Who would you vote for

[Dr. Shane]

As a freshman senator Obama had to play the party game if he wanted to do anything. I think it is much fairer to judge a veteran senator by their voting record than a freshman. When Obama is President he won't be so concerned about what the Democratic leadership thinks about him.

[CyberGuy]

As a freshman senator Obama had to play the party game if he wanted to do anything. I think it is much fairer to judge a veteran senator by their voting record than a freshman. When Obama is President he won't be so concerned about what the Democratic leadership thinks about him.

Except for the fact he will have to work with the majority party and that is his party. I expect he will vote the party line and appoint liberal judges. After all it will be liberals who will get him into office if he wins.

[Woody]

Interesting that the other Freshman Senators didn't sense the same problem as Obama. What does that say about old Xerox Barack.

[Liz]

Not sure I get that one. Obviously ... McCain is closer to your beliefs than Obama. So, why vote for Obama? He has the most liberal democratic voting of any Senator. So again .... I ask you WHY?

OK. I know. HE's BLACK.

That is a funny/strange thing for you to say. We are not voting on his skin color. We just heard him talk about some things, and we agreed with more of what he had to say.

We have also heard McCain, and I can't honestly put my finger on it, *something* just doesn't *sit right* with him.

So for us, it is Obama. However, if the election is between McCain and Clinton, we will vote McCain--lesser of two evils type thing. And to be perfectly honest with you, if it was between McCain and Clinton I probably wouldn't even bother voting at all, except our local Sheriff needs to leave office immediately and I need to help vote him out.

Rest assured though, voting for Obama isn't because he is black, just like I won't vote Clinton just because she is a woman.

[Dr. Shane]

And I think the Obama family will really look better in the White House at Christmas time. Now if he says he wants to paint the White House black I am definitely going to vote for McCain.

[Woody]

OK. That sounds fine with me. But personally ... I never vote based on what they say. They just say what they think will get them elected and what they can get away with.

I vote on the premise that actions speak louder than words. So, I go by what they have DONE.

I don't fault you for going by what they "say". I used to do that. But, ever since Bush said "read my lips ... no new taxes" ... I have never again gone by what someone CLEARLY articulates.

But then that is MY issue and not yours. Hope your method works for you.

[Woody]

I don't care what color he would paint it. I like Black. But if he changes the name of it to 'Black House' ... then I would object.

I think that having a Black White House would be a good way to unite the country. lol

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: fccool

, not all growth is good. Take cancer for example. Current economy is very cancerous.

I don't think that anyone would say that the growth during the Reagan years was not good.

Choke, gasp, choke... Are you serious?!!! What a joke. Reagan is the one who brought our national debt to the point where it will never -- I repeat, never -- recover. That's what I remember him for. Oh, yeah, that and "I don't recall" during the Iran-Contra hearings. Yup, a real great leader. Let's bring in another one just like him. :x

[Woody]

The truth is that his policies did bring us out of debt. We had a surplus that we didn't know what to do with.

[Dr. Shane]

President Reagan did not increase the national debt alone, nor was it higher during his administration than it was during WW2 when contrast with the GDP (which is the only way to measure it).

Reagan started an arms race which broke the USSR. That was probability a good thing. It was also expensive. After the USSR fell Congress failed to bring the budget back down until Republicans won control in 1994. Given a few years, we had a balanced budget. A big part of that was cutting back military spending. Another big part what the high-tech boom which increased revenues dramatically.

Our current budget woes are not connected to Reagan's arms' race. They are connected to the War on Terror. Without the military and homeland security expenses, we would be running surpluses again. That is one of the reasons I favor Obama. I don't think Congress will pass all his expensive programs but and by reducing our military presence abroad we will be able to get closer to a balanced budget again.

[Woody]

Carter tried that and it didn't work for him.

[Dr. Shane]

I guess it would have to be demonstrated to me that it didn't work for him.

Interesting that our current level of debt is less than it was in 1940 PRIOR to US involvement in WW2.

2004 Data

Nation ~ GDP ~ Revenue ~ Expenditure ~ Exp / GDP ~ Budget Deficit ~ Deficit / GDP

US (federal) 11700 ~ 1862 ~ 2338 ~ 19.98% ~ -25.56% ~ -4.07%

US (state) - 900 ~ 850 ~ 7.6% ~ +5% ~ +0.4%

Japan 4600 ~ 1400 ~ 1748 ~ 38.00% ~ -24.86% ~ -7.57%

Germany 2700 ~ 1200 ~ 1300 ~ 48.15% ~ -8.33% ~ -3.70%

United Kingdom 2100 ~ 835 ~ 897 ~ 42.71% ~ -7.43% ~ -2.95%

France 2000 ~ 1005 ~ 1080 ~ 54.00% ~ -7.46% ~ -3.75%

Italy 1600 ~ 768 ~ 820 ~ 51.25% ~ -6.77% ~ -3.25%

China 1600 ~ 318 ~ 349 ~ 21.81% ~ -9.75% ~ -1.94%

Spain 1000 ~ 384 ~ 386 ~ 38.60% ~ -0.52% ~ -0.20%

Canada (federal) 900 ~ 150 ~ 144 ~ 16.00% ~ +4.00% ~ +0.67%

South Korea 600 ~ 150 ~ 155 ~ 25.83% ~ -3.33% ~ -0.83

[Dr. Shane]

Looking at that raw data what jumps out at me is the two nations with the biggest GDPs (US & Japan) have the biggest deficits.

[Woody]

Looks clear to me that during Carters years of reducing the miltary that our debt did not lessen.

[Dr. Shane]

We were in a recession and energy crises. Both impacted the deficit and GDP negatively. Reducing military spending had o have helped the deficit.

[fccool]

Shane, once again, please look at the aggregate numbers and not as percentage of the GDP. To say that the debt is less today, than prior to involvement in WWII It's misleading. That's the reason the Government is using these numbers to begin with. GDP includes debt spending as a part of it. So if you borrow a million and you spend it, the GDP will be raised proportionally, and make everything seem to be fine and shiny.

The graph is not correct either. I don't know how in the world did White House come up with these numbers, but the last I checked... the current debt it:

And last years GDP was 13543.33

So calculating it on your own would mean that it should be somewhere in 65% range.

[CyberGuy]

President Reagan did not increase the national debt alone, nor was it higher during his administration than it was during WW2 when contrast with the GDP (which is the only way to measure it).

Reagan started an arms race which broke the USSR. That was probability a good thing. It was also expensive. After the USSR fell Congress failed to bring the budget back down until Republicans won control in 1994. Given a few years, we had a balanced budget. A big part of that was cutting back military spending. Another big part what the high-tech boom which increased revenues dramatically.

Our current budget woes are not connected to Reagan's arms' race. They are connected to the War on Terror. Without the military and homeland security expenses, we would be running surpluses again. That is one of the reasons I favor Obama. I don't think Congress will pass all his expensive programs but and by reducing our military presence abroad we will be able to get closer to a balanced budget again.

When Reagan took office the national debt was about 900 billion. When Reagan left office 8 years later the national debt was 4.1 trillion dollars. Reagan quadrupled the national debt.

Bush has done something similar. National debt has risen about 300 to 400 billion per year during his administration.

So yes the republicans has been the biggest national spenders. They just spend it on the military that does all of is little good in reality.

[fccool]

Looking at that raw data what jumps out at me is the two nations with the biggest GDPs (US & Japan) have the biggest deficits.

I think it supports the point I'm trying to make here.

[Dr. Shane]

Government spending is part of the GDP but that doesn't throw the numbers off. The numbers are calculated the same for all nations and an accepted measure by economists. When someone starts saying we can't use the GDP to measure the deficit that is a red flag that they are a conspiratist. I don't play that game. Deficits are measured in relation to GDPs. Those that don't believe that live in their own world outside of the reality the rest of us are in.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

When Reagan took office the national debt was about 900 billion. When Reagan left office 8 years later the national debt was 4.1 trillion dollars.

Reagan didn't run the debt up alone. He had Congress to help him and he managed to break the USSR as a result.

The GDP when Reagan took office was $3.1 Billion and $5.1 Billion when he left office. The debt when he took office was 34% of the GDP and 54% when he left office. Government growth under Reagan was less that Nixon, Ford or Carter but more than GWH Bush or Clinton.

The US not only has debt, it also has assets such as gold reserves, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, foreign currencies and third world debt.

[fccool]

When someone starts saying we can't use the GDP to measure the deficit that is a red flag that they are a conspiratist.

Huh? Measuring deficit by way of debt to GDP ratio simply measures solvency. GDP is not a liquid asset that you can spend to pay off the debt. You have to come up with some hard solid cash to do that.

On micro level. Let's say that you owe 50k, and you make 100k a year. Next year you are projected to make 150k. The fact that your income has increased does not decrease your actual debt, and does not unnecessarily increase your solvency. If you have to spend all of these 150k to keep up with your way of life, then it does not matter how much you are making. The fact that 50k of debt is just hanging there unpaid accumulating interest should be problematic. But you don't view it that way because you are making 150k per year... so you keep borrowing, and keep spending.

How is it that looking at debt by means of solvency change anything if no actions have been made to even start paying it off? With current derivative obligations rising and no policy changes towards conservative spending being made... what difference does it make how much money we make?

I'm not a conspiracy nut , I am a "conservative" nut.

PS. US gold reserves are around 200 billion in worth. Simply not enough in light of the debt.

[Dr. Shane]

Liberal and conservative economists both measure the deficit in relation o the GDP. That is how deficits are measured. I favor a balanced budget amendment. I am very fiscally conservative. But I am not an alarmist. I am not a conspiratist. The US has been in a lot worse shape in the past than it is now. And our situation has been getting better the past couple of years. But it is still bad and needs to improve.

[fccool]

I'll leave you with this... people who rationally deduced to results of credit driven expansion were decried as alarmists too. I hope that it will not come to this extreme, but we'll wait and see.

[Dr. Shane]

U.S. official gold reserves are worth $207 billion, foreign exchange reserves are worth $70 billion and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is worth $70 billion.

Of course that means our liquid assets are only about 4% of our debt but if we are going to talk about the economy as a whole we need to keep in mind the whole thing.

[fccool]

The whole thing revolves around consumption, and not around saving and production (aka China)... Would you agree (I'm not asking you to admit that it is bad or good)?