Driving the debt car

Unsafe at Any Speed!

Thanks for the video.

If we keep driving through LA we will be drowning from debt.

Thanks, I'm going to pass this one on.

Excellent video, will pass it on to a bunch of people.

I had posted this in the comment section, a couple of days ago.

You might want to add his website to this post, http://politicalmath.wordpress.com. He's got a lot of good stuff there.

On the road (to serfdom) again...

Keep on trucking (and wheeling and dealing)...

I get my kicks on Route 66 (billions)...

This is pregnant with all kinds of analogies.

The projections are pie in the sky, but I'm not an Obama defender, and I certainly don't buy any "Bush was a moderate spender because Obama wants to spend so much more" logic. Bush was a disaster by any measure.

Obama wants an even more massive expansion of the state, but I don't believe he'll get it, because I don't believe it's possible without levels of inflation or taxation that'll make Obama the next Jimmy Carter.

Demand for rents is unprecedented worldwide, but the rest of the friggin' world can't retire on entitlement to U.S. tax revenue. We aren't really that productive. I'm just not believing it. We'll inflate our way out of this "debt", because we can't possibly do anything else.

Please check your email, Russ. Thanks.

Very cool.

Martin, you missed it bro.

The guys remains agnostic on Democrats and Republicans and acknowledges that W had, at the time, the track speed record.

And by Obama's own math, he is moving at light speed compared to the rest of the 20th century.

Regardless of whether or not he can pull it off, he campaigned on a platform of change while his acolytes decried W's profligate spending, etc.

Now the change we have is simply W on steroids.

Great, there goes our hope as well. . .

What we need is another czar.

Thank you for the video but as regards to how the Obama administration is approaching our debt, I say give them a chance. The financial mess they inherited was not built on a day. In fact it was building up for 8 years. Give the current administration at least that time frame for the economy to get going again.

Evelyn Guzman

http://www.debtchallenges.com (If you want to visit, just click but if it doesn’t work, copy and paste it onto your browser.)

Idiot. That’s asking pyromaniacs to put out a fire.

These people caused the problem, now you think they’ll fix it?

Tell you what, I’ll throw in a second bridge.

You don’t get “at least that time frame.” Fail.

Do these numbers include the debt interest maintenance? Was the rate of acceleration that much more than Reagan's? I can see why a regular Bar or line graph wouldn't have been so scary. I wonder if your family would go for a ride in a plane or a super-Train? I guess the old canvas covered wagon times were richer times for everyone. HAHAHAHA! Great slight of graph.

Give them a chance? I suppose they said that about the Marxists in 1917, just give 'em a chance. Money is freedom, like it or not. The more money we borrow, the less free we will become. The more money the government takes from us in taxes and regulatory compliance (imposed on the private economy), the less free we become.

"In fact it was building up for 8 years."

In fact, its beginning can be pinpointed to January 20, 2001, no?

Partisan hacks' blatant disregard for personal integrity is so amusing.

Guzman,

This nation gave FDR exactly the kind of chance for the same kind of agenda; what happened?

People who are too stupid to learn from history deserve to repeat its great depression. Only if there are enough people as stupid as you are will we experience the second coming of Keynes.

A couple things he's conveniently leaving out -

1. Yes, he adjusted for inflation - but even once you do that real GDP is growing this whole time as well. It makes no sense to track a dollar amount of debt without reference to what GDP is doing.

Do this with Debt/GDP and you'll get a hugely different picture.

2. WHY did each of these presidents increase or decrease the debt. Were Roosevelt and Truman especially different leaders with different policy priorities? Or did they have different circumstances? How do Reagan, Bush, and Obama's REASONS for running debt's compare? The film's theory is that people just like Obama personally better. That's likely a small part of it... but I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that people think fighting the largest recession since the GD is a more reasonable reason to run up a debt than a military misadventure and tax cuts.

No serious person interested in and knowledgeable about policy and supportive of Obama isn't concerned about the debt. The new-found fiscal restraint of conservatives strikes us as a little odd (not to mention politically convenient), but it's not like that's some sort of driving justification for us. The debt is not unprecedented, as the film suggests it is, and the debt is being taken on for what a lot of people consider to be very justifiable reasons. You can accept that we've thought all that through, or you can accept that we're just smitten with Obama - it's your choice.

vikingvista -

RE: "In fact, its beginning can be pinpointed to January 20, 2001, no?"

I don't know abot "pinpointing" it, but that's pretty damn close to the time the deficit figures started going in the other direction.

I don't think Bush did everything wrong, like a lot of people. But the man in office certainly seemed to make a difference with respect to the deficit.

vikingvista -

Way to sensationalize what I said.

Bush wasn't the end of the world when it came to public debt - OBVIOUSLY. But equally obviously, he wasn't particularly interested in building on Clinton's gains. My post wasn't a screed against Bush.

RE: "CLEARLY that is the cause of the financial crisis we are in."

I'd disagree with that understanding of the causes of the crisis - Bush's debts, if anything, were symptomatic of the same underlying cause of private debts (which unlike the federal debt WAS at an unprecedented level, as I understand it).

RE: "Thank god we finally have a deficit hawk for a President with BHO."

You're sarcastic, but it's possible to be mature enough to be level headed about the risk of debt AND of the opinion that there are good reasons to run debts.

RE: "A crashing economy justifies trashing the economy. After your house catches fire, remind be to bring a blowtorch."

I think you're confusing my policy preferences and your own.

vikingvista -

RE: "You countered my post against someone who did. Maybe you just aren't following the thread."

Sorry - that statement of yours followed directly after your citation of one of my statements. It seemed as if you were responding to me.

RE: "No. Bush debts, following the Clinton recession, were symptomatic of the same underlying misguided stimulus ideology fueling Obama's recession response. But of course Obama and his band of hypocrites were critical of Bush running deficits in a recession."

Not all deficits are created equal. There are people out there who don't like ANY deficits, and I suppose to their eyes it may appear to be hypocritical. Look closer and look at what they were spending on and what spending was criticized before lobbing the "hypocrite" accusation.

RE: "So you don't think Krugman is a serious person. This is the most accurate thing I've seen you post."

He's been a little cavalier on the debt for my tastes, but I think you go too far in thinking he's unconcerned about it.

Can't we get past this "if he's not as concerned as I am he's unconcerned" mentality? Krugman is a serious economist and policy analyst.

vikingvista -

It's also not hypocritical to say that it's perfectly appropriate to have deficits when they're necessary, from either cutting taxes or raising spending - but that permanent policy changes leading to deficits should be sustainable and that any changes that aren't sustainable must be clearly temporary. It's also not hypocritical to differentiate between mobilizing during the Cold War and invading Iraq, between invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq, etc.

vikingvista -

RE: "It is if you say they are necessary under Obama for Bush's recession, but not under Bush for Clinton's recession."

You aren't interested in discussing the comparative merits of each recession?

1. Monetary policy wasn't fully exhausted under the Clinton/Bush recession

2. Prospects of reviving the economy through demand for our exports was a reasonable prospect under the Clinton/Bush recession - it isn't during a global downturn.

3. Depth, depth, depth.

And despite those three differences - I WOULD advocate (much smaller) fiscal stimulus and deficits for the Clinton/Bush recession, and I never once said I didn't. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a hypocrite. It's quite possible they're considering caveats and details you aren't even raising as an issue.

RE: "And hypocritical or not, it is "appropriate" only if your goal is to add to our economic woes."

Again, I think you're confusing your prescription and mine.

"Krugman is a serious economist and policy analyst."

Would you point your Krugman out for me? The only Krugman I've read is a shameless Democrat party hack.

vikingvista -

RE: "Would you point your Krugman out for me? The only Krugman I've read is a shameless Democrat party hack."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82PhLgaSnkA

Maybe this won't make any impression on you at all - but this seems to me to be a candid discussion of Krugman's position that we do have a lot of breathing room, but that we are not invincible when it comes to public debt.

vikingvista -

RE: "now suggesting that his stimulus should've been smaller as if that somehow would've had a significant effect on the revenue losses of the the Clinton (Nasdaq peaked 3/2000) recession."

Smaller than the CURRENT stimulus - not smaller than they were.

RE: "in which most spending doesn't occur until after Obama's economists project the recession to end--does not qualify"

Recessions end much sooner than unemployment returns to normal. Current investment also responds to future expectations. I also have a feeling Obama's economists were deliberately trying to talk up the economy early on - I don't entirely buy into this "we didn't know how bad it would be" schtick.

RE: "If on the other hand you are suggesting that Bush should've tried to slash government spending in response to the Clinton recession; AND you oppose the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending fiascos as the economic impediments that they are; then I must apologize."

I don't think either of those things. I don't have an instinctive problem with deficits - we can run deficits every year from now until eternity. Bush should have responded to the recession. He should have cut back in other areas - PARTICULARLY after the recession subsided. He should have begun work on health reform to lower those costs. He should not have invaded Iraq. He should not have made the tax cuts permanent, and probably should have reconsidered some of the tax cuts in the first place.

Obama, as a junior senator at the time, has no significant culpability in the financial crisis. That is a lucky coincidence for him, since there is every reason to believe he would've promulgated the same culpable policies has other Democrats and Republicans.

This is exemplified by his utter failure to recognize the Federal government cause trifecta that launched the bubble:

1. THE STICK: Federal regulators coercing banks to make risky loans,

2. THE CARROT: GSEs agreeing to take those risky loans off the banks' hands (and place them on the taxpayers'),

3. THE FUEL: Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy filling the banks with plenty of money to loan out.

Instead he blames as greedy people who followed the resulting market signals which incorrectly projected ever rising real estate demand.

"that's pretty damn close to the time the deficit figures started going in the other direction."

Yeah, and with Bush deficits maxing out at 3.53% of GDP in 2004, that level of deficit spending had not been seen since way back in ...1993! Bush must've been trying to poke into the 1980's average of 4.1%. CLEARLY that is the cause of the financial crisis we are in. Thank god we finally have a deficit hawk for a President with BHO. Another astute point DK.

"No serious person interested in and knowledgeable about policy and supportive of Obama isn't concerned about the debt."

So you don't think Krugman is a serious person. This is the most accurate thing I've seen you post.

"The new-found fiscal restraint of conservatives strikes us as a little odd"

As much wealth as conservatives have squandered over the decades, it pales in comparison to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid is doing. Obama should make even the most profligate of spenders quake.

"The debt is not unprecedented, as the film suggests it is"

It is unprecedented since WWII, and since WWI before that. A peacetime economy is quite a different place to live than a wartime economy. No doubt BHO would like those wartime powers to set things straight, only THEN will it not be unprecedented.

"the debt is being taken on for what a lot of people consider to be very justifiable reasons".

A crashing economy justifies trashing the economy. After your house catches fire, remind be to bring a blowtorch.

"I'd disagree with that understanding of the causes of the crisis - Bush's debts"

You countered my post against someone who did. Maybe you just aren't following the thread.

"Bush's debts, if anything, were symptomatic of the same underlying cause of private debts"

No. Bush debts, following the Clinton recession, were symptomatic of the same underlying misguided stimulus ideology fueling Obama's recession response. But of course Obama and his band of hypocrites were critical of Bush running deficits in a recession.

"Look closer and look at what they were spending on and what spending was criticized before lobbing the "hypocrite" accusation."

I suppose you are referring to the added military and homeland security spending. But unfortunately for the hypocrites that doesn't account for most of the deficits. The Clinton recession and subsequent decreased receipts do, just as it accounts for a large part of Obama's deficits.

The Bush and Obama responses are qualitatively, but not quantitatively similar. For Obama supporters to NOT be hypocritical, their criticism of Bush would have to be that he did not deficit spend enough (but of course that is not the case).

For conservatives to NOT be hypocritical, their criticism of Obama would have to be not that he is deficit spending, but that he is spending to much. That, actually, DOES appear to be the case. Conservatives in Congress did and do advocate stimulus (in the form of tax cuts without spending cuts).

But hypocrites or not, both the liberals and conservatives are wrong.

"It's also not hypocritical to differentiate between mobilizing during the Cold War and invading Iraq, between invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq, etc."

It is if you blame the Bush deficits on it.

"It's also not hypocritical to say that it's perfectly appropriate to have deficits when they're necessary,"

It is if you say they are necessary under Obama for Bush's recession, but not under Bush for Clinton's recession.

And hypocritical or not, it is "appropriate" only if your goal is to add to our economic woes.

"I WOULD advocate (much smaller) fiscal stimulus and deficits for the Clinton/Bush recession, and I never once said I didn't. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a hypocrite. "

If not a hypocrite you are certainly inconsistent, if that makes you feel better. You blame Bush for deficits starting the year he took office, now suggesting that his stimulus should've been smaller as if that somehow would've had a significant effect on the revenue losses of the the Clinton (Nasdaq peaked 3/2000) recession.

Even for those who mistakenly believe that it is possible for federal government spending to stimulate the economy as a whole, the Obama spending fiasco--in which most spending doesn't occur until after Obama's economists project the recession to end--does not qualify.

If on the other hand you are suggesting that Bush should've tried to slash government spending in response to the Clinton recession; AND you oppose the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending fiascos as the economic impediments that they are; then I must apologize.