Which party is the most to blame for the national debt?

Capitol Grilling ^ | 11/4/2007 | "Groucho Marx"

[Badeye]

The American People are to blame, not the political parties.

We refuse to make term limits the law of the land.

Half of us won’t make time to vote, even if its ‘none of the above’.

We’re getting the government we deserve, folks. I know some don’t want to view it that way, preferring to blame Republicans or Democrats...and not considering the real problem.

We see the problem every day.

Its ‘We the People’. The two major political parties are just a SYMPTOM.

[expat_panama]

%gdp is smoke to hide the debt.

Let us know when you've got a better idea.  We're either complainers or doers, and only doers understand money.

[LowCountryJoe]

This data isn't all that useful. There is war spending that hasn't been properly taken into account and payroll tax money coming in (that gets spent instead of saved/invested), each working their own data-skewing effects into the deficit numbers.

Why even focus on the deficit, though? Is it really that important? I'm of the opinion that the real non-defense spending per capita numbers would be of far more use to those people who have their minds on liberty and identifying -- by seeing who spent less -- which party is best suited to "ensure the blessings" of such.

[expat_panama]

The American People are to blame...

Ah ya got me, us Americans have done it again.  But let's be fair and give us guys credit for what ever good we might've done --it actually has happened occaisonally.

Take this national debt (please).  True, over the past half century it's increased by almost five trillion dollars.  Let's not forget that at the same time, us Americans have created fifty-six trillion dollars of wealth.

Most Americans know that a nation that can borrow $5 to make $56 is pretty good; and while there are some who say any borrowing at all is a sin, they're wrong.

[Badeye]

I’m not bashing the country, I’m noting that the lack of participation in the process is at the heart of this argument.

[expat_panama]

"...not bashing the country, I’m noting that the lack of participation in the process..."

Hmm.  I was thinking that a little less participation from the Dem's wouldn't be so bad...

[purpleraine]

Both

[Badeye]

(chuckle)

[Mr. Jeeves]

Which party is the most to blame for the national debt?

The Federal Government Party. Which used to have two distinct factions, though it's getting a lot harder to tell them apart. ;)

[Recovering_Democrat]

There is no difference between the parties. there are just opposite ends of the same yardstick. Only so much room to move on a yardstick and that is the problem.

There is a difference of three feet between two ends of a yardstick. There is a difference between the parties.

[mad_as_he$$]

It is so small as to be of no real consequence. They both work from the same long term agenda and only occasionally appear to disagree mostly for appearance sake. The current deadlock is because W is off the reservation with war but right on track for the long term agenda of the business community. We foolishly believe that one party will change the inevitable outcome.

[Recovering_Democrat]

History says you're wrong. Every time in the last 40 years conservatives have lost and a liberal has won in the White House we've had major problems: problems that likely would not have happened had the conservative won. To wit:

1964: Johnson won, we were embroiled in Vietnam by his micromanagement--losing 60,000 lives--and expanded the Welfare State beyond even FDR's imagination.

1976: Carter won, we were the laughingstock of the world by his panty-waist ways in dealing with Iranian Islamofacists and got a new term in our economic lexicon: Misery Index (Unemployment plus Inflation rate).

1992: Clinton won, we treated terrorism as a "law enforcement" problem, surrendered in Somalia, rode the wave of Reagan's economic reforms, and only balanced the budget when a Republican Congress forced it on him. Not to mention the stain Clinton put upon his presidency by his perjury and obstruction of justice.

I am not saying the Republicans are perfect by any stretch. Nixon screwed up by imposing wage and price controls, Ford was weak in addressing the Soviet threat and Reagan gave us two lousy SCOTUS justices in Kennedy and O'Connor. GHW Bush backtracked on taxes and GW Bush has it wrong on immigration.

I can criticize my party, but there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans--the problems with our Republican presidents pale in comparison to the lying, equivocating, socialist, pacifist Democrats.

[Dead Corpse]

Sounds good to me...

[Plains Drifter]

Well said!!!

[Plains Drifter]

Well said!!!

[mad_as_he$$]

I agree with you; according to history I am wrong. However, things that have changed in the country make me believe that this is the exception that proves the rule. All of the events you mention occurred during the American Industrial Age; that age has past. Also, there was less than 30% of the population that worked for the Government at some level and around 10% who sucked the entitlement teat. Now we have the victim mentality, 49% of the population works for the Government at some level and an amazing 55% or so suck the teat. The "you owe me mentality" is rampant from teenagers to seniors. National patriotism is a dying thing - it exists only here on FR and a few other places. The large urban areas that are so important in elections are very powerful and very liberal. With rampant voting fraud

That said there were SIGNIFICANT differences between the Rep candidates and the Dem winners. I see so few differences between the current crop of candidates on both sides of the aisle - hence my position. Besides look at the current occupant of the WH. Compassionate conservative - I submit many of his adventures will be viewed dimly by history. Try watching the BBC America News broadcast on your cable system The world isn't so fond of the gringo's any more. The dollar is crumbling, our security sucks, the average working family has lost 42% of their buying power during the last 7 years - they are not happy campers. Illegals take jobs away from the few left who do want to work for an honest days wage every day - they resent the hell out of it. Those are people who will elect Hillary because of the Reps "failure(s)" to adhere to conservative values.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Well, I have to agree with you that there is a "gimme gimme" mentality. We are on the same page there.

I continue to think, though, the differences between the Rs and the Ds are significant enough to warrant working to defeat the Democrat operatives.

The Supreme Court, the protection of unborn life, lower taxes (relative to the 'rats), and the desire to eradicate terrorists sets most of the Republican field apart from Hitlery, Barack Hussein Obama, and the rest of the 'rat field.

You make good points. I just think you're a bit too pessimistic. :)

Have a great day. RD

[mad_as_he$$]

Pessimism has served me well.

[remember]

Compared to the freerepublic, the forum this tract comes from seems almost childlike.

They start with one pottymouth that posts this plot of the national debt in current dollars with a title that holds the president responsible --giving congress a free pass. This is met with a reply post of bar graph in constant dollars, as if adjusting for inflation was all that was necessary. Yeah right. The decades go by with no change in population, wealth, technology, economic power.

I agree. In the world of current dollars, and even constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, government debts, receipts, and spending invariably go up. However, if you look at receipts (and to a lesser extend, spending) as a percentage of GDP, you see much more stability. The first graph at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recsrc.html shows that, in all but one year since 1951, total receipts have ranged between 16 and 20 percent of GDP. However, the second graph shows that, in constant dollars, receipts have generally grown over that period. Why does the GDP tend to grow faster than inflation? As you said, major causes are increases in population, technology, and productivity.

The most immediate burden of the debt is the interest that must be paid on it each year. Since the receipts that pay that interest tend to grow with GDP, the debt that can be safely supported with that interest can likewise grow with GDP (assuming that interest rates remain the same). Hence, I think that the gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP is the most meaningful measure to look at. Your graph is looking at the public debt as a percentage of GDP which excludes the debt owed to Social Security and the other trust funds. Since the debt to Social Security is projected to be repaid as the Boomers retire, I think that the gross federal debt is the more meaningful measure. And unlike the public debt, which is decreasing slightly as a percentage of GDP, the gross federal debt is still increasing slightly.

In any case, the question of looking at the gross debt versus the public debt will soon become a moot issue. As the Boomers retire, the debt held by Social Security and some of the other entitlement trust funds will be repaid and likely replaced by public debt. Hence, you could say that all debt becomes public debt in the end. The following graph shows the public debt as a percentage of GDP, as projected in the most recent budget:

The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/pro2008.html. As can be seen, the public debt is projected to reach 160 percent of GDP in the more optimistic case that Bush's mandatory spending proposals are accepted. This will surpass the peak reached during the Second World War. Unlike then, however, there will be no war to end, providing an immediate peace dividend to balance the budget.

[napscoordinator]

Reagan and Bush II made huge deficits. Sorry to burst your bubble. If you ask that question to anyone you will receive the same anwer.