trying to understand Bizarro logic). Nah..I think the truth is that Sharia is just another four dollar word that you picked up somewhere without really understanding the full meaning.

JMK – “Congress's inability to effectively cut spending has been far more of a factor in that.”

The president could have vetoed anything he wanted to reign in spending. He chose not to. Don’t blame the congress. Of course admitting that would mean admitting you were wrong when you ranked the president as “right up there among the best”.

JMK – “GZ, you’ve made a number of demonstrably false claims here and I’ve merely pointed them out and, I must add, NEVER ONCE, in a snarky or even condescending manner and for some reason that’s seemed to irk you.”
I think you ought to go back and re-read what you’ve written. Invidious alone is snarky. Inane is a pretty snarky and condescending word as well. However what takes the cake is supposition and putting words in my mouth that I didn’t ever say and THEN going on to counter an argument I never even made. So if you really think I’ve been “irked” (and the truth is I haven’t been) you’re looking in the wrong place.

JMK – “You initially said you disagreed that this was a “great economy” because of a National Debt out of control.
That view DID indeed discount the other economic indicators (inflation, interest rates, GDP growth, unemployment, etc) since you claimed the reckless level of debt overrode those other indicators in assessing the economy, from your view. You indeed said that this was because “If this government were a household, it’d be in foreclosure and we’d all be facing eviction.””

If you really are curious about what irks me, this comes close. Your repetitive nature, and your inability to focus on what’s relevant, and your choice to ignore what’s been addressed previously and instead act as if the matter was never discussed.
Once AGAIN I discounted nothing, you can choose to interpret something however you wish, however you are wrong. Moreover, you are egregiously wrong because I’ve already told you specifically that your interpretation was wrong, and I made my meaning clear. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that is either a sign of deception, a failing in memory or an inability to comprehend the written word. I’m hoping the answer is B. As to the last quote do I really need to address it yet AGAIN? Do yourself a favor and stop making a bit of levity the core of your argument.

JMK – “I proved to you that it wasn’t an excessive debt level even for a household, as most American households easily carry far more than 60% of their annual net income in debt, with an annual debt servicing cost of well over the 5% our government has - that level of debt is NOT reckless, nor would it ever lead to “foreclosure and eviction,” as YOU claimed.”

What you’ve proved to me is that you can’t understand why you’re analogy is flawed and incomplete. Do you really think you’ve proven anything to me? Did you somehow enlighten me as to the way the average America finances their home? What you refuse to acknowledge is that the way a household manages debt and spending is not the same as the way a nation does, and that makes your analogy flawed. You also refuse to focus on anything other than a one sentence statement made for comedic effect, even after it’s been pointed out to you AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN…..

JMK – “In that very post I noted that the difference between governments and individuals/households is that governments have a lot of alternative means to eliminating debt (printing more money, floating more government backed bonds, etc), making that government to household comparison invidious.”

And yes here you did begin to discuss the difference, but your discussion was incomplete, and now you again misuse invidious – unless you really believe my intention was to intentionally give offense? I don’t think you’re analogy was invidious, just inept (and yes for the record that was an example of an invidious statement – do you see the difference?)

“Moreover, so long as GDP rises, the safe debt level also rises, as with a larger GDP, a larger national debt remains at a workable ratio of that GDP.
You also said that, You said, “Whether you want to credit Clinton, the republican congress of the 90’s or both they were able to reign in the debt over a decade.”
Once again, that’s simply NOT true!
In fact, the U.S. National Debt was never trimmed during the Gingrich/Clinton years (I say Gingrich first, because Congress controls the budget).
They merely reduced the amount of the deficit spending, so ironically enough, YOU confused deficit with debt in THAT statement.
There is indeed some serious (and funny) irony there, isn’t there?”

There is some serious and funny irony – but the really funny and ironic part is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. You yourself keep speaking about how important the rising GDP is in all of this. I’m really starting to get convinced that it’s because you read it on some website, because if you really understood the relationship between GDP, spending, the deficit/surplus, and the debt then you’d understand how stupid it is to claim that the U.S. National Debt was never trimmed.
You are only looking at the debt as total dollars, it needs to be examined as a percentage of GDP. When you examine it as a percentage of GDP it’s clear that Clinton and the Gingrich congress did pay down the debt and reverse the upward trend that started in the Reagan years. Here’s a handy graph: The National Debt as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Take a look, let the knowledge sink in. It’s pretty clear what the trends have been. And it’s also pretty clear who is confused here and it isn’t me is it? I think there’s a part coming up where you tell me it’s OK to admit when I’m wrong – should I expect a mea culpa?

JMK – “In truth, the U.S. National Debt grew from 1993 (and before) and I’ll even give you those numbers; (how about back to 1990?)”

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25”

Now I’ll give you back to 1940 as a % of GDP:

1940 52.4%
1941 50.5%
1942 54.9%
1943 79.2%
1944 97.6%
1945 117.5%
1946 121.7%
1947 109.6%
1948 98.3%
1949 93.0%
1950 93.9%
1951 79.5%
1952 74.3%
1953 71.2%
1954 71.6%
1955 69.4%
1956 63.8%
1957 60.4%
1958 60.7%
1959 58.4%
1960 56.0%
1961 55.0%
1962 53.3%
1963 51.7%
1964 49.3%
1965 46.9%
1966 43.6%
1967 41.8%
1968 42.5%
1969 38.5%
1970 37.6%
1971 37.7%
1972 36.9%
1973 35.6%
1974 33.6%
1975 34.7%
1976 36.2%
1977 35.8%
1978 35.0%
1979 33.1%
1980 33.3%
1981 32.5%
1982 35.2%
1983 39.9%
1984 40.8%
1985 43.9%
1986 48.2%
1987 50.5%
1988 51.9%
1989 53.1%
1990 55.9%
1991 60.7%
1992 64.4%
1993 66.3%
1994 66.9%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.2%
1999 61.3%
2000 57.9%
2001 57.6%
2002 60.0%
2003 62.8%
2004 64.8%
2005 66.0%
2006 66.9%
As you can see the debt rose to it’s height following the close of WWII, as you would expect, then we spent the next 30 years paying it down. Then the debt rose under first Reagan, but more dramatically under Bush I. Then during the Clinton years it was reduced, only to rise again under Bush II. Now other places where you’ve been consistently wrong by confusing debt and deficit (it bears mentioning again here all in one place) is in terms of the reduction. You claimed, repeatedly, that the deficit had been cut in half. You were wrong the deficit has remained constant the last 4 years. The truth is that the growth of the debt as a percentage of GDP (not in overall dollars – that amount has continued to rise) has been reduced, not quite in half though. As you can see it grew by 2.8% from 2002 to 2003, 2% from 2003 to 2004, 1.2% from 2005 to 2005, and .9% from 2005 to 2006. That’s a small step in the right direction, but it amounts to putting on the brakes more than putting the car in reverse. Those are the facts JMK, you can blow wind all day but they won’t change.

JMK – “So, the DEBT has never been reined in, only the deficit (deficit spending gap) was reined in after Gingrich and company took over Congress.
The National Debt has increased EVERY YEAR.
So has the U.S. GDP.
So the percentage of the GDP of the U.S. debt is still not unmanageable, nor at all “out of whack” for a fiscally responsible country.”

This is why you frustrate me so much, everything you said above means you ought to realize what I just said, but you either don’t won’t or pretend not to because it suits your argument. Clearly you have at least a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between GDP and debt, yet you can’t connect the dots.

JMK – “It would seem that in order to claim that a given level of national debt is reckless and irresponsible you have to show that it’s “out of whack,” or significantly higher than that of most other nations.
Again you can’t do that, so your argument falls flat there too.
Name a nation with a National Debt that’s less than 50% of GDP.
I could only find one (Great Britain at 43.1% of GDP) and still a “sizable” National Debt.
Germany’s is 67% of its GDP, France’s is 66% of GDP, Sweden and Norway’s are both slightly over 50% of GDP. Israel has a national debt of 99.7% of GDP!”

Again I’ve shown debt as a percentage of GDP going back to 1940. I don’t have it for all nations, why don’t you go research it and get back to me? When did I set an amount on what the debt should be anyway? I said that it needs to be drawn down. It’s funny I never hear you sing the virtues of Germany, France, Sweden or Norway ever – now they’re all examples of what we want to be. I see you’ve conveniently ignored your prior examples of Japan and Italy setting the bar for rock solid economies. And what about Israel? Do you think debt of 99.7% of GDP is something good? If you do there’s no point continuing to discuss this, if not then why mention it? My argument doesn’t fall flat at all, yours just grows weaker – especially since you’ve just used the term debt as a percentage of GDP. So you either are being intentionally misleading (I believe the new word you use for that is invidious), or you really are just throwing terms and quotes in there off websites that you really don’t understand. I don’t honestly know which is worse.

JMK – “The idea that the current WoT is “imagined” or even exaggerated is the view of most ill-informed people.
That’s not their fault, there’s very little accurate information out there about the real global threat that Sharia-based Islam is to the world.”

But I’m to believe that you possess accurate information, you who disputes the fact that India is the only nation on earth with “that ‘has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia.” There’s very little accurate information in your posts about what Sharia even is, it’s just another bullet point word you’ve adopted.

JMK – “And India is indeed predominantly Hindu (over 80%) and 13% Muslim, Pakistan is predominantly Muslim (97%).
India does not have Sharia Law, its system of justice is based on English common law; limited judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ (international court of justice) jurisdiction, with reservations; separate personal law codes apply to Muslims, Christians, and Hindus.
The Muslims in India are subject to India’s general laws and like the Muslims in Great Britain they are subject to their own Sharia-Law via their religious courts. Over 90% of all Muslims everywhere are subject to Sharia Laws which are enforced by religious courts, set up through various Mosques.
The fact that India, like many other nations, allows Muslims to be subjected toi Sharia Law in addition (not excluding) its general laws, doesn’t make India, a “Sharia-based nation.”’

No it means as I said that India “is the only nation on earth with ‘that ‘has separate Muslim civil laws, framed by Muslim Personal Law board, and wholly based on Sharia.’” I never claimed that India did not have a system of common law as a basis, that’s why I said “SEPARATE MUSLIM CIVIL LAWS”. Sharia-based nation is your term, not mine, and I was pointing out how arbitrary it is, and also how it makes little sense as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. The fact is that India is the only nation that has such a system, so when you say “like many other nations” you are wrong. India is unique, that’s why under your system of Sharia based invasions it should be high on the list.
I’d like to know what the rules are to make a nation a “Sharia-based nation” in bizarre world, would you care to enlighten me?

JMK – “Again, you make a factually false, semantic argument that belittles you.”

Is this where I should remind you again of your new word “invidious” again? – or are you confusing me with that guy in the mirror again?

JMK – “It’s OK to be wrong.”

Yes it is, and I’m here to help you. (See I told you up above that it was coming)
Now where’s your Mea Culpa?

JMK – “If you’d said, for instance, “All other economic indicators being what they are, I think the national debt is a problem,” that would’ve been a valid, sustainable opinion, but to say, that despite the current economic indicators, you feel the economy is not great because of the current debt level, adding that “If the government were a household (invidious comparison) it would be in foreclosure and we’d all be facing eviction,” (suggesting that the government’s debt load was reckless even in terms of a household’s debt...and that is flat out wrong, as I showed.)”

You really are hung up on that aren’t you? Unfortunately for you, you haven’t shown anything but your obsession with nitpicking a non-issue to the point of inanity. I’ve already said that statement was a bit of hyperbole, a comedic bit of wit to emphasize a point. I’ve also stated quite clearly that just because I said I have a problem with the debt, tat does not mean I am commenting either positively or negatively on anything else. That seems a pretty simple and obvious concept to me, but you just don’t want to get it. It simply is what it is – you choose to read implications that are not there. Period. Why should I comment on a mountain made of straw?

JMK – “Then claiming that the Clinton administration reduced the national debt over a decade was also wrong – only the deficit spending was reduced, NOT the debt, so you confused the national debt with the deficit with that statement.”

You really do like to repeat yourself don’t you? You do realize that saying something over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again does not make it anymore or less correct. It’s just bad writing. DO I need to repeat my explanation of why you’re statement is wrong and mine is right again or did it finally sink in? Are you still confused (I’ll answer for you – yes) I never was, I’ve always understood the difference. I also realize that it’s inconsistent to speak of debt as a percentage of GDP in one sentence because it suits you and then as gross dollars in another because that suits you there. Strike that, it’s not inconsistent it’s dishonest. Unless of course you really don’t understand the terminology you’re throwing around, which is the camp I believe you’re in. See you have to realize that when you jump from one “conservative” debt apologist website to the next that they may be changing up the terminology on you, hell sometimes they do it within the same website – or book for that matter, so I can’t really blame you all that much.
Do yourself a favor though, you aren’t stupid, so try to think for yourself and understand a concept before making statements that make you look as though you’re just another dittohead.

JMK – “Those arguments were wrong.”

And now I think it’s clear which arguments those really are…(hint: the ones where the author doesn’t understand the terms he’s using)

JMK – “I believe the current debt level is not at all reckless, when compared to other nations and considering our relatively cheap annual debt servicing costs (5%)...you feel differently, but I don’t think the facts bare your view out.”

Now that is a factual statement!! Bravo!! The key words are believe and think. Obviously that’s your opinion, and obviously you feel the facts bear you out. All the kidding about Bizarro World aside, swallow your pride and you’ll have to admit I’m right – where the facts are concerned. You’re free to have a different opinion on why the numbers are what they are, or whether they are ultimately good for the economy, however the numbers still bear me out, and I ought to know I work with them.

Which brings us back to the beginning. This was all about your claim that GWB was right up there among the best presidents in terms of the economy. You still haven’t shown me how that statement makes any sense.