Let's say you earn 75,000/year. You buy a home for 250,000. Your bank balance looks like -175,000. You're spending more than you earn. Your a debtor individual.

Now turn it to our nation and see we have a 15 tillion dollar ANNUAL income. No one in here makes the first personal or politcal decison based on our national debt. It's a strawman argument.

__________________
Objectivity seeker.

If peace reigns permanent than a current account deficit is really not that big of a deal - i.e., world government, globalization, and free markets taken to the extreme would seem to make the whole idea of national trade deficits moot. Of course, the reality is that at some point war breaks out and exporters can make some sacrifices to make importers suffer greatly. I think a nation that is concerned about their security and self sufficiency should not want to run a very high deficit.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Why should I have to defend myself to you? I am not the person here showing a bug crawling around on the American flag.

The idea that the GOP is responsible for the debt is preposterous, but it is unclear as to whether you are interested in data or ideology.


The idea that Clinton is responsible for this is also preposterous.

I know this is a bit harsh - but if you are going to comment on the economy, you have to at least make an attempt at getting the facts straight.

The deficits began to improve in 1994, when the GOP took over congress, That is the date of the beginning of the Bull Market - the greatest in history. That was not a coincidence.

Both parties have some share on the boom, but the enormous growth in productivity combined with the technology boom and the spread of capitalism around the globe were the primary reasons.

It is more exciting and dramatic to avoid ordinary facts, but the weird idea that the Democrats are more responsible with money is a grotesque lie. They single-handedly smashed the American economy between the late 60s and the eraly 80s. Do we really want a return to the double digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation of that period?

The obsession with Obama is so strong and so mindless and so drenched with hysteria that it may be that his followers don't care what he and the left-wing thugs who run congress will do to the economy.

He really is a true cult leader - but ony the cult members can elect him.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

The analogy with the bank account doesn't really work here. I think I take your point, but you do need to analyze and interpret the data in context.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Im sure you know that any taxes or spending must be passed by both houses of congress and the President. Also, that democrats are currently in control of congress, and have been in control of one or both houses of congress during the last 20 years. Also, that Republicans were in control of congress during the time that you credit Clinton with cutting the national debt. Basically, Democrats passed every single one of those appropriations bills that went through congress, and so deserve as much blame as anyone else for excessive spending.

Furthermore, Iraq costs about 100billion a year. Cut that out and we still have 400bil deficit. What else would you like to cut?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

You are correct. We have a 15 trillion dollar economy which includes 1.1 trillion in exports (worlds 4th largest). The govt takes about 23% of that first, the rest goes into individuals pockets, who then purchase 2 trillion in imports. That leaves about 10 trillion dollars to spend locally, which to use the analogy above would be our bank account. This is of course oversimplified.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Haaaaaaa! look at China and then look at us, makes you want to run to Wal-Mart , doesn't it?

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

Actually, no, it's not oversimplified, it's just plain wrong.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Tim, I am interested in facts. I am also very tired of Republicans being called 'fiscal conservatives'. While Democrats are accused of 'tax and spend liberals', when history tells us otherwise. Republicans ARE largely responsible for the national debt.

Here are the facts:

• The President submits a budget proposal to congress, which congress deliberates and finally approves or denies.
• While the Congress has the constitutional "power of the purse," the President and his appointees play a major role in budget deliberations
• The president is in the driver’s seat when it comes to the budget. While he is not the only decision maker, he has a lot more influence over the budget than congress does.
• Iraq costs directly approximately $100 billion/year. But there is a lot more cost than direct costs. No one really knows what Iraq costs and estimates are closer to $200/billion per year. The war in Iraq has been going on for 5 years. Therefore, many are estimating the costs until now at $1 Trillion. If Republicans are re-elected, we can expect at least another 5 years of Iraq at a likely cost of another 1 Trillion.
• National debt grew rather slowly before Reagan. Including and after Reagan, national debt exploded. Each president has increased national debt. Each president has seen bull and bear markets. However, only the Clinton administration had a balanced budget. All republican administrations since and including Reagan dramatically increased national debt and their administrations increased debt much more significantly than the Clinton administration.
• The worst administration has been the current administration. Bush has nearly doubled the national debt.
• There are many reasons for the huge increase in national debt caused by Bush. One of the reasons is Iraq. Others reasons include the tax cuts. Regardless, Bush’s administration is responsible for the largest increase in the national debt the US has ever seen.
• Fed President Bernanke, a Bush appointee, is warning of a financial crisis if the national debt continues to grow, as it is currently growing. However, currently, there is no end in sight.
• McCain if elected, will likely continue the run-up in the national debt as McCain is largely supporting Bush’s decisions and policies.

Now if you disagree with any of these points, let me know and we can discuss them each individually. However, I will only discuss with people who are respectful. Many people in this forum are incapable of showing respect. Implying that I am part of a cult does not show respect. If you continue to use such language, I will have no interest in discussing further with you.

Fact still remains congress writes the appropriations bills and approves them before the President ever signs them. Democrats approved every single appropriations bill that Bush signed. Therefore they are equally cuplable as the president for deficits. Its nice that you want to pretend that we have only one branch of govt, but that simply isnt reality.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Your analysis is false at the core because you make one serious mistake that negates the entire argument: you do not take inflation into account.

Of course, the deficit is the highest in history. On the other hand, of course an increase of 3% in GDP will represent the highest increase in history. Of course the budget is the highest in history. Amost everything is the "highest or largest in history" - because you are not adjusting for inflation.

You are only dealing in current dollar terms, which is, literally, meaningless.

The only figures that matter are the deficit as a percentage of GDP, and whether that number is rising or falling.

The deficit at the end of the second world war was much more than twice the figure it is today, as of GDP, % adjusted for inflation.

If the economy grows a modest 2.5%, it represents a much larger increase than the growth in 1984, when GDP rose 7%, or the war years in the early 40s, when GDP rose at an average rate of 15-20%, year after year.

Unless you adjust for inflation, all of this is meaningless.

Of course, the deficit went down during the 70s - because the dems in Washington went on a spree with inflated dollars. It is easy to balance the budget if double digit inflation destroys the value of the currency. It is one of the spectacular successes of the Reagan years that the terrible inflation of the time was brought down sharply. The dems presided over collapsing productivity, double digit interest rates and a series of recessions.

When the dems have absolute control, the economy eventually tanks, as their idiotic policies destroy it.

By the way, it is intereresting to note that you did not respond to a single point I made.

I agree that the GOP spent too much during the last few years. But the annual deficit was below 2% by the time the slowdown began, and the last few years showed dramatic improvement. The dems are showing no improvement, by the way, and they are now in power....

All of this information is not merely ignored: it is deliberately misinterpreted, skewed or turned around. That does not mean you are doing it intentionally: it may simply mean that you are unfamiliar with the way the economy works.

Either way, it is necessary to know these things if the economy is going to be discussed.

That is why I cringe when Obama's worshipers begin to talk about the economy. They tend to repeat platitudes and falsehoods as if they were true, and are absolutely opposed to acknowledging that they are simply wrong about anything, because that would mean the Beloved One is wrong - and that cannot be.

That is indeed the way cults operate. The leader is to be loved, not questioned. His announcements are to be embraced, not challenged. Emotion rules. It is impossible to fight this.

I do not intend to change my use of the word "cult" to describe Obama's extraordinary emotional hold on his followers. There are those who do not fit into this, but the majority do.

I have seen many Bush supporters here who are willing to change their mind and to question. The same is true for McCain.

Obama is portrayed as being above criticism. He is loved and adored, and questions have no place. It is intensely pleasurable and a great relief to allow someone else to think, but it is dangerous as well.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

And Americano demonstrates how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing! Clearly Americano, like many others, considers things like the Current Account Balance, or the Trade Deficit, or even the Budget Deficit to mean that we are consuming more than we produce. This is simply not the case.

The first basic flaw in looking at the current account balances of various countries against one another's is that it is utterly lacking any meaningful proportion (like % of GDP, or % of total national wealth even better).

It would be like trying to judge which who is in a better/worse financial position based soley on the amount of debt they have:

Person A - totally debt free
Person B - $600,000 in debt

Nobody but a total fool would presume to declare which of these two people is in a better financial position than the other given only this information. We need additional information to draw any conclusions:

Person A - is unemployed, has no savings or investments, owns no home and has to pay rent each month
Person B - has an annual income of $200,000, owns a home valued conservatively at $800,000, has savings and investments totalling $300,000

Now which of those two people can we conclude is better/worse off?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

This example, of course, has zero to do with the Current Account.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Of course it does, it illustrates that as a number absent any context, the Current Account is meaningless. It is not, in sofar as the data which was presented even enough to say things "seem bad" anymore than the mere fact of someone having $600,000 can in and of itself "seem bad" on its own. Nor does it (as some people have already demonstrated an ignorance in their interpretation of) mean that we are consuming more than we make or produce.

In that regard the analogy I gave is spot on!

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane