THE DEMOCRAT IMPLOSION - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
The heated campaign for the 2008 Democrat nomination is not just creating headlines as Hillary and Obama duke it out for the top spot but it has begun to erode the party and it looks as if the implosion that many have anticipated has finally begun.
Not only is the battle for the nomination heating up with Hillary now calling for Obama to drop out and take the VP spot with her at the top of the ticket, ( which will not happen before the Convention if at all), but party loyalists are beginning to show their disgust with what is happening with the candidates and the campaign.
The Drudge Report headlined on Saturday that donors are threatening to stop giving because of the decision by the party to exclude Florida and Michigan from seating their delegates at the Convention for moving their Primary dates up against party rules. Some are actually threatening to demand refunds for donations already given.
The candidates themselves are not helping the situation as the implosion of the party begins growing. Hillary as mentioned, though in second in delegate count, is hitting the TV circuit and calling for unity under her banner with Obama bowing and and taking the under card. This along with the increasing revelations concerning statements made by Obama's preacher who claims America was reaping what we sowed on September 11 and that God should d*** America have caused concern within party circles.
These troubles and the fight between the candidates with mudslinging that has a new look each day has the match up with McCain for November looking better for the GOP each day. McCain has consistently polled better than Hillary but has always polled between three and six points behind Obama in National Polls.
The latest Rasmussen poll now has McCain ahead of Hillary by four points and by six over Obama. This is the first time McCain has polled better than Obama. The clash within the party and the dodging of tough questions combined with his association and defense of Preacher Wright and ties to other radicals like Lewis Farrakhan have begun to take there toll on the to this point untouchable Barak.
The continued concern over the Super Delegates deciding the nominee at the Convention is also worrying party officials as voters, donors and delegates assigned by the vote count from their State are starting to question the power of the Super Delegates in choosing the nominee. Since they are not required to vote as their State did in the Primaries, super Delegates are free to choose who they wish and back room dealings for their vote have already begun.
The revelation of the investigation followed by the resignation of Elliot Spitzer as New York's Governor ,his dealings with prostitutes and his $ 80, 000 dollar habit have also not helped in the perception of the Democrat Party with voters.
If this trend continues and the problems keep showing their face while the heated fight between the candidates continues the Democrats will find themselves in a fix come September regardless of who their nominee is.
John McCain on the other hand is continuing to hone his message and is touring the country campaigning against both Hillary and Obama and as the polling show that to is beginning to have a positive effect for the GOP. McCain has also capitalized on the statement that Hillary made concerning the 3 AM phone call and who do voters want in the White House when that call comes.
Of course she was referring to the inexperience of Obama compared to her but it has instead worked to the advantage of McCain whose experience for that 3 AM call fare exceeds Hillary and Obama's
While Republicans still await the decision as to who his running mate will be, we can rest assured in the fact that as long as the Democrats continue this implosion, a situation that will not be ending before the Convention and very possibly will continue into the final push for November, the GOP can look forward to a very successful night come November 4, 2008 with the Presidency and possible pick up in the House as well. If the implosion worsens as it very well could we may find a stronger GOP presence in the Senate as well.
Ken Taylor
Not only is the battle for the nomination heating up with Hillary now calling for Obama to drop out and take the VP spot with her at the top of the ticket, ( which will not happen before the Convention if at all), but party loyalists are beginning to show their disgust with what is happening with the candidates and the campaign.
The Drudge Report headlined on Saturday that donors are threatening to stop giving because of the decision by the party to exclude Florida and Michigan from seating their delegates at the Convention for moving their Primary dates up against party rules. Some are actually threatening to demand refunds for donations already given.
The candidates themselves are not helping the situation as the implosion of the party begins growing. Hillary as mentioned, though in second in delegate count, is hitting the TV circuit and calling for unity under her banner with Obama bowing and and taking the under card. This along with the increasing revelations concerning statements made by Obama's preacher who claims America was reaping what we sowed on September 11 and that God should d*** America have caused concern within party circles.
These troubles and the fight between the candidates with mudslinging that has a new look each day has the match up with McCain for November looking better for the GOP each day. McCain has consistently polled better than Hillary but has always polled between three and six points behind Obama in National Polls.
The latest Rasmussen poll now has McCain ahead of Hillary by four points and by six over Obama. This is the first time McCain has polled better than Obama. The clash within the party and the dodging of tough questions combined with his association and defense of Preacher Wright and ties to other radicals like Lewis Farrakhan have begun to take there toll on the to this point untouchable Barak.
The continued concern over the Super Delegates deciding the nominee at the Convention is also worrying party officials as voters, donors and delegates assigned by the vote count from their State are starting to question the power of the Super Delegates in choosing the nominee. Since they are not required to vote as their State did in the Primaries, super Delegates are free to choose who they wish and back room dealings for their vote have already begun.
The revelation of the investigation followed by the resignation of Elliot Spitzer as New York's Governor ,his dealings with prostitutes and his $ 80, 000 dollar habit have also not helped in the perception of the Democrat Party with voters.
If this trend continues and the problems keep showing their face while the heated fight between the candidates continues the Democrats will find themselves in a fix come September regardless of who their nominee is.
John McCain on the other hand is continuing to hone his message and is touring the country campaigning against both Hillary and Obama and as the polling show that to is beginning to have a positive effect for the GOP. McCain has also capitalized on the statement that Hillary made concerning the 3 AM phone call and who do voters want in the White House when that call comes.
Of course she was referring to the inexperience of Obama compared to her but it has instead worked to the advantage of McCain whose experience for that 3 AM call fare exceeds Hillary and Obama's
While Republicans still await the decision as to who his running mate will be, we can rest assured in the fact that as long as the Democrats continue this implosion, a situation that will not be ending before the Convention and very possibly will continue into the final push for November, the GOP can look forward to a very successful night come November 4, 2008 with the Presidency and possible pick up in the House as well. If the implosion worsens as it very well could we may find a stronger GOP presence in the Senate as well.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 4:37 AM
27 Comments:
Much ado about nothing. The Party fighting is nothing new - it happens every election season. The Dems are going to rally around their candidate. It is going to be Obama - it is just a matter of time. I just laugh at the Republicans and media who are trying to spin the nomination fight as something that will destroy the Party - it is just democracy at work.
I actually think having Obama go through the vetting process and face some questions from Hillary is a good thing - it will blunt the effectiveness of the same attacks that we will see in a couple of months.
What is really clear is that turnout for Dems is much, much higher than for Republicans because there is great interest in the race.
I think the fact that a Dem just won Hastert's open seat in a Republican district says a lot about the mood of the country.
As a life long Democrat, I have to agree with the assessment of this post. I believe the Democrats have already lost the White House. I think the Republicans have been very smart, although the right wing put up a fight, to go with McCain. He has not alienated Latino voters and he is considered a moderate. The fact the right wing hates him is a positive for the general election. Unfortunately, the Democrats (especially the left wing) have not learned their lesson from 1972 and other elections. Obama cannot win a national election. This week there was an unfortunate reminder of why Jesse Jackson divided the party so much and helped to lose at least one election. The fact that Obama went to this Church for 20 years, considered Rev. Wright his pastor, and the fact most African Americans do not consider his comments racist, will strike most Americans as way too left. And, they are right. The left wing of the Democratic party decided they could not lose by putting forth one of their candidates and they may get their wish. They will get Obama the nomination, but the Republicans and McCain will get the big prize, the White House. Obama has proven to be a liar (NAFTA and withdrawal from Iraq), a racist (including his wife, Michelle) and inexperienced. He is only two years out of the Illinois senate. In addition, every comment from now on by anyone will be considered racist if it is critical of him. Here we go again.
Not to mention that Obama has now denounced the statements of this 'trusted spiritual advisor' and expects us to believe that he attended this church for over 20 years, was married by this minister, had his children baptized by him and donated over $23,000 to the church last year alone and has only heard these kind of devisive, hateful and racist statmens once or twice. I call BS on that one. You do not attend a chrch that has the same minister for twenty years and not get a feel for who the man is and what he stands for. Obama is a liar, plain and simple.
Most Americans won't care about what Obama's pastor said years ago. Frankly it doesn't make any real difference when you look at the serious issues facing the nation.
The American financial system is on the verge of collapse, the dollar has cratered, oil prices will continue to rise, and interest rates will rise. This will effect every American right in the pocketbook.
Bush's economic policies have done more damage to American sovereignty than any President in the history of the country and McCain has said that he doesn't understand the economy. Yet you think that Americans will worry about what Obama's pastor said in a sermon?
Eight months from now, Americans are going to be facing an even worse financial situation than right now. We are going to have to choose between a guy who says he doesn't understand the economy and that we should continue to fritter away $12 billion a month in Iraq for perhaps another 100 years (McCain) and a guy whose pastor made some controversial remarks (Obama). Somehow, I doubt most Americans will care about the pastor.
Bushes economic policies? What? Which ones caused the housing market to crater? Which ones cause fuel prices to rise?
OMG, you are so clueless. Do you realize that this country is exiting 25 quarters (over 6 years) of straight economic growth? The housing market has been booming for over seven years and we have hit record economic marks multiple times in increased GNP, trading volume, stock value, etc. Unemployment has been lower that it has been in ten years and wages have been increasing.
We have not had a major market correction since the .com bubble burst in late 2000. Then we had a massive one with the tradgedy that was 9/11 nearly setting this country into recession (near depression) overnight. We have recoverd from both of those events and held a booming economy eversince with no major corrections. We knew this was coming and most economist expected it far sooner than it happened. You cannot sustain the level of growth that we have enjoyed over the past few years indefinitely. There has to be a correction and the market has to cleanse itself.
Our chief problem right now is fuels. Petroleum is trading at unbelievable rates and ethanol is irresponsibly raising the cost of food stocks for little or no benifit to the environment and to the detriment of the economy. Estimates say that as much as a third of the price of fuel is pure market speculation and OPEC is sticking to its guns about releasing more production claiming that it is American economic speculation that is causing our fuel crisis and absolutely not a limited supply issue. Meanwhile, increased ethanol production is casuing base food stocks such as corn and grain to soar in cost, only compounding the effect that increased fuel cost are having on the market.
My point? We are doing this to ourselves. If futures investors would realize that there is not a global fuel supply crisis and stop trading the hell out of petroleum futures, that market would correct itself as well. We also need to stop massive increases in ethanol production because in is damaging our economy and provides minimal if any benifit to the environment when the entire process of its manufacturing from growth to distillation to refining and its much lower fuel effeciency are taken into consideration.
Bush's economic policies, please! Idiot.
Not to mention that Obama want to add allmost a TRILLION dollars to the government bill in the form or entitlement programs, raise taxes and tax business for being profitable. What the hell do you think THAT will do to the economy?
CC - the credit policies and tax policies that Bush has advocated have resulted in deficit spending that has been paid for through the acquisition of foreign-held American debt.
When Bush racks up $400 billion deficits, how do you think we paid for them? Chinese, OPEC nation, Japan, etc. picked up the tab.
Also, keep in mind that the Iraq war is done off budget and so it does not show up in the deficits - but it clearly hits the national debt.
Based on your comments, I have my doubts about your understanding of American (i.e. Bush's) economic policies.
Those credit policies were not Bush administration policies at all thank you. This administration has never encouraged high risk lending to low income markets that allowed people to make financial committments that they could not possibly keep. Those are stupid fiscal policies of financial institutions who chose to over extend themselves on high risk credit to people who made poor financial decisions by participating. The Democratic Congress that has just called for a bill bailing them out just signed off on irresponsible behvior such as that by giving them a pass. Bush would be an idiot for signing such a thing into law. It will destroy the credit industry in this nation and leave the govenrment holding the bill.
The tax policies that Bush has implemented helped to stimulate the economy to its previous 25 quarters worth of growth. The also have generated the most Federal Revenue in decades.
You will not find any argument with me that the Iraq War is way over budget and is impacting the national debt. However, that does not mean that because something costs, it is not worth doing or seeing through. If we abandon our effort now and Iraq collapses all the invested capital will be for nothing and the chaos that it creates will cost magnitudes more to deal with in the future.
Don't kid yourself by thinking that ANY Democrat you elect will get us out of Iraq as fast as you think.
You did not answer my question... Why would you want to elect someone who has already promised to add a trillion dollars or more to the Federal budget, raise taxes on individuals and punish corporations for being profitable thus driving our economy further down? Did the Carter years teach you guys nothing? Do you want double digit inflation and interest rates again? Do you want the 'Misery Index' back? How about a dose of double digit unemployment to go with it?
Your question is ridiculous because it is not the economic policy that Obama is pushing. Essentially, the Dems want to reinstate the tax policies that were in place under Clinton. Tax breaks were targeted toward the middle class rather than to the breaks that have gone to capital gains which disproportionately help the super wealthy. The economy was much healthier and much better under Clinton.
Do you have any idea how much Bush's Medicare Part D added to America's financial commitment?
The deregulation of the banking industry and the easy monetary policy that Bush and his current treasury secretary (Paulsen) and last treasury secretary (Snow) have pursued have directly resulted in the disaster that we are witnessing. Even the current $200 billion investment bank bailout that Bush and Paulsen have worked with Bernanke on is a disaster that basically shifts the bad bets of the investment banks to the American taxpayers. It is the biggest giveaway to private companies in history. I might not mind as much if the CEOs of these companies gave back their $50 million annual compensation packages, but that isn't going to happen.
The Treasury Department's willingness to sell U.S. treasurys to foreigners has been a disasterous policy. Do you have any clue how much additional debt foreigners now hold as a result of Bush's willingness to sell U.S. debt to foreigners?
Let me ask you four questions. If you know the answer to them, then we have reason to discuss policies. We can get into a substantive debate about policy decisions that were made under the President relative to prior presidents.
Excluding military spending (so we don't punish Bush for having to go to war after 9/11), who increased government spending more, Clinton or Bush?
Did the economy grow faster under Clinton or Bush?
How much did the national debt grow under Clinton versus Bush?
How large was the federal budget SURPLUS when Bush took office?
Great Post Ken,
All the crap in the last week?
Elliot Spitzer (D-NY) knocked off his pedestal.
Obama and his hate speech anti-America hating pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who Barack Obama has been a member of his church for 20 years, has really hurt the Obama campaign, and I do believe Obama was in Church on several of the days this hate speech was going on and someone will provide proof I betcha!
Then we have Obama's connections with the Weather Underground Terrorist Outfit! More Muk on this is about to fly.
And to top this week off McRGeevy the one who came out from being a closet homosexual on National TV, there are new claims that McGreevy, his X-Wife and a page all had a threesome together.
The Democrat party is getting sicker by the day!
Larry Craig? Foley? Vitter?
First off those are EXACTLY Obamas policies. He will end the Bush tax cuts which will result in the average American family paying as much as $2000 in increased taxes annually. He has stated that he will go after big, profitable corporations and tax the hell out of them. He has listed a plethora of government funded entitlement programs that he will initiate and how does he plan to fund them? Tax, tax, tax.
I will allow that Bush has increased Federal (non-Military) spending more than the Clinton administration was allowed to do. A great deal of this was in federal restructuring after and as a result of 9/11. DHS, FAA, TSA, FBI, NSA and CIA budgets have increased dramatically. I was not a huge fan of the Medicare D program since there was no solution to provide the additional funds for it. However, he did try to force Congress to deal with the growing financial black hole that is Social Security. I belive it was the Democrats in Congress that wanted nothing to do with dealing with the issue. You will find no argument with me that Republicans have not controlled the spending as they should have, but Democrats will be much worse by creating an entitlement for healthcare, daycare, this, that and the other.
Did the economy grow faster under Clinton? No. Did Clinton have a good economic stint? Sure, but you have to take into consideration the big picture. Clinton was fortunate to reside over one of the biggest economic phenomenons since industrialization. When he took office in 1993 the internet was a collection of geeky students and professors crawling through lines of text. Over the next eight years it transformed itself into the most lucrative market place in the world. E-commerce fostered booms in business that were previously unthought of and vaulted technology to the forefront of business and investing. Trillions of dollars were generated by the .com boom and Clinton presided over the whole thing.
Unfortunately in late 2000 (or fortunately for Clinton) the bubble burst and technology plumeted. Add to this the non-event that was Y2K and suddenly you had a saturated job market in the tech field, companies that devauled overnight and one of the biggest economic recessions in recent times. This is what Bush inherited, through no fault of Clinton. That is just the nature of the market; rapid massive growth cannot go unchecked. One year into the Bush administration this nation experienced an another massive economic setback after the 9/11 attacks. The market reeled for weeks and stocks fell over 35% in some cases. Over 300,000 jobs were lost or disrupted almost immediately and the cost of clean-up, reconstruction, insurance, healthcare, etc, ranged into the hundreds of billions when combined.
Now we have just exited over six years of economic growth with the stock exchange breaking a number of records just last year. That is pretty damn good growth to recover from those sever economic setbacks into six years of sustained heavy growth. We have not even entered a period of recession yet and people are running around panicing like their hair was on fire.
Does the housing market suck right now? Sure. Are fuel prices to damn high? You bet. However the other economic indicators show a strong economy. We have a 4.8% unemployment rate for God's sake.
You want to give Clinton credit for the surplus, but you forget that it was a Republican Congress that passed the ballanced budget and rejected the increases in Federal spending that Clinton tried to implement. He did not ballance that budget and create the surplus anymore than he caused the rise of the .com industry or its collapse. I will admit that I expected more spending control from the first six years when Bush had a Republican controlled Congress at his beck and call, but alas, they seem to have forgotten their fiscal responsibility.
Oh yeah, the surplus was wiped out in short order. Recovering from 9/11, two military campaigns and federal recovery efforts during Catrina assured that. No Democrat in office could have preserved it any better. The attacks on the WTC would have still occurred, we would still be at war, Catrina still would have been a disaster and the surplus would be just as gone. Please don't kid yourself in thinking that anyone sitting in that office could have prevented any of what occurred.
A majority of the Democrats voted to take us into Iraq and would have done so had Clinton himself still been in the seat.
You simply do not know your economic facts. The economy grew faster under Clinton - by far. Tax revenues grew faster under Clinton - by far, Unemployment improved significantly and was much better in 2000 when Clinton left office than at any time under Bush. (Clinton came in with unemployment at 7.5 percent and left with it at 4 percent.)
We were paying down the national debt when Clinton left office, as opposed to exploding the debt like Bush has done.
Every year under Clinton saw the budget improve to the point where he left a $240 billion budget surplus.
The cupboard was flush when Bush came in, and he is leaving it worse than bare as he comes to the end of his term. He has squandered the surplus all away and then some. He has exploded future commitments with his boondoggle Medicare Part D, the $3 trillion (literally) that we will spend in Iraq won't result in anything of value for American interests, and the No Child Left Behind and Homeland Insecurity messes have been expensive failures in new spending.
But if you want to seriously talk economic policy let's at least make sure that you understand basic facts. I don't want to debate someone who is ignorant of basic facts. If you are willing to do a little research then we can talk, if not, no problem, you can remain blissfully ignorant if you so choose. It is up to you.
Let's start with GDP growth under Clinton and Bush - since you clearly are misinformed. Do you know the actual numbers or are you just guessing? Tell me what you believe GDP to be in 1992, 2000, and today. You can easily look up the numbers at the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis website (www.bea.gov).
Once we agree on the numbers on GDP, we can move to spending, deficits, debt, foreign held debt, etc. You will see how bad Bush's performance has been - it is obvious when you look at the numbers.
I know my economic facts very well thank you and agreement is not required.
Fine, Clinton entered office in 1992 with the GDP sitting at aroun $73.6T. It grew to about 100T in 2000. An increase of $24.6T over eight years with no major economic setbacks or recession untill the fall of 2000 when a massive one hit right before he was exiting office.
In late 2000 the .com bubble burst and the GDP cratered right along with it sending us into immediate recession. The following fall 9/11 happened causing another market recession. In Where the GDP had been averaging $4T increase each year from 2000 to 2001 we only saw a $750B increase. From 2002 on it has steadily climbed ant near its same increase reaching $117.8T for an 17.8T. Over all increase with almost all of it coming in the last five years of measurement.
Clinton averaged $3.08T increase each year and Bush has averaged $2.54T each year with two major market recessions in 2000 and 2001 due to the .com and 9/11. From 2002 to 2007 our GDP has grow by %15.46T or $3.09T per year.
Now if you want to talk about government increases in spending, you cannot champion Clinton for that. Again, it was a Republican Congress that passed the ballanced budget after Clinton vetoed it once already. The largest government spending increases in the Bush administration came in 2001(3.4%) and 2002(4.4%) in reaction to 9/11. Since then they have helt to an average of 1.54% average increase per year, just over what Clinton maintained at 1.47% per year. You will not find argument with me that the Republicans have not been as fiscally responsible as they should have been, nor as they were when Clinton was in office. I think when they had him to fight agianst they tended to control spending better that when they had a President of the same party.
Now when you look at those numbers, Bush has had a slightly higher GDP increase and a slightly higher government spending increase averaged over the last five years than Clinton did over his eight. If you want to count 2001 and 2002 into expenditures and GDP then Bush's is lower GDP by .25% per year and .8% higher spending per year. However, if you do count 2001 and 2002, which had recessions that were beyond this administration's control then you have to admit to two things about the Clinton administration, he rode the GDP boom from the .com explosion and his spending was controlled by a Republican Congress who kept it in check.
Also, Clinton presided over a 3.5% decrease in unemployment, but Bush has also Presided over a 2.6% decrease in un employment, steadily holding under 5% right now at 4.8%. In 2001 unemployment shot up to 6.4% after both of those recessions and has steadily decreased over the past five years.
Aside from the hardships of 2001 & 2002. This economy has performed exceptionally well.
Now, I have never been one to bitch about Clinton and his economic policies any more than I have bitched about some of the blunders the Republicans made in the six years they held sway under this administration when they should have maintained their trend of reducing government spending. A war is one thing and it will always cost money, but some of the moronic decisions made, such as the Medicare D are unexcusable.
However, we are not talking about Bush v. Clinton. We are talking about Obama and the 'I have a million ideas just not the money to pay for them' Clinton, who would enter with a Democratic Congress willing to grow government to massive proportions. Govenrment healthcare, childcare, endowments, tution for illegals, etc... ad infinium. The Herritage Foundation had calculated all of Obamas promised programs at costing at least $980B. They have both pledged to increase taxes and go after profitable corportations. Clinton has even suggested moving away from private ownership to a more communal society.
Now, that I have answered your questions, you answer mine that I will be posing for the third time? What effect do you suppose increased income taxes, taxation of corporations based on the fact that they are successful and profitable and a trillion dollar increase in federal spending will do to this economy.
Jeez Dude, you are so far off it is laughable. You do realize that the current GDP is $14 trillion? You clearly don't know what the GDP is based on your post.
You are talking about $3 trillion increases per year in GDP under Clinton - I wish! Go back and look at your source numbers.
Let's not move forward until we get these numbers down. It is impossible to explain to you the intricacies and philosophy of the middle class tax cuts and reinstitution of the Clinton tax policies that Obama supports until we build a reasonable base of knowledge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I meant to post that WAS my fault because I was mixing tables, not wasn't.
I will give you this on RAW GDP, when comparing GNP and GDP, as I went back and checked since I was afriad I had mixed the charts themselves and not the just the name in the posting. Again, I do apologize for that I was posting on the fly yesterday. I took the time to double check the tables I was looking at today.
I corrected my calculations and based on raw GDP from the BEA, Bush still beat Clinton in annual growth and by percentage when excluding 2000 and 2001. If you include those two years Clinton has a slight percentage advantage.
Clinton (8 years):
Total: $3,159.6 Billion
Avg Per Year: $394.95 Billion
Incrs Per Year: 5.62% Avg
Bush (7 years):
Total: $3,715.8 Billion
Avg Per Year: $530.8 Billion
Incrs Per Year: 5.35%
Excluding 2000 & 2001: 5.75%
Those numbers better for you?
One of the biggest problems is that Bush has increased military spending by over $267 billion and nor reduce other government spending to compensate.
He has actually outspent Clinton in Non-Military spending in the amounts of $95 billion to $46 billin in increases. Even though most of that came in changes to the government in reaction to 9/11, you will not ever find an argument with me that he has been as financiall responsible as he should have been.
However, even if my numbers were wrong because I was using older formats, it does not negate the question as to why you want someone elected that has already promise between $850~980 billion dollars in increased government spending before he ever steps foot into office. How will his tax increases and targeting of profitable corporations impact the economy?
By the way, just so you know, I am not by any means wealthy, but I can tell you one thing. If the Bush tax cuts expire, I will be paying approximately $2,850 more than I will pay under the current tax system assuming static income. That is not on capital gains or anything, that is on raw income.
I really do hate when I do stupid crap like that because I do not take the time to pay attention to what I am doing. I was not only using GNP number (becuse I pulled the entire BEA historical chart which is still in GNP since it goes back into the 30s) and then I got myself a decimal place off in my calculations and didn't even realize it when I was posting. My 73.5T should have been 7.36T and I should have caught it there.
Anyway, I do apologize for that and hope you do realize that I am not as moronic as that made me sound. Which I fully admit that it did.
I don't think you are a moron. I think you made an honest mistake. But again, your numbers are confusing.
Let's not worry about spending or other details until we agree on some of the basic facts regarding key economic figures.
Do you agree with these numbers:
End of 1992, GDP was $6.5 trillion.
End of 2000, GDP was $10 trillion.
End of 2007, GDP was $14.1 trillion.
These are straight from the BEA. Do you agree that these are correct?
Are you looking at the BEA NIPA charts?
1992 - $6,337.7 Billion
2000 - $9,817.0 Billion
2007 - $13,843.8 Billion
Our number seam slightly different, but not by much.
I measured the reported numbers for 1993 to the end of 2000 for Clinton, the acutal eight years he was in office. The same for Bush, reports for 2001 to the lasted data at the end of 2007, the actual years he has been in office, obviously you cannot measure Bush's last year yet.
Here are the actual quarterly GDP numbers from the BEA.
The numbers your are citing may be the average or the figures from the middle of each year. I'm not really sure.
However, if we take your numbers then you must agree that growth under Clinton was:
(9.817-6.338)/6.338 = 54.9%
Under Bush it has been:
(13.844-9.817)/9.817 = 41.0%
Agreed?
You are weighing an 8 year increase against a 7 year one.
Even my numbers show that on a per year increase average Clinton's GDP growth was slightly higher, until you take into consideration the two uncontrolable major recessions that happened in 2000 and 2001. Even though one of those happened technically on Clinton's watch it did not impact his GDP for the year much because things did not really start to go south until August of that year.
If you take the average growth of the GDP over the last 5 (5.75%)years and project out 2008 at $14.639 Trillion you could use a basic calculation for comparrison like the above.
(9.817-6.338)/6.338 = 54.9%
Under Bush it has been:
(14.639-9.817)/9.817 = 49.1%
Which would be more accurate of over all growth.
Otherwise you have to weight the your calculation some how to account for the year descrepency. That is why I used an average of percent increase per year.
We'll have the actual percentage growth figure to look at when all is said and done - there is no need to extrapolate (especially because this year will probably end in 0 to 1 percent growth and perhaps even recession). I think it is fair to say that you agree with the growth percentages so far.
If you look up the GDP growth for the Carter years, you will see that GDP grew by 54.7 percent in 4 years.
Under Reagan (8 years) it was 78% growth and Bush Sr. (4 years) it was 19%.
Any brain dead president can grow the economy. The fact is that it grows on its own. However, one needs to understand all of the impacts of government policies and all of the major numbers to understand what kind of fiscal performance a president has had.
It seems like we agree on the numbers Now let's move on to government spending and deficits.
If you are still game, let's move on to the national debt. You can find the figures on my blog or just go to the Treasury department website (it is an executive branch department so it falls under Bush's control currently, but the way they report debt is consistent from administration to administration so it is non-partisan). Look up what the national debt was in 1992, 2000, and currently.
Sorry, I was going to suggest moving to spending and deficits and then changed my mind. The sentence above the last paragraph should be disregarded. Unless you would rather focus on spending and deficits first. I'd like to look at debt.
CC - if you want to continue this conversation then I suggest we do it over on my blog site. In a day or two this post is going to be far down the list of posts here on Ken's site.
If you are not interested, that's fine. I would enjoy continuing the discussion, but will leave it to you. I am not one to stand on a soapbox and hit people over the head to change their minds.
My personal view is that too many Americans don't understand basic fiscal policies and what the numbers actually are. They rely on spin. Then when there is an economic downturn they are surprised.
Post a Comment
<< Home