Limbaugh safe from voter-fraud charges

[RandomGuy]

Clinton's budget was not balanced. It was accounting trick.

Think about it, did the debt increase or decrease?

It increased, hence, not balanced.

Maybe he didn't count interest on the debt, maybe they counted the social security excesses. I'm not sure what they did, but president Clinton did not have a surplus. Besides, there are factor that did help reduce the deficit spending.

Y2K scare

Internet burst

Growing economy

republican congress

These are things that happened outside of any Clinton policy. He was just in the right place at the right time to see reduced deficits.

Between Clinton and the GOP controlled congress, they managed to reduce the overall level of debt relative to GDP.

It was pretty much an accounting trick as the majority of the "surplus" was in revenue that went to the SS fund, if memory serves.

He was in the right place at the right time, but was responsible enough not to push for any huge increases in federal spending for existing programs.

[Wild Cobra]

Between Clinton and the GOP controlled congress, they managed to reduce the overall level of debt relative to GDP.

It was pretty much an accounting trick as the majority of the "surplus" was in revenue that went to the SS fund, if memory serves.

He was in the right place at the right time, but was responsible enough not to push for any huge increases in federal spending for existing programs.

Guess what. The debt to GDP trend has continued with president Bush, even with this war!

[RandomGuy]

Guess what. The debt to GDP trend has continued with president Bush, even with this war!

Sort of.



National Income is another matter.




I wonder where we would be if we had not had to pay out for the Iraq war.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

I think that given the spiralling costs of the above named weapons systems, it would be interesting to see how that pans out in todays costs.

[Wild Cobra]

Sort of.



I wonder where we would be if we had not had to pay out for the Iraq war.

Good question, but according to your graph, it started just after 9/11. The end of 2000 was a also the start of a recession. It's hard to point out the effects of any one single type of expendature on your graph.

Maybe I'm wrong about the debt ratio, maybe its just a different calculation. At this point, I don't know The graph you supplied does make more sense.

Now consider this before you blame the war. We didn't enter it till 2003. We had 9/11, Katrina, and a couple other spendy ventures besides the war. From the site you like, here is another graph:



Here is a synopsys:

The BIG CULPRIT (rising red line) is SOCIAL SPENDING, which grew 14 times faster than the economy - - to a new high - - more than eating up the long-term decline of defense spending ratios shown by the black line in the chart. The full report (link below) shows once the social spending ratio rose above 5% of national income in the late 1960s, citizen trust in government plummeted to half prior levels - - and inflation-adjusted median family incomes stagnated for all families and fell for single wage-earner families. Note social spending (red line) stopped rising in the early 1980s as if it hit a brick wall, and then fell - - and other data show trust in government surged, only to fall back later as social spending ratios again climbed. This is a powerful finding that deserves more attention. (the full report contains a link to a special report and chart on citizen trust polling data).

This trend (red line) is unique in U.S. history.

National security was the prime reason our founding forefathers formed a federal government. The declining black trend line is defense spending, which in 2001 had dropped to 3.7% of the economy's national income, below where it started - following a 5-decade downward slope. The black defense line for 2003-06 increased to 4.9% of national income as shown in the graphic. This multi-decade declining defense ratio camouflaged a new direction for government - - surging social programs and spending.

This trend calls into question our nation's focus and readiness to detect and deter major national security challenges - - compared to the priority focus outlined by our nation's founding fathers.

So defense spending went up by 1.2% over that period of war. Social spending went up even farther is the graph is accurate! I'm pretty certain the trend of the debt would be the same, just not as high without the war. I say let's reign in social spending.