SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pompsander who wrote (15257)7/12/2009 2:37:58 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
And how many trillions does obama have now, and he wants to add more? Bush added his over 8 years, obama over only six months... you think the accelerated pace means nothing?

GZ



To: pompsander who wrote (15257)7/13/2009 9:05:50 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
Re: "Twenty times Bush? I don't think that kind of exageration helps the debate. Mr. Bush had the first trillion dollar deficit after all...."

If he had said: 'I PREDICT that, given two Presidential terms, Obama's administration will match or even exceed the Bush additions to the US national debt.'....

Or if he had said something like 'I PREDICT that, in time Obama will double or maybe triple the amount that Bush added to the US national debt.'....

Well, who could argue with that? It would be just a PREDICTION! No way to 'prove' or 'disprove' any of it until time has passed and the results are in. (And every is entitled to speculate all they want to...

But to claim that (in the short time the man has held office... what is it? 180 *days* or something like that?) that the national debt has "increased 20 times what the Bush increase was"??????????????????????????????

That's just insane, unreal, not-of-this-world, doesn't even pass a 'smell test'. Nowhere even NEAR to the ballpark we call reality.... <g>

As I have posted already, given the size of the US economy, I HIGHLY DOUBT that it could even be within the bounds of economic POSSIBILITY to increase the US nation debt by "20 times Bush's increase"... i.e., by more then 80 TRILLION DOLLARS ('cause the second Bush increased US debt by well over $4 Trillion Dollars... since WW II he is THIRD in size for the amount he has added to the nation debt after President Reagan, #2, and the first President Bush, #1... measured by debt added-by-year. By TOTAL DEBT ADDED it's: Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) over a full two Presidential terms. Let alone a few short months. <g>

I doubt that it would be even possible for the entire world to *loan* us that amount of scratch, over that short (eight years) a period of time....

FYI:

Presidents and the Federal Debt

White House Data Confirms: Reagan-Bush Administrations
Created Post-WWII Federal Debt

zfacts.com

GRAPH OF DEBT HISTORY SHOWING PRESIDENTS (April 2006 data point --- note that Bush II wound up exceeding even this prediction for his second term. National Debt is up 5.3 Trillion since Bush II became president.)


Contributions of Presidents to the Gross Federal Debt
The Presidential contributions to the gross federal debt are computed from data available from the White House.gov in the Historical Tables, Table 7.1 (PDF), p. 118, for FY 2005. The graph and data are also available in this XLS source file.

For each term in office, the President is responsible for four fiscal year budgets starting Oct. 1 of the year they take office and ending Sept. 30, eight months after they leave office. Table 7.1 gives the gross federal debt as a % of GDP at the end of every fiscal year since 1940. Each President's federal debt contribution was computed by simply subtracting the value at the start of his first FY from the value at the end of his last FY.

All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the WWII debt would have been as low as it's shown to be.

Debt held by the Federal Reserve System is purchased by printing money; the purpose of these "open market operations" is to put more currency into circulation. The most recent figures used for this part of the federal debt are available from the St. Louis Fed. This was divided by GDP figures provided by the Department of Commerce.

Since all Presidents from Truman on have reduced the gross federal debt except Reagan and the Bushes, the part remaining from WWII is found by subtracting their debt contributions (and the FRS contribution) from the current federal debt total.
Keywords: Federal Debt, National Debt
=======================================================


Data on National Debt by President

From dKosopedia
dkosopedia.com

There is a similar page on wiki.

The Table

Left Debt Change
Office Years %GDP per Year
R:Bush II 2002 2 59.80 0.90
D:Clinton 2000 8 58.00 -0.76
R:Bush I 1992 4 64.10 3.05
R:Reagan 1988 8 51.90 2.31
D:Carter 1980 4 33.40 -0.70
R:Ford 1976 3 36.20 0.20
R:Nixon 1973 5 35.60 -1.38
D:Johnson 1968 5 42.50 -1.86
D:Kennedy 1963 3 51.80 -1.40
R:Eisenhower 1960 8 56.00 -2.29
D:Truman 1952 74.30


Here's the same data, tightened up, with the three-decades old data discarded, and sorted from best-to-worst:

Change in the National Debt, as a yearly percentage of GDP.
Sorted Best-to-Worst.

D:Clinton -0.76 (reduced the debt)
D:Carter -0.70 (reduced the debt)
R:Ford 0.20 (no change)
R:Bush II 0.90 (increased the debt)
R:Reagan 2.31 (increased the debt)
R:Bush I 3.05 (increased the debt)

Analysis

Notice that fifty years ago, the debt was huge: that's because WWII was very expensive. Afterward, both parties wisely cooperated to pay down the huge war debt. Ford was the first president to break with that tradition. From that point forward, every Republican worked hard to push us deeper into debt, every Democrat worked hard to get us out of debt.

The change in the Republican party that started with Ford is visible in most of the other statistics as well. Check them out.

Methodology

Here's how I compiled this table: I went to the OMB and got the table that shows total government debt for each year starting in 1940. For each president, I wrote down the last year he was in office, and therefore, the last year he had control over the budget. I also wrote down the total debt in that year, as a percent of GDP (I do not know if that was the debt at the start, middle, or end of the year: it doesn't make much difference, since most presidents were in office much longer than that.) I then compared each president's debt level as a percentage of GDP to the level of the president before, calculated the difference, and divided by the number of years in office.




To: pompsander who wrote (15257)7/13/2009 9:44:09 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin

Their harsh views conflict with those of grass-roots GOP voters, revealing a serious split within the party.

By Mark Z. Barabak
July 13, 2009
latimes.com

Since announcing her resignation, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been pummeled by critics who have called her incoherent, a quitter, a joke and a "political train wreck."

And those were fellow Republicans talking.

Palin has been a polarizing figure from the moment she stepped off the tundra into the bright lights last summer as John McCain's surprise vice presidential running mate. Some of that hostility could be expected, given the hyper-partisanship of today's politics.

What is remarkable is the contempt Palin has engendered within her own party and the fact that so many of her GOP detractors are willing, even eager, to express it publicly -- even with Palin an early front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Some admit their preference that she stay in Alaska and forget about any national ambitions.

"I am of the strong opinion that, at present day, she is not ready to be the leading voice of the GOP," said Todd Harris, a party strategist who likened Palin to the hopelessly dated "Miami Vice" -- something once cool that people regard years later with puzzlement and laughter. "It's not even that she hasn't paid her dues. I personally don't think she's ready to be commander in chief."

Others suggest a delayed response to last year's shaky campaign performance, now that the race is over and Republicans feel free to speak their minds.

"I can't tell you one thing she brought to the ticket," said Stuart K. Spencer, who has been advising GOP candidates for more than 40 years. "McCain wanted to shock and surprise people, and he did -- in a bad way."

It is more than cruel sport, this picking apart of Alaska's departing chief executive. The sniping reflects a serious split within the Republican Party between its professional ranks and some of its most ardent followers, which threatens not only to undermine Palin's White House ambitions -- if, indeed, she harbors them -- but to complicate the party's search for a way back to power in Washington.

Consider a USA Today/Gallup poll released last week. About 7 in 10 Republicans said they would be likely to vote for Palin if she ran for president. Other surveys place Palin in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, the former governors of Massachusetts and Arkansas, respectively, who sought the White House in 2008 and give every indication that they will try again in 2012.

Although any presidential poll taken this far out has to be taken with a sea's worth of salt, that is not the reason so many Republican strategists and party insiders dismiss Palin.

"People at the grass roots see a charismatic personality who is popular with other people at the grass roots. But their horizon only goes so far as people who think like them," said Mike Murphy. The veteran GOP ad man eviscerated Palin -- a "political train wreck," "an awful choice" for vice president, her resignation an "astonishing self-immolation" -- in a column published Thursday in the New York Daily News.

"Professional operatives keep their eye on a broader horizon and understand, without independents and swing voters, she can't win," Murphy said. "She's a stone-cold loser in a general election."

That, of course, is debatable and subject to any number of developments over the next few years. A Palin spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.

In an interview Sunday in the Washington Times, Palin said she planned to write a book and campaign for candidates nationwide, regardless of party affiliation, who shared her views on limited government, national defense and energy independence.

But the reaction to her resignation from Republican candidates around the country has been telling. Asked if they planned to invite Palin to visit and campaign on their behalf, several of those facing tough races -- the ones who need to do more than turn out the party faithful or collect their contributions -- were not rushing out the welcome mat.

"I don't generally need people from outside my district to do a fundraiser," Rep. Frank R. Wolf, a Republican from the Democratic-leaning suburbs of northern Virginia, told the Hill newspaper.

"There's others that I would have come in and campaign, and most of them would be my colleagues in the House," Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) said in the same piece.

Whatever one thinks of Palin, there is no question she has been subjected to a level of internal sniping -- friendly fire seems like a misnomer -- that is extraordinary.

The Republican criticism of Palin, 45, began during McCain's presidential run, privately at first, then breaking into the open during the last troubled days of the Arizona senator's campaign. Finger-pointing and back-stabbing are hardly unusual in politics, especially on the losing side. But like so many things Palin-related -- the crowds, the adoration, the antipathy -- the verbal strafing seems of a whole other magnitude. (How many other losing vice presidential candidates would merit a 10,000-word exegesis in Vanity Fair, which depicted Alaska's governor as a narcissistic, one-woman demolition derby?)

Some blame sexism, though again there is sharp disagreement between Palin's supporters and detractors. Some think the former beauty queen has always been hurt by her looks, whereas others think her appearance has helped her considerably. "If Sarah Palin looked like Golda Meir, would we even be talking about her today?" Murphy asked.

Others see a knee-jerk reaction from the political establishment, which will always frown on any populist outsider (think Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean), much less a governor who quits midterm and shows up on TV in hip waders.

"The fact that she is a woman who's extremely attractive and dynamic and charismatic throws them for a loop," said Bay Buchanan, who strategized for her brother's two insurgent presidential campaigns. "Once they sense the first little sign of weakness, that's when they go in for the kill."

No one knows where the future will take Palin, not even the governor herself. Her reemergence on the national scene and the scathing response from so many of her party peers underscore one thing, however: Republicans may hold dear their memories of the late Ronald Reagan. But his famous 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" -- was laid to rest a long time ago.

mark.barabak@latimes.com