Why the polls don't matter, Romney will be the next President

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Democratic Presidents don't create their legacies by unsexy budget policies.

It's been over three decades that a Republican President has actually improved the nation's fiscal situation. The Gipper didn't do it, Bush Sr. didn't do it, Bush Jr. didn't do it. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that Mitt suddenly would? Clinton did it, though. And that has become part of his legacy. Nothing unsexy about it.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's been over three decades that a Republican President has actually improved the nation's fiscal situation. The Gipper didn't do it, Bush Sr. didn't do it, Bush Jr. didn't do it. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that Mitt suddenly would? Clinton did it, though. And that has become part of his legacy. Nothing unsexy about it.

Please, Clinton's legacy is all about the sex that wasn't.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Please, Clinton's legacy is all about the sex that wasn't.

So Obama is due for a ####### if he gets re-elected? Then I say let's support Mitt Romney and save an intern.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's been over three decades that a Republican President has actually improved the nation's fiscal situation. The Gipper didn't do it, Bush Sr. didn't do it, Bush Jr. didn't do it. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that Mitt suddenly would?

He wouldn't. As for Bush Jr, I'd love to have his deficits. 2-3% of GDP... nice.

Clinton did it, though. And that has become part of his legacy. Nothing unsexy about it.

Clinton didn't do anything. He just had some unexpected tax revenue from the dot-com bubble.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As for Bush Jr, I'd love to have his deficits. 2-3% of GDP... nice.

How do 2-3% of GDP deficits increase the debt from 56.4% of GDP to 84.2% of GDP over 8 years? Fact is that the debt was $5.8TN at the end of FY 2001 (the end of Clinton's last budget year) and $11.9TN 8 years later. The debt more than doubled over those 8 years. GDP increased only 30% over the same time. Which is why the debt to GDP ratio ballooned. That's Bush Jr's. actual fiscal record. The budget was balanced when he came in (i.e. the debt rose slower than the GDP) and was handed off with a deficit of well over a trillion dollars to his successor.

Clinton didn't do anything. He just had some unexpected tax revenue from the dot-com bubble.

Clinton used that revenue to eliminate the deficit and start working off the debt. Notice that the debt to GDP ratio was 66.1% when Slick Willie took office and 56.4% when he left. That's what you do when the economy does well and brings you unexpected tax revenues. Don't forget that Bush also had unexpected tax revenues - from the housing bubble. And yet he still racked up debt like there's no tomorrow.

[mawilson 2,133]

How do 2-3% of GDP deficits increase the debt from 56.4% of GDP to 84.2% of GDP over 8 years?

3% times 8 is 24%. 84.2 - 56.4 = 27.8. 24, 27 - close enough.

Don't forget that Bush also had unexpected tax revenues - from the housing bubble. And yet he still racked up debt like there's no tomorrow.

I won't argue with that. He could have paid off the debt, but he was told by Greenspan that it was too dangerous.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

3% times 8 is 24%. 84.2 - 56.4 = 27.8. 24, 27 - close enough.

If the deficit is about the same as GDP growth, then the debt to GDP ratio should remain roughly the same. Instead the ratio grew 30 points. Something doesn't add up, does it?

I won't argue with that. He could have paid off the debt, but he was told by Greenspan that it was too dangerous.

I thought it was Cheney and the rest of the GOP telling him that "deficits don't matter".

[mawilson 2,133]

If the deficit is about the same as GDP growth, then the debt to GDP ratio should remain roughly the same. Instead the ratio grew 30 points. Something doesn't add up, does it?

Must have been all those things they kept off the balance sheet

[mawilson 2,133]

I thought it was Cheney and the rest of the GOP telling him that "deficits don't matter".

It was Greenspan who seemed very concerned about zero debt.

"The most recent projections ... make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.

...

... continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

...

... we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures, because these actions might occur at a time when sizable economic stimulus would be inappropriate. In other words, budget policy should strive to limit potential disruptions by making the on-budget surplus economically inconsequential when the debt is effectively paid off.

In general, as I have testified previously, if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases. The flurry of increases in outlays that occurred near the conclusion of last fall's budget deliberations is troubling because it makes the previous year's lack of discipline less likely to have been an aberration.

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy

Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

January 25, 2001

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It was Greenspan who seemed very concerned about zero debt.

"The most recent projections ... make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.

...

... continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

...

... we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures, because these actions might occur at a time when sizable economic stimulus would be inappropriate. In other words, budget policy should strive to limit potential disruptions by making the on-budget surplus economically inconsequential when the debt is effectively paid off.

In general, as I have testified previously, if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases. The flurry of increases in outlays that occurred near the conclusion of last fall's budget deliberations is troubling because it makes the previous year's lack of discipline less likely to have been an aberration.

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy

Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

January 25, 2001

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm

At no time during the Bush administration were we at any danger to have zero debt. We were at least $5TN away from that point. Soon after that testimony we stopped closing in and began to drift further away from the feared "No Debt" scenario. Bush could have produced balanced budgets and not worry about no debt. But he didn't. Instead, he doubled the debt and helped make sure that we'd never pay it off.

Must have been all those things they kept off the balance sheet

That's right. Then the real deficit wasn't 3% - it was 3% plus the cost of the wars we have been fighting all these years. That's what really matters - the real deficits. Whether you carry the extra expenditures on or off the balance sheet, they will end up on that pile of debt and make it grow. Double, to be exact.

[mawilson 2,133]

At no time during the Bush administration were we at any danger to have zero debt.

Not according to the Chairman's testimony.

January 25, 2001 - was Clinton's ghost still in charge then?

Instead, he doubled the debt and helped make sure that we'd never pay it off.

He did what the powers that be told him to do. As if he was smart enough to make his own decisions.

[X Factor 1,113]

Accoriding to news reports, the economy has hit single women harder than married women. President Obama will have a difficult time getting their support IMO.

[james&olya 1,121]

Not all.

Romney is American.

Are you sure? Have you seen his long form birth certificate? And was it proved authentic?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you sure? Have you seen his long form birth certificate? And was it proved authentic?

Don't need to. Romney already is on record as being "a guy from Great Britain". Which is okay with the birthers, I suppose. We just can't have a Kenyan in the White House.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Accoriding to news reports, the economy has hit single women harder than married women. President Obama will have a difficult time getting their support IMO.

Obama has other things going for him in regards to single women, though. His stance on birth control and mammograms, for example.