Rolling Stone - May 5, 2006

[solypsist]

skip the first two paragraphs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...on=6.0.12.1040

/in before teh right-wing group decry the source without reading the article.

[Goofball]

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

Wow.

[yesdachi]

I don’t think anyone would say this administration has spent wisely but I don’t think it is any big surprise that we have borrowed a lot of money over the last five years.

This is not an excuse but just consideration points:

1- The economy was on a down swing (dot-bomb)
2- Outsourcing was on an up swing (causing massive unemployment followed by a “jobless” recovery)
3- Our financial core was attacked (9/11 – among other things it caused many spending plans to be put on hold)
4- We have been at war (shovels money into fire)

Should we (administration, congress, etc.) have been spending more carefully? Yes. Will this be a black eye on this administration when future generations read about it in history books? Yes.
Is it a surprise? No.

Will we recover form it? I’m not sure how (I doubt anyone would like my suggestions), but I don’t think we have choice.

[Blodrast]

Well, the US has been through wars before - which I'm sure caused the economy to go down at least as bad as the dot-bomb... and I'm also sure that the world wars were a lot worse on the economy than this one...

And what about '29-30 and the Great Depression ? The economy was bad then, too, and (I'm guessing) there were more jobless people then than there are now (proportionally)...

So I'm not entirely sure those reasons are enough...

[Tachikaze]

You beat me to it, soly.

I'm glad that Bush is getting the recognition he deserves. He brought about atrocious actions and policies I never thought the US was capable of.

[yesdachi]

So I'm not entirely sure those reasons are enough...

I don’t think they are either but they are points that cause me to not be shocked.

[Blodrast]

I don’t think they are either but they are points that cause me to not be shocked.

heh, okie then, I see your point. I thought you were justifying it through those arguments, and I wasn't exactly convinced...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, since they are comparing raw numbers, of course Bush will look bad.

The article doesn't mention in what dollar-year those figures are going on. Inflation could easily count for that. A dollar in 1790 is worth a lot more than one in 2006.

And another thing - this is like saying Bush got more votes in 2004 than any President ever. Well, yes, he did, but so what? As the economy grows bigger then money will be spent bigger. This ties into inflation.

And for the record, I don't like his spending and borrowing, either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While I think Tachi' takes too much joy from anything that "blacks the eyes" of the Bush administration (not the USA, he's anti-Bush not truly anti-USA), it would be hard to argue that the massive deficits we're running are solely the product of incremental inflation over time.

You either buy that the war on terror is worth the price (me) or you don't (Tachi', Soly).

Still doesn't mean that there hasn't been hugely wasteful stuff churned out by Congress and the Bush administration -- there's more than a few programs I'm annoyed with.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It obviously isn't just inflation, but I suspect that it isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be - of course, I don't know where they got their numbers from.

And yes, Bush & Co. spend too much.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do those figures take inflation into account?

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

Oh for pete's sake, rather than asking (three time in a row!) whether or not inflation has been taken into account, look up the numbers and do your own calculation. It ain't rocket science, peeps.

[Redleg]

I normally stay away from political editorials written in the Rolling Stone - but this one does raise some valid points about the Bush Adminstration. Some of which are more telling then the budget spending mentioned in the article. Spending borrowed money can hurt the economy - but that can also be correct.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

No matter how staunch of a Republican one is - or a conservative - one can not deny that the author hit the describtion in bold spot on.

[yesdachi]

No matter how staunch of a Republican one is - or a conservative - one can not deny that the author hit the describtion in bold spot on.

The only thing I could think of while reading that part was that the writer should have remembered that I graduated from public school and cut out some of the big words. Sheese.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Rolling St-- *CRAP!*

[Tribesman]

And what about '29-30 and the Great Depression ? The economy was bad then, too, and (I'm guessing) there were more jobless people then than there are now (proportionally)...

Bad comparison , the US debt was reduced in '29 and the following years .

You either buy that the war on terror is worth the price (me) or you don't (Tachi', Soly).

Yep , war is expensive , America started with a big debt from the revolution , the debt rises sharply each time it goes to war (not so with Spansh-American war though) . To be worth the price Seamus it requires a satisfactory outcome , do you see Bush getting a satisfactory outcome for all them dollars?
Thats what makes him the worst President .

[Tachikaze]

Well, since they are comparing raw numbers, of course Bush will look bad.

The article doesn't mention in what dollar-year those figures are going on. Inflation could easily count for that. A dollar in 1790 is worth a lot more than one in 2006.

You don't have to compare the value of money now and from 1790. The value of the dollar today is not that much more than it was in 1980-2000. Even if you were to consider that Bush has spend more than the three previous presidents combined, that would be saying a lot.

[Redleg]

You don't have to compare the value of money now and from 1790. The value of the dollar today is not that much more than it was in 1980-2000. Even if you were to consider that Bush has spend more than the three previous presidents combined, that would be saying a lot.

Tachikaze simple research would show how naive your statement in red is.

http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/

In 2000, $1.00 from 1980 is worth:
$2.09 using the Consumer Price Index
$1.85 using the GDP deflator
$2.04 using the unskilled wage
$2.83 using the nominal GDP per capita
$3.52 using the relative share of GDP


In 2004, $1.00 from 1980 is worth:
$2.29 using the Consumer Price Index
$2.02 using the GDP deflator
$2.27 using the unskilled wage
$3.25 using the nominal GDP per capita
$4.21 using the relative share of GDP


In 2004, $1.00 from 2000 is worth:
$1.10 using the Consumer Price Index
$1.09 using the GDP deflator
$1.11 using the unskilled wage
$1.15 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1.20 using the relative share of GDP





So in essence attempting such a comparison ignores that the value of just one dollar has roughly a 10% drop in its relative value between the year 2000 to 2004. Since the calculator does not include the year 2005, I will only assume the standard 3% adjustment due to inflation has occured over the last year - all this would make the value of a dollar in 2000 significantly different then the value of a dollar today. Now take and compare that to wages - a simple comparsion would be to look at the minimum wage legistlation. When was the last time it had a federal mandated increase? A 10% decrease in buying power of the dollar is significant to most Americans if they have not had the same increase in wages over time. Now one of the major complaints about President Bush has been the economy, the average citizens ability to judge the economy is soley based upon their ability to earn wages and spend those wages.

This article discuss the point I am making in detail however its not about President Bush but the need of a living wage program.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp170



And just for giggles

In 2000, $1.00 from 1800 is worth:
$13.64 using the Consumer Price Index
$13.77 using the GDP deflator
$226.62 using the unskilled wage
$383.90 using the nominal GDP per capita
$20,452.08 using the relative share of GDP

http://www.eh.net/hmit/compare/

There are just to many economic calculators available that proves that statement to be naive.

Now to the second part - on the surface itis definitely true.

[Divinus Arma]

He supports illegal immigrants and insults Americans with the "Jobs Americans won't take" line.

'nuff said. I disapprove of his performance for that reason alone.