OK. I see your point: you don't like the measurement. Here's my point: The original intent of this post was to highlight the fact that the economy is growing as measured by some objective standard. In this case, that standard is the relationship between GDP to the total national debt. This is a common standard, used globally to compare economic performance across countries and time periods. But apparently you have a problem with the measurement. You don't like the yardstick.

Fine.

If you had read the linked article, you might have noticed this line:

It's not surprising that the budget deficit hit an all-time high in 2004 when it is measured in dollars unadjusted for inflation and unrelated to the size of the economy. The economy, measured in those same dollars, also hit an all-time high of $11.7 trillion last month.

So although the budget deficit is at an all time high, the revenu produced by the economy is ALSO at an all time high. So based on your yarstick, you must agree that the economy is improving. And no one has bothered to note that the 'all time high' deficit is about $100 billion LESS than what was projected about a year ago. I think that's good news, too. Use a yardstick, a meter stick, a ten foot pole, bottom line, the economy is improving. Is the national debt low enough, or better yet, gone altogether? No. But is the economy growing? YES.


You had also stated "...the problem with your new example is that you are comparing the debt of the federal government to the GDP of the entire country. The GDP is not the determining factor of the government's ability to deal with the debt, revenue is. Yes, revenue is based on GDP, but it varies based on tax and budget policy."

Where does the federal government get its money? From taxes it imposes on the the entire country. We the people are the ones who will pay down the debt, not the government. We'll pay it down with our tax dollars taken from our paychecks we earn as we produce the goods and services that make up the GDP. We'll pay it down with the tax dollars generated when we buy some of those goods and services that we produce that make up the GDP. And so on. GDP may not be the determining factor of the governement's ability to deal with the debt, but it is an important one.

 

You did indeed link to something that had big, pretty words that said 'Historical Tables'. However, the specific table in question was table 1.3. You might read the paragraph on page 15 about table 1.3. That part clearly states that the monetary figures are in 'current and constant (FY1996=100) dollars and percentages of GDP'. Maybe if you had read that, the point would have been clear to YOU.

 

I hated econ stat :down:

 

To say again what is right there in my post you quoted:

Yes, revenue is based on GDP, but it varies based on tax and budget policy.

GDP grows with inflation. It's always growing. But it's up to the government to pay down the debt, and the only way to pay down the debt is to have a budget surplus. You can have as high a GDP as you damn well please and if the government isn't making effective policy then it won't see a surplus.

The Bush campaign has promised more tax cuts and more defense spending and I don't see how the two can possibly create a budget surplus.

You can be damn sure that if a Kerry administration doesn't create a surplus I will be just as dissatisfied with the result. I will not, by any means, try my hardest to make it seem like the party which I favor is doing a great job when it's really not.

But right now it seems as if Kerry has a more concrete plan to balance the budget. Yeah, he's going to spend money on social programs, but he's going to cut defense spending and he's going to hike taxes on the $200k+ bracket. That signals to me at the very least an attempt to create balanced fiscal policy.

If you have a moral attatchment to defense spending, or a moral objection to higher taxes on the $200k+ bracket, then you would probably prefer the Bush plan even if it offers no possibility of a budget surplus. He has in no way shape or form shown how he is even going to try and balance the budget. Are the fiscal conservatives really willing to cling to some of their morals at the expense of their most important goal?

 

Table 1.3 holds surpluses and deficits, not the national debt.

In reality, the specific table you mentioned on was table 7.1, as shown here:

But go ahead insulting people. It sure gets your point across.

 

Kettle = Black

 

Whatever. Even one of your own partisans has stated his agreement that you are immune to logic. So keep on chuggin.

 

Mike like I stated earlier you should learn logic before you open your mouth telling others to learn logic. You should also learn to read what people type and not make assumptions or inferences on the comments and come up with your own theory of what someone is trying to say. It just causes a huge hastle in which you are arguing against a point which I didn't even make

 

First you make overbroad generalizations about the economy being better. Then you say, "oh I didn't mean that, I just wanted to point out this one indicator." But then you say that one little indicator actually does mean that the economy is better.

Flip flopper! :chuckles:

 

You turned this into a partisan issue because you're defending your boy Bush using vastly misinterpreted data, and not backing down even when it is overwhelmingly obvious that you are incorrect.


You are officially a female past the point of logic.