Another awful article. Rob, your reputation is at stake here! How about some critical reading of articles before posting them?
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:10:31PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > The interesting thing is that the major media would have you believe > that President Bush has caused an unprecedented and outrageous > increase in the national debt during his tenure. The major media would? I must have missed it. Straw man? > According to the statistics, he has actually decreased the national > debt since last month, by about $6.5 billion. This is bullshit. The debt fluctuates each month in a near-random fashion. This is in the noise. It is meaningless to talk about month-to-month changes in the debt. The author is either foolish or trying to fool the reader. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm > By contrast, the president who is accused of ratcheting up the nation's debt > to "astronomical proportions" according to his detractors, President Reagan, > increased the debt by a "whopping" $700 billion in his first term, and an > "outrageous" $1 trillion in his second term. > > Compared to the current presidents, Reagan was a spendthrift! Only if you do a hopelessly naive analysis. How about looking at it as a percentage of GDP, or at least corrected for inflation? Here are some numbers as a percent of GDP, rounded to nearest 0.5% (I read them off an Economist chart): year budget balance as % of GDP --------------------------------- 1983 -6.0% 1987 -3.0% 1991 -4.5% 1995 -2.0% 1999 +1.5% 2003 -3.0% (projected, NOT including possible war costs) High deficits during Reagan/Bush (with Reagan having the worst at -6% of GDP), decreasing during Clinton, and increasing again under Bush. > We had a > > a.. 21% increase in the national debt from 1968 to 1972; > a.. 31% increase from 1972 to 1976; > a.. 30% increase from 1976 to 1980; > a.. 44% increase from 1980 to 1984; > a.. 36% increase from 1984 to 1988; > a.. 36% increase from 1988 to 1992; > a.. 22% increase from 1992 to 1996; > a.. an 8% increase during the Internet bubble of 1996 to 2000; > and we're on track for an 18% increase from 2000 to 2004, if the current > numbers hold. > > Were there to be a full economic recovery, rather than the anemic one we > have going now, Bush's debt numbers may even go down. Now, we're not > advocating increases to the national debt, but to single out George W., or > even Ronald Reagan, for doing so is apparently, according to the numbers, > unjustified. Huh? Did they look at their own chart (which at least they bothered to correct for inflation)? Reagan had the highest two numbers there, 44% and 36%. Clinton had the lowest and the third lowest. And Bush's numbers don't include a possible war. Predictions are reliable anyway, but if you are going to predict, you cannot ignore the likely war. You really need to find a better news source, Rob. Until you do, I'd advise people who are short of time not to waste it on these sorts of articles that Rob posts. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
