Third Party & Independents: Archives

‘nuff said.

David
It’s all about how you view things….half full or half empty.

Clearly you prefer the half empty approach while some of us prefer the former it seems.

The last two days,posters here have called the president corrupt,inept,greedy,power hungry,incompetrnt.

Some say they hate him.

That is truly sad..especially so in a time of war…a war which,despite the claims of both the left and third parties and for most of the media are winning.

I have a queation for you,David.If last year’s election were held today,who would you vote for,Kerry or Bush?

I know you voted for Nader,but after realizing that if you were to fote for him again and he bleeds enough votes away from Kerry,would you do the same again?

Posters here have marginalized and trivialized the January election and the adobtion of the constitution,and I am sure that tomorrow’s election will be marginalized as well.

Joe Biden is already playing down its significance,telling all that next year the Iraqis must have the constitution squared away or else a civil war will break out.

Enlistments in the military are up,re-enlistments for active duty personnel is way up and morale is still thru the roof.

Why dont the left and independent pundits ever talk about those profoundly important stats.

Re-reading your post,its as if Bush should be in a situation room directing every patrol,every convoy or else he is not doing his job.

Every day,several times a day,he receives briefings from experts in the field and forms policy based on those reports.

Should the president count all the cash in the treasurury to double-check the Secretary of the Treasury?Or should he make sure by calling up employers that they really are creating jobs?

It’s unfortunate that partisian politics (and when a third party advocate such as yourself constantly attacks the administration,you are engaging in purely partisian politics in my view) has poisioned the nationial conscious.

I actually agree with your view that the system is broken.

But how about an equally vitrolic piece against the Democratic party?

If you are truly “independent” then your furor should be equally balanced against their views too.

How about it?

Eagle:

David is simply playing a game here. If Bush says that he makes the decisions about the military, David would question his ability to do so, and wonder why Bush would override the commanders in the field. Since Bush says he relies on the commanders in the field, David questions him on that.

Its a fun game to play because there is no way to lose the game. There’s very little strategy to it, since you simply take a position opposite of what the President takes. Of course, the skill involved is in waiting until the President makes a decision—-you cannot afford to state a position in advance because then you are forced to potentially backtrack (see Democratic Senators and Iraq war comments-2002).

When you play a nonsense game like this with no possibility of losing, you also give up the ability to win (see elections: Gore v. Bush, Kerry v. Bush, 2002 midterm elections).

But for some, the absence of a pure defeat seems to take precedence over the courage required to play a game to win. It must be a thin tasteless gruel they eat, simply because they lack the vision to eat stew.

JBOD

Well said.

Sorry about the typos in my post above,but my life is all about editing and spell-checking in the real world,and posting here gives me an opportunity to practice in one shot my writin skills or lack thereof.

However,the message remains the same.

Rembember the book Stranger in a Strange Land by Micheal Valentine Smith?It was really popular in the 70’s.The protaganist was a person from another galaxy who came to study humankind and ends up dying here.It was a terrific book and very thought-provoking.

Anyway,the court system in that book was staffed by professionially trained jurors…completely unbiased people called Fair Witnesses who decided the guilt or innocence of the defandant.

Thrid parties should be exactly that…unbiased and objective,and when they float into one view or another,they they have lost their objectivity.

This piece really belongs on the left and should be responded to in a puirely partisian manner.

I won’t do that because I like Dave and his basic theme of getting the politicial thing fixed.

He is not a one trick pony either like some of the posters here who are deaf on the one hand and blinded by their hatred of the administration to such an extent that all reasoning is impossible and discussion escalates into the intellectual gutter fast.

I counted the words “corrupt”,”hate”,”greed”,”power” a couple hundred times on the present posts and responses on the left.

Guys like me,professionially trained to bite back,take it for what it is…pure hatred for the administration and the GOP…despite any good that the administration might do.

It’s sad as I said.

JBOD, Eagle,

You don’t get it. Currently, Bush and Cheney are the neoKlan dream team; Destruction of the middle class by richly focused tax cuts etc.., elimination of the bill of rights by spying on citizens with no warrantable cause, etc…, the end of civil rights by SCOTUS picks, the end of religious freedoms, and the list goes on.
This is the so called CEO presidency with a bonehead in the seat with the brain of a chimp (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) and lobbyists writing all the laws (7000 at last count were written by the industries the bills support without legislative inputs). The guy doesn’t even read, he just has his “people” do it for him!
Meanwhile, you just laugh it off as if we don’t get it. Sorry guys, the insane are in charge of the institution and you don’t get it.

Dave:

What specific religous freedoms have you lost? We still have the freedom to pray as we wish, to whom we wish and when and where we wish.

You c laim the end of civil rights due to SCOTUS picks, but you forget that by our very Constitution, the President is empowered to make those picks. The Senate then gets to approve those picks. I’m sorry you feel that since your guy lost the last election, we should now change the rules to allow the losers a bigger option. If you really want that, then put the Constitution up for a change and get it voted on. That’s how it works.

Dave, you have your ideas—-doesnt make them correct. I have mine—again, doesnt make them correct. But when I see how many simply take the opposing point of view, it becomes rather fun to watch, in a sick sadistic way. Remember the anti war left who claimed Baghdad would be a bloody quagmire. When it did not happen, they said they knew all along that the US would win militarily. Remember those who rail against the tax cuts because they wouldnt work? Now that the economy is moving along nicely, they change the argument to “We knew it would work, but we are mortgaging our future”.

Why the need to keep changing the argument? Thats the funny part. Say what you mean first and stick with it.

JBOD,

You’re the one changing the topic. I didn’t say Bush wasn’t supporting his base, what I said was he is an incurious incompetent with an ill formed and ill executed policy that is unAmerican and not in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.
Also, I notice, you took no exception to any of my points except the religious one. To me, by extension, religious freedoms are being lost by his promotion of a specific religions agenda as he is unduly influenced by a fanatical fringe for his own political purposes. It’s only step one through four down a very slippery path.

BTW, I will take by your silence you agree that Bush is assualting our civil rights, the bill of rights, and the middle class.

Joe

So of our leftist friends will come out and say what they think, but you are right that most react. What was the Dem plan on SS? Don’t do what Bush wants. What is the Dem plan on Iraq? Not Bush.

You remember last year I asked people here to predict the outcome of the Iraq vote in January. Some of the braver guys did. The consensus was it would be a bloody mess and lead rapidly to civil war. When turnout was high and bloodshed low, many said that this is natural and expected but not enough.

They can’t accept good news. Iraq is still a big risk, but it is far better than anyone predicted last year. The economy is not perfect, but it is very very good. I don’t know when perceptions will meet reality. I hope soon.

The other left strategy you didn’t mention is dire predictions. They predict gloom and doom. Of course, since it is about the future you can’t really say they are wrong. BUT when it doesn’t happen, they still talk about it as if it did.

There was a post here predicting Bush would announce a cut and run at his Naval Academy speech. He did the opposite. I wrote to that post trying to put the last word on that indeed it did not happen. There were still counter posts saying that sure enough it would.

I have said before that one reason I like the free market is that you get a chance to bet on the future. It is the place were those that predict bad things can show what they really believe. I hope for the sake of the good but misguided folks who post here that they DO NOT invest based on their pessimism.

Dave:

Reading is important. Reading fully is even more so. And finally, reading fully and with cognition is the utmost of importance.

You seem to have missed the entire paragraph in my reply to you that discussed the SCOTUS. For your edification, I’ll repost it below:

“You claim the end of civil rights due to SCOTUS picks, but you forget that by our very Constitution, the President is empowered to make those picks. The Senate then gets to approve those picks. I’m sorry you feel that since your guy lost the last election, we should now change the rules to allow the losers a bigger option. If you really want that, then put the Constitution up for a change and get it voted on. That’s how it works.”

BTW, I will take by your silence you agree that Bush is assualting our civil rights, the bill of rights, and the middle class.

This is the laziest of arguments available. First, you missed that I did in fact discuss your civil rights issue. And second, you make a wildly incorrect assumption on the rest. I didn’t respond to your comments about the middle class or the bill of rights because they aren’t part of the thread. As I said, you have your thoughts on them—-I disagree. We can pound on our reasons for that, but to what end. I know from experience with you that you won’t change your opinion based on my input—-the vice versa is just as true.

Lastly, I’m not even sure what you mean by claiming that I changed the argument. I didn’t say you mentioned Bush’s base—I gave examples of how the left meanders in its comments. I asked you for specific examples of what religious freedoms you’ve lost (because you brought it up) and the most specific thing you could bring up was to say “To me, by extension, religious freedoms are being lost by his promotion of a specific religions agenda as he is unduly influenced by a fanatical fringe for his own political purposes.” So I’ll ask again: What specific religious freedoms have you lost?

Dave, from your response, I can’t even tell that you actually read my post. And you didn’t even address the things that I commented on that ARE a part of the thread. That being that I see a pattern of changing arguments from the left as the facts force them to alter their rationale. I’ll give you another one: First it was the Bush recession in 2001 (despite the inability to show even ONE single economic policy that could have caused a recession within the first 4 months of his Presidency), which migrated to a “jobless recovery”. When it was proven that jobs were being created, this migrated to “yeah, its recovering and jobs are being created, but they aren’t good jobs”. Factcheck.org did a nice job of debunking that—you can check it out in their archives if you wish.

Once you recognize the pattern, its really easy to see. Follow almost any situation (Iraq, SCOTUS, economy, etc) and you will see the trend.

So, Jack,

What you’re saying is that by excerpting a few “wrong” comments from people with whom you disagree, all people who disagree with you are and will be wrong? That everyone who disagrees with you is only a contrarian? That everything Bush does is for the greater good and will come to pass becuase he is your chosen son?
What an optimist you are! What a god you must be!

Dave

That is not what I am saying.

What I would like is for people to stick with one story.

Do this for me now. Give me a prediction of the election tomorrow and the economy in six months. You don’t need be very specific - just directions. We are not gods, after all.

My prediction is that the election will go off very well with large Sunni participation. More and more people will be attracted to the democratic process.

The economy in six months will have grown by 3-4% (annualized) unemployment will be below 5% and interest rates will be about what they are today (historically low levels)

These are optimistic/realistic predictions. I have been making simiar ones all year. The pessimists have been wrong, but thier memories are short. Write it down of me if you disagree.

JBOD,Dave

Again I concurr with JBOD’s prediction adding that no civil war will occur in Iraq ,that the security forces there will get stronger,that in 6 months another 15,000 troops will be able to leave as those Iraqi forces grow,that Bush’s poll numbers will continue to improve,that more jobs will be created,that the immigration issue will have some resolution and that the mid-term electiopns will not be a GOP disaster

Eagle:

You attributed Jack’s predictions to me. I appreciate the thought, and take it as a compliment. But Jack made the predictions and should get the credit. I do, however, agree with him.

Jack:

I hope Dave takes you up on your challenge to make predictions about the future. They aren’t all that hard to do, when you do them in cursory form as you did. But they do serve the purpose of holding people to their earlier opinions and predictions as the true facts emerge. We can only predict the future, but by doing so, we can also test the validity of our past predictions in order to assess the potential correctness of our future predictions.

Once again, I think this thread shows a disturbing over-heated rhetoric by both sides. On one hand, it is ridiculous to attack Bush for his answers on Katrina (do you SERIOUSLY think he was trying to dodge the question about rate? I mean, it would be easy enough to deny it straight out, he was just trying to use an example) and to pretend like the appointment of Alito and Roberts are somehow going to undermine our Constitution. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to continue to pretend Bush is not floundering about Iraq. This new re-packaging is a good thing, but it is a change- one brought about by many of the more tempered and thoughtful critics of the execution of the war effort (e.g. Bidden).

The problem comes from the fact that politics is very black and white in the real world- either I vote for this guy or that guy. And Bush is neither a good or bad president. He has many faults (insulated from criticism, inattention to fiscal discipline, treatment of prisons in the war on terror) and he has good qualities (takes strong stands to do what he thinks is right, even if its not popular- e.g. social security reform, continuing with the war on iraq even though it would have been politically smart for him to find a way out asap).

A president like this does not deserve to be called all these terrible names, nor does he deserve undying praise and admiration. As for me, I think he is mediocre- in almost everything he does. I will admit that it makes me very sad that someone mediocre is the leader of my country.

Misha,

Thank you for the sane, reasonable appraisal! Well said!

jo

Misha:

As usual, excellent points.

I’d differ slightly in that I think Bush has taken on some very momentous issues during his Presidency and that alone makes me think highly of him. For example, no one in years has dared touch the dreaded ‘third rail’ of politics called Social Security. I won’t suggest that he had the answers or that he handled it properly, but he did recognize it as an important issue and dared to discuss it.

The same goes for Afghanistan and Iraq. There was little to be gained politically by going into Iraq, yet he went in anyways because he thought it was the right thing to do. The discussion of how Iraq is going is salient, but also complicated. I’d like it to have gone more smoothly, but it is progressing. You might find the attached link interesting to read, as its written by a Marine major serving in Iraq (I’d suggest that he has a more accurate viewpoint of the situation than either of us do).

I think Bush has attempted momentous things (SS, tax change, war, Medicaid, Supreme Court nominations) and has handled them acceptably. By attempting them, he has earned my praise. But I’d agree with you that some of them could have been handled better.

Misha,JBOD,Jack

Misha
Bravo.I concur.

Jack
Sorry for the wrong name on the post..thanking JBOD instead of you…

JBOD
Maybe we can get a thredd here where all the daily posters can “predict” 6 issues over the next 6 months and have the prediction documented.My six are above.

I find David’s article to be very interesting in that it combines absolute fact with point of view emphasis.

President Bush always has an answer. Unfortunately, that answer generally is a self disclaimer as he references another individual “who’s job it is to keep me informed” or, “that task has been assigned to so and so”, etc.

In his defense, in this world where we (especially the media) take great pleasure in kicking someone when they are down, whether they deserve it or not, he is asked some questions that cannot be responded to in a short press conference. He should however know that he is going to be asked current priority questions that he should be prepared for.Failing that is inexcusable.

David’s point regarding voting for challengers rather than incumbents is clearly the message that the voters need to respond to. While the media is busy pointing out all of the government’s shortcomings based on opinion polls, etc. I think that they should point out that while incredibly high percentages of people are opposed to the way government and national issues are being handled, only 50% of the age eligible voters go to the polls in a Presidential election (25% in a mid-term election) and, to make things even more curious, only 40% of the age eligible voters in the 18-24 age group actually vote. This is the group with the most at stake for the future.

Steve

Those who don’t vote support whoever wins. They like to complain but we should not listen, since they have proven by their habits that they won’t do anything about it anyway.

Young people never vote in great numbers because you have to learn to take responsibility. It just takes time. Nothing will change that. The rockers and rappers tried like mad. They even had a “vote or die” campaign. Most evidently choose the latter.

David,
Terrific Article. You’ve really said it all here, and there is nothing further to add.

Dave,
Why argue with Bush’s true believers? They aren’t going to change their minds, you know. No matter what you say to them and no matter what proof you try to give them they’ll always claim that you are wrong and that your proof is invalid.
I’ve given up and I don’t want to waste my time any longer. From now on I’m either going to just state what I think and not bother to reply to any attacks, or engage in discussions only with someone who actually seems likely to listen.

Adr- your comment “Dave, Why argue with Bush’s true believers? They aren’t going to change their minds, you know. No matter what you say to them and no matter what proof you try to give them they’ll always claim that you are wrong and that your proof is invalid” is the height of irony. I mean, I posted a comment calling Bush mediocre, and all the supposed “bush true believers” said good job to me on the post! No one who is a detractor of his said good job. It seems that the left on this board is much more of a “true believer” in their hatred for Bush, unable to see any nuance in his presidency. They hate everything about Bush and everything he does- no matter what.

I do grant that your comment is fully applicable to many of Bush’s supporters in general.

Misha,
I wasn’t referring to you.

Adr- i know, but several of Bush defenders on this thread gave positive feedback on my post in which I called Bush mediocre and said that it mad me “very sad that someone mediocre is the leader”. Doesnt that show that they can see both the good and bad of the Bush presidency? I guess what I wonder is why people on the left cant see some good too? I mean, I disliked Bill Clinton a lot, but I liked some of what he did- like NAFTA, Kosovo… It seems that there are similar nuances for the left to see in the Bush presidency, which they choose to ignore.

Sorry about the typos in my post above,but my life is all about editing and spell-checking in the real world,and posting here gives me an opportunity to practice in one shot my writin skills or lack thereof.

SE,

I thought you were an importer/exporter (like Art Vandelay).

Adrienne,
I sometimes enjoy a good argument just for the arguments sake (avoiding the abuse room where possible). In this case, it went no where, there was no understanding on the other party’s part of the first part, or any part… So, I ate lunch instead of replying. {Sorry guys, no short term predictions from me}

Misha,
Did you ever the see the movie “Network”? I’m not suggesting we follow the protagonists path of self destruction (Bush is doing a good job at that already) but “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” applies. I’ll keep up Bush bashing even if it sounds ignominious because of some puerile name calling. He has no “nuance”, it’s just that not everyone is wrong all time.

What is this prediction game the right of center commentors have a penchant for? Why ask lay people to look into crystal balls, when they have highly qualified and paid experts at Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and AEI among many others to do the best predictive modeling available.

I for one never predicted civil war was ever dependent on whether Iraqis vote or not, whether they adopt a Constitution or not or any other predictions of that nature. I am on record as predicting that civil war is very likely when the coalition of the willing withdraws. My prediction is based on those of many experts as well as my own rational and logical assessment of the situation.

Where there is oil, money, and a tripartate coalition government controlling it, there is going be corruption, manipulation, and factionalization aimed at that government to weaken it for the advantage of other avaricious competitors. Whether their avarice stems from powerlessness, poverty, religion or regional autonomy and defense, there are going to be huge forces tugging Iraq apart when the Coalition of the Willing leaves.

Ergo, logic dictates that the only way to insure success of this Iraq Democracy is for the Coalition to never leave. The logic is quite simple and straightforward. The Bush administration talks of troop reductions. But, never talks of our complete withdrawal. That fact speaks volumes. Given the American people’s desire for an end to our body bags and casualties and approaching 1/2 Trillion dollar cost and commitment to Iraq, the Bush administration can choose to appease the voters by extolling a plan for withdrawal or he can try to repackage himself and his party as something other than the responsible parties for our indefinite occupation of Iraq.

As I said, I don’t think the repackaging will work, and they certainly have no intention of withdrawing from the occupation of Iraq. Reducing forces, yes. Removing them altogther and thus removing American target in Iraq for insurgents and terrorists, is not in the cards, and the Whitehouse is pretty clear about avoiding any such statements.

Misha, I consider mediocre and incompetent as fairly synonymous. An incompetent by the Peter Principle definition automatically implies some semblance of experience and capacity, else they would not have been promoted to their level of incompetence.

As regards the will of the majority of the American people, Bush is, as polls show on issues like Iraq, Soc. Sec., Medicare Rx plan, deficits and debt, and tax cuts for the wealthiest, grossly incompetent in representing the interests and agenda of the majority of Americans. Is there any other test of competence that matters for a U.S. president?

Burt
Correct,but I also have a radio show,write a newletter with several thousand subscribers,own an internet company,plus a law prectice too.Oh,I teach at three laws too while still getting to live in my beloved Sicily to boot

But how about an equally vitrolic piece against the Democratic party?

If you are truly “independent” then your furor should be equally balanced against their views too.

I think you completely miss the point of being “Independent”. Independents aren’t balanced between Left and Right, swaying whenever those sides do. We hold our positions INDEPENDENT of the Left and Right, and even other Independents.

One thing that most of us have in common, though, is a belief in moderation. We avoid far-wing extremists on either side.

You seem to think that only Left-wing nuts dislike Bush. That’s simply not the case. He’s alienated many people, even within his own party.

Dave:

{Sorry guys, no short term predictions from me}No surprise there, Dave, as that would violate principle number 1—that being never give an opinion that you can be held to. You have the makings of a good politician.

Misha:

Excellent point about the irony. It’s amusing that even when shown directly, some just can’t concieve it.

David:

What is this prediction game the right of center commentors have a penchant for? Why ask lay people to look into crystal balls…

You’ve seen often enough on Watchblog how people maketheir own predictions of what will happen as a result of some policy or decision. They do so without being asked. All Jack is suggesting is a means of assessing how their predictions bear out.

I’m no finance guru or stockbroker, but I do buy sotck, and therefore I buy stocks that I predict will go up. Over the years, I keep track of how I do. If I were to do better than my broker, then who needs him. If I tank out, then I better rely less on my own assessments than on those of the ‘experts’.

The doom and gloom crowd simply makes dire prediction after dire prediction. Eventually they get one right, and they trumpet it to the heavens. But there is a saying: Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. And so it is true of the doom and gloom crowd. They throw out all their myriad wrong predictions at that point, and claim they are batting 100%.

Misha:
“Doesnt that show that they can see both the good and bad of the Bush presidency?”

No. It just shows that in their heart of hearts they know he’s done a terrible job as the president, but as die hard partisan Republicans they themselves can’t ever admit that, so they’re willing to concede a few points to you — and the reason seems transparent to me. Clearly you aren’t nearly as outraged or disgusted by Bush’s glaring incompetence as David, and Dave and I happen to be, so they’re willing to act as though your faint criticism is eminently reasonable.

“I guess what I wonder is why people on the left cant see some good too?”

Because as far as I can tell (and I am a consistently voracious news reader) there honestly hasn’t been any good to speak of.

Adrienne

Maybe California (or at least where you live) is doing poorly. Our economy is booming and we have essnentially zero unemployment. When you average out the U.S. we have about 5%. The economy is great and has been since 2003 (about the time the tax cuts started to have effect)

Iraq is a war. In war people die. But there is no zero option. I read in the paper today that 3000 people die each month on Iraq’s roads. We can’t make decisions based on only one side of the balance.

Three free elections. That is unbelievable and none of the opponents predicted that.

David - your 5th paragraph, in my opinion, is not a valid criticism. Bush was merely answering a fool according to his folly. Can you possibly think of any stupider question to ask the President about Katrina? Let me know when you think of one.

Our economy is booming and we have essnentially zero unemployment.
Posted by Jack at December 14, 2005 02:04 PM

And where is that?

Dave

The unemployment rate in N. Virginia is 2.5%. (that means essentially that anyone who wants to work can find a job). It can’t get much lower statistically. For the whole state it is 3.5%. One of my son’s 17 year old friends just got his first part time job working at the local Toys R Us. Starting wage was $8.

For the whole U.S. the rate is currently 5%. I know the poor suffer more and this statistic means nothing to liberals, but to us ordinary people it says a lot.

OK, Jack.

You’re made the contention that “the economy is great” a number of times in a number of threads, it sparks a controversy where each side displays some figures, and it always ends up the same: everyone seems to (albeit grudgingly) accept the idea that this is a so-so economy. Not bad, not good. Does Mr. Remer et al once again have to illustrate how you can talk about GDP and unemployment until you’re blue in the face, but when wages don’t keep pace with growth, costs increase in nearly all walks of life, and interest rates start to rise across the board, your figures are profoundly misleading? I imagine everyone must be worn out from doing so.

I think everyone tires of your dogged insistence that this is a “great economy” when it clearly is nothing of the sort, and promises, with record debt, tax cuts, and colossal deficit spending, to get really ugly in the not-too-distant future.

Not to mention the fact that, from a historical perspective, this economy is a bit anomalous, in that it is a wartime economy that is NOT booming. By wartime standards, this is damn near a recession.

I guess you’re taking cues from this administration’s playbook: if you spew an inaccurate datum enough times, it might just get accepted as the truth. But I don’t expect any of this will stop you from once again dragging out your usual “this economy is the greatest in human history!” nonsense.

Dave:
“Our economy is booming and we have essnentially zero unemployment.
Posted by Jack at December 14, 2005 02:04 PM

And where is that?”

For the die-hard Bush Apologists that would be Sugar Plum Fairy Land! A magical place where it’s okay to leave out the unemployment statistics of everyone affected by Katrina because those people don’t really matter. A land where good, well-paying jobs are hanging off of all the trees, and anyone can simply reach out and pluck one in order to support their entire families. And of course there is more than enough for the wives get to stay home to raise the little ones — whose college educations are ensured!
Hooray!!!
In this magical land, the only people who are considered inferior enough to have to work two crummy jobs in order to barely scrape by are those who were simply too imprudent to get a college education (rather than having an education, but still finding it impossible to find a decent job). Or were too stupid to plan well ahead of what they consider the highly desirable and inevitable conclusion of their fantastical free market-driven outsourcing. Or sometimes simply because these folks are just too fat and lazy and are actually living like royalty (rather than because they eat alot of transfatty carb-laden crap because real food is actually too expensive for them to buy)!
Yes, in this spectacular wonderland everybody worth anything is doing just peachy — and their Nutcracker in Chief is competent, kind, benevolent and wise and only wants what’s best for everyone (rather than a totally incompetent, corrupt, rash ‘n’ ruthless psychopath who has lived his entire life within a privileged wealthy bubble where everyone is super-elite).
;^)

Yosarrian and Adrienne

The figures are very similar to those of 1997, when most people hailed the economy as one of the best EVER. I hope we can avoid the sort of bubble of 1999-2000 and I think we can. Speaking of that the bursting of the tech bubble in March of 2000, 9/11, need for stepped up security which caused us to pay back “the peace dividend” etc, this is amazing. I will repeat it as long as people keep on missing it. I also want to lay down another markers.

As I mentioned in another post, I sense a subtle shift in Dem strategy. They are becoming less able to hide the good economy, so the new strategy will be to take it for granted. “Of course the economy is doing well, but …” When that happens I will be happy to have all of you on record that the economy sucked in your opinion, so when the talking points change you won’t be able to shift ground quite as fast.

Rob Cottrel, thanks, I could not have said it better regarding independents.

Jack, your good economy is analgous to a warm, cozy, fire lit cabin in the woods with a flat roof with 4 feet of snow on top and a 4 day blizzard on the way. The snow on the roof is the national debt and deficits, now scheduled to reach near, or beyond 11 Trillion dollars by the end of 2008. A literal 100% increase in the national debt under Bush’s years in office with a Republican Congress spending and cutting taxes like there is no tomorrow.

My 15 year old daughter tells me there will be a tomorrow for her, and she is asking me for ways to defend her future earnings against taxes Bush and the Republican Congress have levied against her career since 2000 for the benefit of the 1/5 of 1% of the wealthiest Americans. She doesn’t think it is fair. Neither do I.

I wonder how much of government reports on the economy can be believed. All the pundits are puzzled about all the positive ‘numbers’ regarding the economy—relatively low umemployment, low interest rates, great GDP— numbers evidently ignored by most people in this country (at least 60% anyway, who believe the country is heading in the wrong direction). What’s wrong with these people?

What’s wrong with these people is obvious, at least to me. They are not living inside the Washington belt-way. They’re living in the real world, the poor things. If only they had chosen their parents better, or been willing to put in some hard work to improve their plight. Because this is the country where hard work and some vision and tenacity can get you anything you want.
It’s a place where the only Darwinism worth mentioning is the economic one—which made this country what it is.

I’m wet with excitement over the future we have jerry-rigged for our children and grandchildren. Economically, environmentally, spiritually and morally, this is the best damn country in the world. I always knew, when I was young, that if we could just run the world, our Christian values, our pragmatic, “can-do” spirit, our technological innovation and our humble, aw-shucks, friendliness was what the world was hungry for.

I just can’t understand why most Arabs don’t trust us, most South Americans don’t trust us, most Asians don’t trust us, and most Americans don’t trust us. It’s enough to make you wonder…
just who this US is?

Tim

The anomaly of polling is that people are optimistic about their own prospects and pessimistic about those of others. That implies the opposite of what you say. When asked about what they know from experience, they are happy. When asked about what they know from the media, they are sad.

Watch what people do, not what they say.

Jack, so those 43 million without health insurance, and those 2 million who have had their jobs end only to be forced to take a lower paying one, and those growing numbers at or below poverty, just have no perspective on how well they are doing, eh?

Glad you could speak for them and set them straight about how good they have it.

Tim, part of the problem is just sampling error. The numbers don’t reflect 12 to 13 million illegals in this country. Nor the billions of US dollars they export from our country back to their families in their home country. Nor do the numbers reflect wage downsizing due to so many more folks taking on 2nd and part-time jobs.

And a huge factor not measured, is the number of folks making their living in the black market. There is a growing number of landscapers, yard maintenance and other types of entrepreneurs moving to more cash basis business for their livlihood, along with all the illegals, in order to avoid paying taxes. There way of making ends meet.

If we could poll these cash basis entrepreneurs, my guess is a majority would be Libertarians and Republicans who can justify their tax dodge based on political philosophy. I know one person I talked to a year ago who indicated that was the case with his landscaping business.

David:

Jack is only trying to set you and me straight about the anomolies of polling, such as the phenomenon of reticent Bush voters not telling exit pollers who they voted for, thus debunking the wasted energies of taking exit polls.

The polls are run by morons to educate and illustrate the great unwashed about what they were thinking when they touched the non-counting Diebold electronic voting machine while wondering if they can get to the grocery store and drop by the gas station before their favorite Reality TV show starts. Two-oh-five a gallon? Ahh, that’s more like it. By golly, I’m feeling more optimistic already!

David:

Will the repackaging of the President save Republicans in November of 2006? I would certainly hope the American people would act as our predecessors had acted at election time, voting for challengers when incompetence has become too large to ignore.

I think the Dems will increase in numbers but Republicans will retain control of both house and senate.

Adrienne:

From now on I’m either going to just state what I think

So now you are going to start stating what you think?

Craig

Craig:
“So now you are going to start stating what you think?”

Nice Rovian try there, Craig.
I prefer a rich, full-bodied sentence, don’t you?

I wrote:
“From now on I’m either going to just state what I think and not bother to reply to any attacks, or engage in discussions only with someone who actually seems likely to listen.”

Just like a goblet of fine pinot noir on a cold winters evening…

Anyone who thinks everything is OK has got their head stuck in sand. Sure, it’s easy to look wealthy while maxing out all your credit cards. But, the bills come due eventually.

I’m amazed at those that say: our debt isn’t too big. It’s really nothing to worry about. But entitlements are a problem. What a laugh? As if the two don’t affect each other?

Not to mention all of the following that Congress continues to ignore.

Repackaging Bush as the good ol’ plain talker.

What a concept after years and years of the same “freedom and liberty” speeches. Why change now George yer’ on a roll! the repubbies luv ya’! Especially after not giving them a concise answer for illegal immigration and unmitigated spending.

Will it have an effect? Are Rove and Hughes going nuts trying to stop George on this one? Who’s decision was this.

He is so in the hole, I hope it eventually comes around to the question; why did you give us ‘utter pablem’ in your speeches for the last five years?

How do we know he’s being straight forward now? We don’t know him, we know only Rove, Hughes and a smattering of other hoakey speech writers. George W. Bush is just a face we know not a public personality we know.

Sorry about the diatribe but after all this time do we even know this man?

David

Somebody is always having a bad time even in the best of times. Half of all Americans always earn below the median wages.

I used to be officially in poverty (although I didn’t consider myself poor. I just didn’t have money.) I am not now and I don’t expect to be again. That is true. I won’t apologize for not being poor. Many people have been poor at one time in the their lives but are not any more.

You don’t have to be directly affected by a problem to understand it. In fact, someone like me who was poor but learned not to be is probably in a better position to understand than someone who has always been either poor or rich.

Tim

Those are problems with polling. Don’t you ever wonder how before an election scores of reputable polls can disagree or even more telling how the same polls can change week to week? Beyond that, if people actually did what they said they would, the world would be really different - maybe not better.

It is also true that complaining people often have a short attention span. They are willing to march or attend a concert to “change the world” but are less enthusiastic about working steady. That is reflected in their responses.

Adrienne:

“From now on I’m either going to just state what I think and not bother to reply to any attacks, or engage in discussions only with someone who actually seems likely to listen.”

Hopefully you’ve always been stating what you think. I’d hope for nothing more and nothing less.

In addition, I’d suggest you be careful not to misconstrue disagreement as “not listening”. If you do, then you will end up only engaging in discussions with those who agree with you. That’s okay if you recognize it. It can undermine, though, a full understanding of a situation, since you’d only hear one side. There’s the famous story of the McGovern supporter expressing sincere disbelief that McGovern lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon by saying, “But everyone I know voted for him.” Guess what—her circle of friends probably did, but it must have been a very likeminded circle of friends.

It’s also important to not mistake disagreements as attacks. There certainly are attacks on WB despite the ‘Critique the message, not the messenger’ motto. I see the attacks from both sides of the political spectrum, and to be honest, I’ve written some scathing remarks myself, and have been the recipient as well.

All in all, Watchblog performs a good service to those who are interested in the subjects. It allows people to discuss issues and to see different viewpoints. Having a broader understanding of what you agree with and disagree with is never a bad thing.

Jbod:
“Hopefully you’ve always been stating what you think.”

Of course.
I’ve never been shy about giving my opinions.

“In addition, I’d suggest you be careful not to misconstrue disagreement as “not listening”.”

I don’t. But I’ve decided that whenever I notice a pattern where someone is constantly dismissing whatever it is I’ve written, or when they consistently claim that whatever proof I’ve attempted to offer is invalid, there is likely no use in continuing a discussion. Therefore, as I said, I’m going to simply state what I think, yet not follow up on any attacks I garner as a result, because clearly it’d be a waste of my time. Besides, its a tiresome drag.
I’m aware that if I wasn’t an intelligent, well informed person such treatment might be warranted, but I know I’m neither unintelligent nor uninformed, so accepting that kind of daily disrespect from anyone really only amounts to a lack of self-respect.

“It can undermine, though, a full understanding of a situation, since you’d only hear one side.”

Since my reading is not confined to one side of political issues, I feel I usually glean a pretty good understanding of both viewpoints overall. However, I personally feel it’s vital never to confuse fact with mere opinion.

Hope this clears things up.

Adrienne

The bottom line of our disagreements is that we don’t agree on the evidence and/or we place different priorities on it.

I tend not to believe anything people tell me until I see what happens as a result. We sometimes can’t come to closure because many of our discussions related to future events where the results are unknown or speculative. Of course we disagree. For example, statistically the economy currently is very good. That is just true. We disagree as to whether or not it is sustainable (future) and whether or not it is fair (see next paragraph).

The normative disagreements are also a problem. I am just much less interested in equality of results than most liberals are, so if you give me a statistic claiming that x percent of are “left out”. didn’t vote, are poor, are in jail or unemployed, I just don’t care. For me it depends on how and why it happened. If that is reasonable, the result is less important.

Finally is the problem of static versus dynamic analysis. Things change. People go through various stages in life. The same person may be rich, poor and in the middle during his life. If that is the case, why should we be concerned? When you are poor you have to struggle and adapt. That is why we avoid being poor. So if you tell me that 20% of the people are poor, my questions are: who, why and how long. Depending on those answers, I will consider it a problem - or not.

I would not lift a finger to lift a 20 year old out of poverty if I thought he would be out of it within a couple of years anyway. You might think it was unjust; I probably would just think it was funny.

Adrienne:

I prefer a rich, full-bodied sentence, don’t you?

I think you will always state what you think. That is the whole point of this place.

Craig

Jack, it would appear that you would consider a person making $100,000 a year, with a wife and one child, and two relatively new cars, living in a suburb in an affordable 1850 s.f. home to be pretty well off.

Using this person as analogy to the economy, are they just as well off in your opinion if you learn that in addition to their $925 per month mortgage payment, this person has $172,000 in credit card debt making $3500 a month in credit card payments, and is making $1000 a month car payments and the company he works for is going to be exporting 40% of the company’s jobs overseas in the next 5 years?

With that kind of debt load, and a huge percentage of his income being paid in interest on that debt, this person’s economic picture is quite different from that in the first paragraph.

Any view of our economy must take into account the debt and deficits and what that portends for future income of its citizens. An economic picture based on a current snapshot says nothing about the viability of that economy, when debt and deficits are part of the picture. Their import must be calculated in terms of government competition for free capital over time. And with 40+% of our external debt held by foreigners, 40+% of future payments on our debt will leave our country and not be available to Americans as capital except in the form of renewed borrowing on the debt.

Over the next couple years, the economy looks good. But as both liberal and conservative economic think tanks warn, the longer term picture is very risky at best due to our current debt and deficits. Our government is borrowing the capital that will be needed to sustain and grow the ecnonomy in the future, directly competing with capital future markets for free capital to sustain and grow jobs which is imperative given our population growth and export of both manufacturing and service jobs overseas.

David:

Over the next couple years, the economy looks good. But as both liberal and conservative economic think tanks warn, the longer term picture is very risky at best due to our current debt and deficits.

The longer term picture is murky because of the forces of globalization, the power of the age wave here in America, the technology boom etc. and how they all interplay. The best economists are split, depending on what data they focus on.

There is concern not because of our current debt and deficit, but because of our future obligations to the babyboomers as they retire and how those benefits will be paid for.

I might add, that today’s 30 year prjection of inflation is 2.63%/year which is pretty good.

Craig

Craig, your dismissal of the deficit and debt is a wonder in regards to the baby boomers retirement. If we didn’t have the national debt, there would be no Soc. Sec. funding crisis in 2042, if at all. The Soc. Sec. funding crisis exists as much due to our growing national debt as the demographics. The debt precludes raising taxes in the future to cover Soc. Sec. funding due to the need to raise taxes in the future to meet the growing service on the debt, buy down the debt to more reasonable levels, fight future recessions, future catastrophes and wars.

That is the problem with deficits and debt, they limit a nation’s future options in times of need. They raise the cost of capital in the future at the very times like recessions when lowering the cost of capital to stimulate the economy is what is called for. I understand your desire to dismiss this fact to win your argument, but, your argument falls flat precisely because of that fact.

David:

Projections of the deficit long term carry a very wide amount of error. Even greater then the impact of our debt on the economy.

One of the current buzz terms is the coming Age wave and how this will affect Social Security and Medicare. A subset of this is how the age wave will impact stock and bond prices since the stock market will be effected by some of the same economics. (ie. too many retirees verses workers in the US).

Of course there are other variables. There is the rapid increase in worker productivity. There is the longer health span, allowing workers to work longer. For all practical purposes we have an infinite supply of cheap foreign labor to deliver services. (When china and India etc “dry up” we have all of Africa).

Corresponding to our desire to over consume, is a foreign glut of investments savings. Subtracting the 30 year Tips yield from the 30 year treasury yield gives a very good expectation among money managers of what long term inflation looks like. Like I said in a previous post this number is 2.63%.

US Consumer debt is not as bad as advertized. There is plenty of evidence that much of the current increase in consumer debt is tied up in real estate. This foreign glut of savings keeps our rates lower which allows more US citizens to purchase homes. This is considered good debt because these new homeowners would be paying rent anyway. As I am sure you are aware, home ownership is at an all time high. We have the foreign glut of investment dollars to thank for this, as they big our interest rates low allowing more entry level home buyers.

The future is to the young. We simply do not have enough young to keep the US in it’s position of world dominance. Our economic “young” are going to be from China/India etc in relative terms as the US percentage of world GDP continues to decline.

How all of this will balance out in the future is going to be facinating to watch. There are too many variables to think that the US Debt is going to be the dominant issue. It might be, but just as likely may not be.

On one side of the debate many economists argue that because of the aging population there is going to be a major depression in about 10 years or so. (Harry Dent). On the other side are globalists who believe the Harry Dent’s of the world should “water down” their thesis because the markets of India and China will be large enough by then to purchase our securities and support our markets.

As exibit “A” that the future will not be one with runaway debt and inflation I would offer the US Treasury market. With long term rates under 5% it is very hard to see where there is any fear of inflation anywhere. Based on what professional money is doing with US Treasuries, I think the danger in the future is disinflation more than inflation.

Craig, I agree long range forecasting is highly debatable. But there is an overwhelming concensus now amongst economists regardless of conservative or liberal modeling, that facing and uncertain future with debt level this high and more than 1/3 Trillion a year going out in interest payments, and 2/5 of that going overseas, is like entering a boxing ring with one arm tied behind your back.

Also, there are two kinds of inflation at work today. Overall inflation, and worker class inflation. Granted overall inflation is very modest and poses no threat now or in the near term future. However, worker class inflation is growing dramatically. Why that matters is that the working class constitute the vast bulk of America’s consumers. While imports are generally lowering in cost, those lowering costs are reflected in discretionary purchases like technology products for entertainment and latest whiz bang TV’s and digital information and communication products. The costs for education, health care, property taxes, energy, and homes, the basic non-discretionary items for workers are inflating steeply. This is already having a dampening effect on consumerism in America. And our economy is consumer driven. November sales were disappointing compared to expectations. Retail sector is shaping up to be softer than expected in December as well.

Project these effects out a couple years, which we should because nothing in the way of policy or global trade is in place to change them, and we can face a slowing economy even before the end of this decade.

Also, you missed the other half of the equation regarding emerging consumer markets like China, India and Africa. The other side of that equation is that China and India are rapidly growing their own competitive advantage as suppliers on the world marketplace to provide for their own growing demand of consumers. Their middle people constitute the fastest growing emerging middle classes in the world, and as you well know, increased demand does not lower prices, it stablizes them provided supply is capable to meet that demand.

Combined with debt tying one of our stimulus arms behind our back, should the future see a halt to declining import prices, our economy could be dealt a serious blow. The more so if current downward wage pressures continue. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument compared to fiscal policy when it comes to stimulating a lagging economy. And the debt and continued deficits past the end of this decade are seriously limiting our fiscal stimulative options.

David

The boomer retirement issue is not the same as the debt. In government finance, there is only the present. Today’s taxpayers pay for today’s retirees. Tomorrow’s taxpayers will pay for tomorrow’s. We should be careful with debt, but we can’t save for tomrrow. All we can do is write IOUs that future taxpayers will have to make good.

Reforming entitlement means increasing the number and financial strengths of those who will pay the bills. That means increasing retirement ages (increaseing number of payers versus receivers) private accounts (strengthening payers)etc.

We missed the chance to deal with the problem this year. We will pay more later.

We should be careful with debt, but we can’t save for tomrrow. All we can do is write IOUs that future taxpayers will have to make good.

Wow! Neocon fiscal rationale declared openly!

i totally disagree with it; but find it hopeful that it is now at least out in the open so people can judge for themselves and deal with the problem.

David:

I will respond more in detail later on your thoughtful reply.

Craig, I agree long range forecasting is highly debatable. But there is an overwhelming concensus now amongst economists regardless of conservative or liberal modeling, that facing and uncertain future with debt level this high and more than 1/3 Trillion a year going out in interest payments, and 2/5 of that going overseas, is like entering a boxing ring with one arm tied behind your back.

I agree more with your premise here than your illustration.

We have been paying 1/3 of a trillion dollars in actual dollars every year since 1995 with no ill result. The amount of interest payments in relative terms has declined over the last 10 years because of nominal growth of the economy.

The amount you give as a percentage of foreign ownership is a gross figure that should be filtered through at least two figures before examined.

1. How much of foreign investments is historical? And how much is a part of the current trend? The amount of foreign investment that is historical I would view as normal and having no ill effect.

2. What would interest rates be in our country should the foreign investment return to historical norms? We benefit from lower interest rates because of this investment which helps all borrowers.

I would argue that interest rates are headed lower for many years. Maybe the rest of our lives. Because to that the burden on our economy of paying interest may be actually less on a relative basis (because of lower interest rates), even as we incur more debt. Our interest burden my not be greater as an percentage of GDP after all.

Craig

David:

Just an addition to the above post. Interest expense as a percent of GDP is at a 30 year low right now. This is simply a result of lower interest rates and good growth of the economy.

Craig

David:

Also, there are two kinds of inflation at work today. Overall inflation, and worker class inflation. Granted overall inflation is very modest and poses no threat now or in the near term future. However, worker class inflation is growing dramatically. Why that matters is that the working class constitute the vast bulk of America’s consumers. While imports are generally lowering in cost, those lowering costs are reflected in discretionary purchases like technology products for entertainment and latest whiz bang TV’s and digital information and communication products. The costs for education, health care, property taxes, energy, and homes, the basic non-discretionary items for workers are inflating steeply. This is already having a dampening effect on consumerism in America. And our economy is consumer driven. November sales were disappointing compared to expectations. Retail sector is shaping up to be softer than expected in December as well.

The part of your comments here that I would agree with is that in 2006 consumer spending should slow. To offset the consumer inflation is declining prices in other areas. What will cause a decrease in consumer spending is a slowing in the appreciation in housins. Consumers are using their homes like an ATM machine.

What will take it’s place is government spending in the south and spending of Corporations. Business is awash in cash and getting ready to spend. Their balance sheets contrary to your good arguments of the government and consmer are looking great with very low debt and high cash flows. They are sitting on trillions in cash and ready to spend.

I think these two forces, work out to a net slowing in 2006 for the economy as leadership changes from consumer spending to business and government spending leading the economy.

Craig

David:

Also, you missed the other half of the equation regarding emerging consumer markets like China, India and Africa. The other side of that equation is that China and India are rapidly growing their own competitive advantage as suppliers on the world marketplace to provide for their own growing demand of consumers. Their middle people constitute the fastest growing emerging middle classes in the world, and as you well know, increased demand does not lower prices, it stablizes them provided supply is capable to meet that demand.

This is one of the major arguements in favor of the age wave being more of a ripple. One of the major questions for the future is “who is going to buy the baby boomers retirement investments”. What you mention is one of the major arguments among the optimist for the future. Globalization will provide the investment needed. All of these middle class people you mention will need to save for their own retirment and will purchase our investments when we need to live off of them.

Increased demand is not always inflationary. It all depends on if the supply can be increased through productivity gains which at present are huge, and additonal labor sourses which at the moment seem to be abundant. It is possible that this increase in demand that you mention will not be inflationary.

Craig

Craig, I agree the age wave is a ripple, and contrary to Republican arguments, I have consistently argued that we only need to fund the hump and balance will be restored. But the debt and deficits are preventing our Congress and President from funding the hump. My point is made.

David:

With interest on the debt at a thirty year low as a percentage of GDP, it’s just not a big deal.

Craig

Craig, maybe not to you, but more than 365 billion tax dollars flying out of workers pockets as interest on the debt for which no government service is provided is a big deal to me, and millions of other tax payers who have the unmitigated gall to expect something back for their tax dollars which benefits either them or the nation as a whole.

Interest payments benefit only the lenders, more than 40% of whom are wealthy foreigners, some in the Middle East like the Family Saud, close friends of the Bush family.

I do find it encouraging however, that a defender of the Bush administration is willing to defend our debt and deficits. We may actually see a change as the voting public becomes more aware of how Republican supporters are in fact, far bigger spenders of the American tax dollar than even Democrats, and far less concerned about our children who will bear the brunt of that debt and service on it.

I fear the following will be the ingredients for the recipe that will lead to some very hard times in the next 5-to-10 years.
[] $8.1 National Debt
[] shortfalls and continually plundered Social Security;
[] serious shortfalls in Medicare;
[] $1.6 trillion in shortfalls in the PBGC and pensions;
[] 77 million baby boomers earning less, spending less, paying less tax, drawing from entitlements, and living longer.
[] Americans $32 with trillion of personal debt; where did they learn this bad habit?
[] and these many other pressing problems

The math just doesn’t work out.
Some people have faith that it will all work out.
Well, that don’t cut it. Where was that faith in the late 1700s, the Civil War, the the Great Depression? The problem we are creating is one of our own making, and simple, blind faith ain’t gonna be enough to avoid the consequences of decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy. There will be consequences, and those that don’t think so are livin’ in a dream world. I haven’t heard any convincing arguments yet that can explain away the potential outcome. Just some lame arguments about interest rates being relatively low, unemployment being relatively low, stocks rising a little, etc. None of that takes into account the effect that all of the above will have on the long term future of the nation.
The math just doesn’t work out. I’m not buying the crap that the future looks rosy, as much as I’d like to believe it. It’s not because I’m a pessimist. It’s just the simple math of it all. It’s extremely unlikely the U.S. can grow enough, borrow enough, tax enough, or immigrate enough to overcome the massive debt. It’s highly likely they will start printing money at some point, to eat up part of the debt with inflation. But, that won’t be enough. I just don’t see how any realistic, responsible, person can not be (at the very least) raising a few CAUTION flags. It just doesn’t make sense. Those rosy outlooks also fuel more irresponsible fiscal policy.

I fear this country is in for a very painful lesson, unless it immediately cuts unnecessary spending, waste, pork-barrel, this crap, and stops increasing the National debt. The National Debt is 4 times what it was after World War II (adjusted for inflation). What if we get into another big war now? We’re broke now. How responsible was that? Even if we don’t get into another big war, or a string of natural disasters, we have very irresponsibly and drastically reduced our options. There will be consequences. It’s just a matter of time.

You’re right, Dan. The enormity of the problems facing us are causing folks to shrink away from them in disbelief, rather than motivating to them to step up and solve them sooner than later. Real leadership is needed to tackle these problems. But, all we have are politicians.

Yes, some are in disbelief, and some are in denial. And some must be on drugs, or something, because they think everything is OK.

And, what’s interesting about it (at the risk of seeming partisan) is that it seems like it’s many Republicans that are wearing rose colored glasses. I suppose that’s because they want things to seem better when they have the majority control of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch. Thus, their rosy outlook seems to be partisan motivated, because they fear they are going to lose a lot of seats in the coming elections. Thus, some are getting really creative at ways to try to put a positive spin on the approaching train wreck. I just find it absolutely amazing that anyone could say the National Debt is OK, despite the looming shortfalls in Medicare, Medicaid, PBGC, pensions, and Social Security.

Seriously, those painting these rosy pictures have got be:
(1) smoking something,
(2) or they’re simply irrationally optimistic, very poor in math and have no concept of the magnitude of the numbers,
(3) or out-right lying,
(4) or rationalizing and kidding themselves rather than face the miserable track record of their party ?

I think (4) is probably the most likely cause, but I have no doubt that some of them belong in category (3), (2), or (1).

David:

Craig, maybe not to you, but more than 365 billion tax dollars flying out of workers pockets as interest on the debt for which no government service is provided is a big deal to me, and millions of other tax payers who have the unmitigated gall to expect something back for their tax dollars which benefits either them or the nation as a whole.

Who gets credit for reducing this figure to a thirty year low as a percentage of GDP?

Interest payments benefit only the lenders, more than 40% of whom are wealthy foreigners, some in the Middle East like the Family Saud, close friends of the Bush family.

Consumers also gain from reduced cost of consumer goods.

Craig

David/Dan:

Thought you would enjoy this link:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/qrc/2005/2005-q4-charts.pdf

I like this link because it is current (October 31, 2005), credible, US Treasury dept.

I came away with two conclusions:

1. Deficits are within historical norms.
2. Foreign investment is US Treasuries is at historical highs.

Have fun,

Craig

Dan:

I just find it absolutely amazing that anyone could say the National Debt is OK, despite the looming shortfalls in Medicare, Medicaid, PBGC, pensions, and Social Security.

I am not saying that the debt is “ok” and that all is well.

I freely admit that the curve needs to turn. What I am arguing againgst is that the sky is falling and the we are doomed.

We certainly need to manage debt. Debt should generally fall as a percentage of gdp, so that it can rise in times of great need. I would argue that debt should rise slower than nominal GDP for a season to allow it’s effects to become less taxing on the economy. This happens to be the course we are on. The deficit is much less this year than last.

Right now the deficit is at historical norms. It would be better to be lower than historical norms for a season.

craig

David:

I do find it encouraging however, that a defender of the Bush administration is willing to defend our debt and deficits. We may actually see a change as the voting public becomes more aware of how Republican supporters are in fact, far bigger spenders of the American tax dollar than even Democrats, and far less concerned about our children who will bear the brunt of that debt and service on it.

Those are your words. I don’t accept them. I am simply arguing that the previous deficits are understandable in light of the recession, and 9/11. Above average growth in the deficit is understandable in times of national crisis. Now that we have some distance between the recession and 9/11 it is a reasonable expecation for the growth rate of the deficit to fall below the nominal growth rate of the economy. It is not necessary or desired to run surpluses. Doomsday will not come as long as we manage the federal debt at current levels relative to GDP with lower being better.

You are the one interjecting politics in to my economics. I reject that proposition.

craig

Craig,
Thanks for the data.
OK, you don’t think it’s OK, but I didn’t say the sky was falling either. I simply believe that we are headed for a serious recession in the next 5-to-10 years, or depression (maybe) if we continue to be fiscally irresponsible, and government continues to grow ever larger.

That is not a far fetched possibility.

Even more economists and a few in Congress are now starting to become a bit concerned about the end result of several decades of debt, looming shortfalls in entitlements, pensions, 77 million baby boomers (living longer), etc.

It is not chicken littlish to be concerned about (and suggest some solutions too for) such things. It’s the big picture, that’s alarming, because of the many things…not one or two by themselves. Not just the $8.1 Trillion National Debt by itself.
It’s everything altogether that is alarming and reduces our options later when we may need them.

Despite the relation to GDP, the National Debt is about 3 to 4 times what it was after World War II. Yes, the population and GDP have grown, but so has government. To nightmare proportions.

Craig your limited knowledge of historical economics is evident in your last comment. We are at the highest level of debt to GDP since the conclusion of WWII.

At the close of WWII and the Korean War, our economy was positioned to unleash the height of the industrial consumer revolution with the US at the forefront of nearly all the advances and technologies to come.

That is not the case today in the face of globalization. We cannot look to huge economic expansion to save us from our debt as did and could in the 1950’s. You can’t look at these numbers out of historical context and expect to derive anything remotely close to realistic interpretation of those numbers.

The world is a different place and we have lost our industrial lead to other nations, and we are competing like hell to hold on to our technological lead with the likes of India, Taiwan, Japan, and Malaysia. Our global consumer base may very well shrink as these other nations compete with lower costs of innovation, distribution, and production.

Given energy costs future, Distribution costs alone are going to permit other nations to take away some of our foreign market share based on nothing more than the shorter trip from production site in India to consumer retailer anywhere in Asia and Africa and even Europe in some cases.

We no longer enjoy the virtual monopoly on innovation and production which was a hallmark of our 1950’s and later decades economy.

So, you argument that we grew ourselves out of a larger debt to GDP than we now have, before, is not a valid argument for saying we can do so again.

David:

Craig your limited knowledge of historical economics is evident in your last comment. We are at the highest level of debt to GDP since the conclusion of WWII.

(Laughing).You switched boxes for me!! Earlier you were dismising my arguements because I was a republican. Now you are dismising because of my limited knowledge even though you have not the slightest idea of my knowledge base. (grinning). A few weeks ago it was because of my youth, until you found out I was a grandfather!

I will choose to deal with the premise of your argument. First of all we are not at the debt level after WWII. The debt level at that time was well over 100% of GDP. We are not near that level.

Secondly, we don’t even need to “grow out” of our situation. The status quo has done us no harm since 1945!! Our economy has grown well over that last 60 years. America can do fine in our current status quo of debt. If our debt load stayed the same as a percentage of GDP for ever, meaning that it would rise at the same rate as nominal GDP (about 5% per year) we would never ever ever ever get into financial difficulty.

Finally, it would be good if the debt grew at lower than GDP for a period of time because the world is a dangerous place and it would be good to have the “wiggle room” for the future. There is still plenty of “wiggle room” but more would be better.

Debt is not bad. Misuse of debt is bad. Mismanagement of debt is bad. Debt is actually a good thing when managed well.

Currently our interest payments are at 30 year lows as a percentage of GDP. That should be good news!!

Yes, that’s a good point. We don’t have the manufacturing we used to have. We don’t have the huge growth potential now as we did following WWII.

Thus, it’s not adequate to rely on growth to get us out of this mess.

We can’t grow, tax, borrow, immigrate, or print enough money to get out of this problem.

Even the Chinese and other foreign nations are getting a little nervous about the trillions they have invested into the U.S. National Debt.

But, not all that debt is owed to foreign nations.
A huge portion of that debt is irresponsibly going to be heaped on future generations. Young voters had better start paying attention to this problem, and think about the huge amounts they’re paying in weekly from their paychecks for a Social Security and Medicare system that may not be solvent after they’ve been paying into it for decades.

Dan:

Craig, Thanks for the data. OK, you don’t think it’s OK, but I didn’t say the sky was falling either. I simply believe that we are headed for a serious recession in the next 5-to-10 years, or depression (maybe) if we continue to be fiscally irresponsible, and government continues to grow ever larger.

We are not that far apart. There will always be recessions in our future. I am certain there will be a recession in the next 5-10 years because the longest time between recessions has been 10 years and this recovery is only four years along.

Yes this recession may be due to excesses in this recovery. But recessions are almost always caused by excesses in a recovery.

Now that we are into the middle part of this recovery, it is important to reduce the deficit to below historical norms. I think that will happen no matter who is in office. Dems and Reps all see the same data points.

Craig

Dan:

Yes, that’s a good point. We don’t have the manufacturing we used to have. We don’t have the huge growth potential now as we did following WWII.

This is a poor assumption on your and David’s part. It assumes that an information based economy cannot expand as fast as a manufacturing based economy. It is simply not true. Productivity gains in the period of time since the Internet has expanded are way above trendline and likely to continue.

Craig

Craig said: “I will choose to deal with the premise of your argument. First of all we are not at the debt level after WWII. The debt level at that time was well over 100% of GDP. We are not near that level.”

As you well know, I never said we were. I said: “We are at the highest level of debt to GDP since the conclusion of WWII.” The debt at the end of WWII through the Korean War was the highest ever. Our current debt to gdp is the highest since that time.

The information economy we face has American companies competing with information management giants overseas, Craig. That was NOT the case post WWII with our industrial economy. You seem to refuse to acknowledge the differences.

Craig said: “If our debt load stayed the same as a percentage of GDP for ever, meaning that it would rise at the same rate as nominal GDP (about 5% per year) we would never ever ever ever get into financial difficulty.”

Two things, if that is the case, then we will continue to spend well over 1/3 trillion dollars of tax payer money each year in interest payments for which tax payers receive nothing for their tax dollars, and 40% of which fattens foreign wealthy investors. It amounts to a transfer of American wealth overseas. Keep it up for a number of years, and yes, it will spell economic calamity in the form of negative savings rates, lowered consumerism in the US, and a huge opportunity cost to programs like Soc. Sec., infrastructure maintenance and improvements, not to mention other events like 9/11 or Katrina not being paid for as we go, which means piling such costs onto deficits.

Your assumption of our information economy being comparable to our 50’s industrial economic explosion is the faulty assumption here. The implication of Friedman’s The World is Flat, is global competition with the US in all aspects of American enterprise including R&D. Notice the plethora of other countries developing their own space programs. A few years ago folks like yourself were saying other nations would be leasing our space program for their projects. Never happened. Perhaps you missed that.

David:

Two things, if that is the case, then we will continue to spend well over 1/3 trillion dollars of tax payer money each year in interest payments for which tax payers receive nothing for their tax dollars, and 40% of which fattens foreign wealthy investors. It amounts to a transfer of American wealth overseas.

You have to discount the difference in interest rates that we have because of foreign investments. In the last 10 years the world economy has become far more liquid. This has allowed more foreign funds to be invested here which DRIVES DOWN our interest rates. In simple terms if foreigners did not invest in these funds, our interest rates would be higher. The amount that is going overseas interest is very small when compared to the benefits of a low interest economy. We accumulated somewhere between three and four trillion dollars in wealth last year as a country. If we have to pay 40% of $350 Billion, ($140 Billion), well, we can afford it!!

Lets see, in a 12 trillion dollar economy, $140 Billion is about 1% of GDP.

Craig

David:

Two things, if that is the case, then we will continue to spend well over 1/3 trillion dollars of tax payer money each year in interest payments for which tax payers receive nothing for their tax dollars, and 40% of which fattens foreign wealthy investors

Which we have been doing for decades. And this figure on a percentage basis is at a 30 year low.

Your assumption of our information economy being comparable to our 50’s industrial economic explosion is the faulty assumption here.

I disagree with you but it doesn’t matter. As long as the budget defict grows at the same rate as the nominal growth rate of the economy, we are fine.

You were the one who assumed the economy would grow at a lower rate than 1945-2005. I said that was just an assumption.

The information economy we face has American companies competing with information management giants overseas, Craig. That was NOT the case post WWII with our industrial economy. You seem to refuse to acknowledge the differences.

I am not sure why you are interested in the economy of the 1950’s. Why limit the discussion?

Craig

I see interest rates rising, no falling. They hit bottom and are now on the rise. End of story, the service is going to grow. That is a fact. Ask Bernanke or Snow.

The fallacy of your argument on debt and deficits is your assumption that revenues from GDP growth will exceed spending. Republicans are still reducing revenues faster than they are cutting spending. Hence, deficits and debt growth. GDP growth reduces deficits only if tax rates remain the same. Cut taxes faster than spending while the economy is growning and you still get deficits and additions to the debt.

Republicans are not following sound fiscal economic policy with regard to debt and deficits. As I have said for a couple years and each year Bush and Congress prove me right, Bush will cut the deficit in half, in 2008, for one year only, leaving 7 previous years and huge cumulative deficits preceding his last year in office. That does nothing to restore balance and fiscal responsiblity for our future and you are more than smart enough to recognize that fact.

David:

I see interest rates rising, no falling. They hit bottom and are now on the rise. End of story, the service is going to grow. That is a fact. Ask Bernanke or Snow.

Interest rates should peak on the short term very soon. Short Term interest rates should peak at 4.5 to 4.75% which is much lower than previous peaks. With long term inflation projections so low, (2.5% ish) interest rates cannot rise much.

The fallacy of your argument on debt and deficits is your assumption that revenues from GDP growth will exceed spending.

I am not assuming that at all. What I am stating is a fact, that if the deficit grows at the same rate as nominal GDP the economy will never get into trouble because of too much debt.

I am not in the camp that is (my words) extremist in tax cutting. I do believe in low taxes in general as they promote economic growth. (I would offer Europe as an example
of high taxes and low growth). If the extremist position were correct, why not move taxes to zero and usher in utopia?

As I have said for a couple years and each year Bush and Congress prove me right, Bush will cut the deficit in half, in 2008, for one year only, leaving 7 previous years and huge cumulative deficits preceding his last year in office. That does nothing to restore balance and fiscal responsiblity for our future and you are more than smart enough to recognize that fact.

Again, it is normal to borrow more in times of crisis. 9/11, the 2001 recession, Katrina and and the war, it is normal to see deficits rise. Now that those events are becoming more managable fiscally, it is time to lower the defict so that the increase in debt is below the growth rate of nominal GDP. The effect of this is to shrink the debt in relative terms and inject liquidity for some future unexpected crisis. Paying off the debt in real terms is neither necessary nor desirable.

It is likely that the deficit will not be an issue in the 2006 elections. It is also a good probability that the fed will be lowering interest rates next fall. Watch for a slower ecnomomy in 2006 and a rise in equity markets, along with slower growth in real estate.

Craig

David:

You might prepare yourself for additional prosperity. I don’t see much change in the political landscape this year after the elections. I do see a pick up in seats by the Dems, but only historical numbers.

Put into your numbers a decline in oil prices, moderate slowing in consumer spending, a pick up in corporate spending, higher equity prices, and a halt in the increase in interest rates by the fed, and possibly a decrease in the fall. Add to that modest declines in the value of the dollar, (because of lowering of interest rates by the fed), and you have an economy that should be friendly to incumbants.

On the wildcard side is Iraq. It will take some time before we know what that government will look like. Any improvement will do some pretty amazing things. Civil war, and we could see some higher than average changes.

I think the wire tap issue will end up being a dudd, unless there is some unexpected new revelations. (like wiretapping of political opponents).

I don’t even worry much about impeachment. Taking a nation to war and being wrong on the intellegence is extemely serious. As a democracy I think we are wondering what to do since we are in the middle of a war. I think impeachment or even just impeachment hearings would be a justifiable consequence. The world wont end.

Craig

Craig, finally, we agree on many issues. Your forecast for 2006 is about what I expect as well. It is not the short term economic picture that concerns me at all, but, the longer term.

There is a widening of the have and have not gap in America, due among other factors, to declining compensation packages, and inflationary basic needs costs.

You keep looking at aggregate inflation, and at that level you are quite correct, inflation is extremely tame. But, what cannot be ignored is the rising costs of basic living, housing, food, transportation, child rearing costs, and health care costs. These areas are experiencing a hefty amount of inflationary pressure. While the prices for Lexus cars, and 24 room estates, and durable goods are deflationary, they are masking inflationary pressures at the basic needs level. And, even if inflation in the basic needs backs off its pace a bit in a few years, against a backdrop of declining wage compensation, America is going to be increasing the numbers of poor in America.

And the concurrent lack of savings in America will continue to increase our debt obligations to foreign investors instead of working Americans.

There is a very sound practical reason why any society desires to eliminate or minimize poverty and the working poor. Has nothing to do with morality or ethics. That reason is social upheaval. And my crystal has a number of not so distant future images of very costly, and economically debilitating social upheaval scenarios in the real of possible outcomes.

With competitive advantage on the rise in places like China and India, America cannot afford to lose ground ecnomically, not for a moment, given the debt levels and rising service cost levels. Because doing so will increase foreign competitive edge which will not be easily recovered if social upheaval becomes a focal point for government as it did in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.

David:

There is a widening of the have and have not gap in America, due among other factors, to declining compensation packages, and inflationary basic needs costs.

I agree with you in part. There is a widening between the haves and have nots. The only solution I know of too this is education. With the opening of India and China there is fall all practical purposes an infinite supply of cheap foreign labor. (When we have finished with India and China we have the whole continent of Africa!!). Unskilled labor is simply on the cheap. (Oh add to this our illegal alien issue from Central/South American.)

And the concurrent lack of savings in America will continue to increase our debt obligations to foreign investors instead of working Americans.

I agree with this. And this trend should continue as long as the rest of the world willfully lives under their means. The internet boon created an “arbitrage” that will take some time to level. We have superior financial instruments, and superior political stability, along with the dollar being the world’s currency. Developing countries should continue to use our financial instruments until this “arbitrage” has leveled.

But, what cannot be ignored is the rising costs of basic living, housing, food, transportation, child rearing costs, and health care costs.

Housing as measured by monthly payments has not risen much. In fact home ownership is at record highs as a percentage of Americans. Modest priced housing rises and falls the least in boom/bust cycles. High