-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hey wait I thought Bush and the economy sucked?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
It is you that support the "black helicopter" mobsters.
It is you "cherry picking" the numbers.
Take this headline for example:
6-13-07Retail Sales Surge in May by the Largest Amount in 16 Months
The government report painted a more optimistic picture of consumer spending than last week's report from the nation's big chain stores
Sales of autos and auto parts were up 1.8 percent, the best performance in nearly a year, while sales were up 2.1 percent at hardware stores and 1.8 percent at sporting goods stores.
Sales at gasoline stations rose by 3.8 percent, the biggest increase in more than a year, but much of that gain reflected the big jump in prices.
Retail sales are not adjusted for inflation.
==========================================
See that?
That makes the entire article and the government report a fake and a lie.
Of course you support that lie.
LegendKiller
Lifer
Government inflation numbers are a joke too. Not including energy and food on the CPI? WTF?
Last time I checked milk at Gristides in Manhattan hit 4.09 for a gallon, two other stores that are traditionally $.50 lower than Gristides are now at 3.89. 3 months ago Gristides was at 3.29 and the other stores were at 3.09. Cheese and any other dairy product is also up significantly. Beef is up (corn feed) and corn are up, as are any corn by-products.
Gas is up, electricity is up.
4% inflation my ass.
LegendKiller
Lifer
I may not agree with you guys on a lot of stuff (re: Iraq), but I am a fiscal conservative until I die, which it seems like you and several others are also. Only rubber stamping kool-aide drinkers would think that the FUDD released by the government included everything and that it was giving us the whole picture.
So many people think that cutting taxes is an excellent way to stimulate the economy. They tout Debt/GDP ratios and growth targets. What they fail to realize is that all that growth bought through debt will be paid for for decades to come, with a lot of interest to boot. How can you justify growing at 2-3% GDP when you pay 3-4% in interest annually, for decades, to get that growth?
Sorry blackangst1, you are wrong, it's too bad that pretty much everybody replying to this thread can see it, but you can't.
dullard
Elite Member
Sorry to stray from the topic a tiny bit, but could you please explain the logic you are using here:
1) You deny there is a problem.
2) Months/years later, when the number gets 35% better, you wave it about proudly. You say that things have improved.
3) Gee, that is great. But, wouldn't it have been better if there was 35% less deficit months/years earlier as well as 35% less now?
What I'm saying is if now isn't perfect but it is better than it was in the past, doesn't that mean by definition that things weren't so hot in the past?
When you are at the absolute peak of a mountain, you can only go down. Thus, if things go down, you were better off in the past. If things go up, you weren't at the peak after all. If things go up quite a lot, you were far from the peak in the past. Meaning, those people who complained in the past were correct that things weren't great.
1) You deny there is a problem.
2) Months/years later, when the number gets 35% better, you wave it about proudly. You say that things have improved.
3) Gee, that is great. But, wouldn't it have been better if there was 35% less deficit months/years earlier as well as 35% less now?
What I'm saying is if now isn't perfect but it is better than it was in the past, doesn't that mean by definition that things weren't so hot in the past?
When you are at the absolute peak of a mountain, you can only go down. Thus, if things go down, you were better off in the past. If things go up, you weren't at the peak after all. If things go up quite a lot, you were far from the peak in the past. Meaning, those people who complained in the past were correct that things weren't great.
Boy you Bush supporters must be desperate to cheer about $150 billion deficits and that's only 2/3 of the way. If you think Bush is a genius for having hundreds of billions of deficits every freaking year of his presidency, you should be worshiping Clinton for actually having a surplus in the budget using the same standard then.
palehorse
Lifer
this is one of the big issues I have with Bush... I'm often labeled a "bush-lover" around here, simply for my views concerning the GWOT; and none of you faulkers ever believe me when I say that I'm not a fan of a lot of what he does. Now, maybe you will... I consider myself a true fiscal conservative, and Bush has been an economic nightmare! The entire concept of smaller government and lower spending is completely lost on him and his crew...
For those of you who feel nauseas when you find yourself agreeing with me on something, I'm sorry... 😉
For those of you who feel nauseas when you find yourself agreeing with me on something, I'm sorry... 😉
J Heartless Slick
Golden Member
These were my thoughts about the OP too.
Hey if the numbers, no matter how massaged, make you feel good keep believing.
If my memory serves me right, GWB did not fool "THE ENTIRE WORLD" about Iraq. But he was able to wave the 9/11/2001 attack flag and make support for the Iraq invasion equivalent to love of the US.
i wonder how many gov'ts in the history of the world ran surpluses for more than even a quarter of their history? the US has almost always run a deficit, and every time it has run a surplus it's been shortly followed by a recession (which is probably not a causal relationship)
dullard
Elite Member
There is a very clear and direct link between the two.
Lets take it as simple as can be. Family X has a $50k/year income. Inflation is 0% per year. The family spends every penny it gets. In a typical year, the family will get $50k and spend $50k. They have a gross domestic purchase (GDP) of $50k.
Case 1: Family gets a raise to $55k/year. Suddenly, they spend $55k/year and get 10% more goods/services than they had in the past. Their GDP goes up to $55k/year, a 10% boost.
Case 2: Family income stays at $50k/year. But, this time the family borrows $5k. This year they have $55k/year of goods/services that they purchased. Their GDP goes up to $55k/year, a 10% boost.
As far as the GDP is conserned, Case 1 and Case 2 are the exact same. Either the family doing better (promotion for more income) or the family borrowing (short term gain for long term pain) leads to the same GDP boost. Yet the two cases are drastically different. Case 1 is far healthier than Case 2.
Yes, the US economy is more complex than that. But, the point is the same. When the US goverment borrows money, it spends every cent of it. Where does that money go? Right into the US GDP. The government can easilly buy a falsely higher GDP number by spending more (going into a deficit).
The solution of course is to look at GDP + deficit spending. In case 2 you get $55k - $5k deficit = $50k. The overall health of case 2 is the same as the baseline ($50k income). Borrowing should not make your economy look better, and with this correction it doesn't.
Years where our government borrowed money should have the GDP reduced to offset that false boost to the economy. Years where our government repaid loans should have the GDP increased to offset that false drag on the economy.
legendkiller: what is your degree in? you make very good points. i haven't even taken an economics course in college yet so was almost getting ready to believe the OP, but this is very easy to understand now...and you any price index that doesn't include energy is fuvking ridiculous....gas + electricity absolutely owns my family...
LegendKiller
Lifer
ba in psychology, mba with finance concentration, cfa charter, work in structured finance at a bank in nyc. Even without that, it's pretty obvious that the "official" numbers are crap. You can't run around spending $400bn in Iraq, rack up 3tr in debt in 6 years (50% increase), and pass all sorts of unfunded liabilities (prescription drugs, no-child) *and* cut taxes, without incurring significant debt, it's impossible.
The only way that the deficit looks rosy is if they exclude a lot of items, drop many "emergency" spending bills, and project out some ridiculous revenue targets to meet your spending. On top of that, you herald a marginally less sucky deficit position as some massive stride for the country and pinpoint that maybe, if growth keeps on it's current tact, that we'll get a surplus in 5 years, to sucker in the people who might not spend the time to figure out the truth (or don't want to know like blackangst1).
I find it humorous that the goverment, through the SEC and other bodies, regulate companies to stop putting out phony numbers, yet love doing so themselves, just so they can keep getting re-elected. People like blackangst1 will yell and scream about Enron, but will parade around government numbers based upon the same phony BS.
The CPI scale not including some costs is ridiclous, but it's just another sound-bit that people love to parade around without completely knowing whats actually going on.
America's being screwed, little by little. We are mortgaging our kid's future so that we can have marginal prosperity. People like blackangst1 let it continue, mainly because they are too partisan to realize reality.
blackangst1
Lifer
Talk about manipulating data...
I propose this: Never again speak about gov't debt or deficit. Why? Because those of you who spit when positive numbers are released claim gov't numbers are skewed, manipulated, etc. So where do we get REAL numbers then? Through some think tank? Where would they get THEIR numbers? Thats right. From the gov't.
I say youre wrong and provide 3rd party proof to back it up. You say Im wrong and rarely provide anything but your own perspective.
Therefore, we will never get accurate numbers. Useless argument on both sides I would say. Looks like a pissing contest to me *shrug*
I propose this: Never again speak about gov't debt or deficit. Why? Because those of you who spit when positive numbers are released claim gov't numbers are skewed, manipulated, etc. So where do we get REAL numbers then? Through some think tank? Where would they get THEIR numbers? Thats right. From the gov't.
I say youre wrong and provide 3rd party proof to back it up. You say Im wrong and rarely provide anything but your own perspective.
Therefore, we will never get accurate numbers. Useless argument on both sides I would say. Looks like a pissing contest to me *shrug*
LegendKiller
Lifer
Now you're being dense to try and justify your FUDD and undercut pretty much everybody disagrees with you (which is everybody). Nice try Elmer, but it ain't going to work.
I have already told you, repeatedly, that you can get the *REAL* numbers directly from the US Treasury, yet you ignore that. Furthermore, information relating to the omission of emergency fundings and supplemental fundings is widely availible, yet again, you ignore it.
You're behind the 8-ball here, most other people have caught onto the gimmickry. You seem to be part of the 30% or so that still approve of this joker, if only for your ignorance to reality.
I agree with your view on deficit but not on government stats. I don't believe government stats are phony, they are not going to do all the work for you and tell you the future, no stat will. Those stats are basically just numbers gathered with consistent methodology for you to interpret. Take CPI index for example, there is no way you can tell how the economy is doing or will be doing just by looking at CPI index alone, or the CPI for a certain year alone. But you can tell the how a narrow aspect of the economy is doing, relatively to other country, or other years by comparing numbers gathered with same methodology.
What you need is thorough understanding of how those stats are gathered, and how to use those stats.
By the way, CPI index do include energy and food, or not. You can look at detailed CPI data and see CPI for all item, all item minus food/minus energy...etc.
I guess this is a little bit beside the main debate here, but anyway, do your really believe the whole world was fooled about the Iraq war?
Germany and France was not.
EU allies unite against Iraq war
I don't think many apart from the U.S. people, the British government and the Italian Government where really fooled. There where certainly no support in my country, and the scenario of internal fighting between Shiites and Sunnis where laid out on our news channels long before the war started.
Even in Italy and Britain where the governments where pro war there where close to 90% opposition in the population.
But I guess this wasnt really important for your "free" and "independent" press to report after the government propaganda machine had done their job.
ProfJohn
Lifer
For the record: war spending is included in these numbers.
The recently passed bill was an appropriations bill that allows them to spend X billions of dollars. That money is not all spent at once; it is spent out over the course of the year.
Now you can find a government web site that will show you a month to month total of spending and revenue. That is where they get numbers like a 35% drop in the deficit.
And for all the crowing by the left about how bad these numbers are and how we only suck less than we did before.
You can not deny that a $170 billion deficit is better than a $248 billion deficit.
We ARE going in the right direction.
The recently passed bill was an appropriations bill that allows them to spend X billions of dollars. That money is not all spent at once; it is spent out over the course of the year.
Now you can find a government web site that will show you a month to month total of spending and revenue. That is where they get numbers like a 35% drop in the deficit.
And for all the crowing by the left about how bad these numbers are and how we only suck less than we did before.
You can not deny that a $170 billion deficit is better than a $248 billion deficit.
We ARE going in the right direction.
LegendKiller
Lifer
I am glad you can say with 100% certainty that all items are included and will be included in that budget, because in the past that hasn't been the case. There are many loopholes by which the President can defer recognition of costs, such as sucking funds out from other departments or accounts.
The biggest problem I have with this number is that during good economic times the government is supposed to be PAYING OFF debt, not incurring it. While tax revenues are high due to consumer spending, increases in wealth, capital gains from increasing stock markets, capital gains on houses, increased revenue from more employed people, the government is supposed to run a profit. During times of economic depression the government is supposed to incur debt to maintain the same level of services offered to citizens.
However, all we have had during this economic prosperity is 3 trillion of additional debt, not one red cent of pay-down. Hell, we didn't even match expenditures to revenue like Clinton, which is the least you can do. What happens when the downturn comes again? Do we pile on even more debt, do we raise taxes, decrease spending? What now? Do we have any recourse at all?
That is the sheer lunacy of the past 6 years, we haven't done anything that will help us deal with the future. We have racked up the national credit card bill for nothing at all.
Hogwash.
Supplemental spending bills are not part of the budget or the so-called "budget deficit" at all.
They're supplemental, above and beyond budgeted spending. That's why the Admin puts the Iraq occupation funds into a supplemental request, even though they knew how much they wanted long beforehand. It looks good on paper and encourages the dissemination of lies and obfuscation wrt their profligacy.
Given that total indebtedness has increased by ~$345B since the beginning of the fiscal year, but the so-called "budget deficit" is only $177B, it seems obvious that somebody is trying to leave a very misleading impression, particularly since that distinction has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others...
I realize that repeating a lie often enough is generally accepted as a way to convince people that it's the truth, particularly in rightwing circles, but it's just not gonna fly when the disparity of numbers is obviously huge...
The term "Budget Deficit" has become a meaningless tool of shills and propagandists- nothing more. It's not a real number, any more than Enron or Global Crossing gave out real numbers...
Exquisite fluffery. When you start from the repub "don't tax and spend more money" scenario of the Bush years, slight improvements being touted as some sort of major victory is an absurdity. Like I pointed out earlier, we're on track for another $500B increase in the total debt...
blackangst1
Lifer
Soooo where's the numbers from your "approved" trusted government source, The Treasury, discounting this then?
edit: JHC LK youre a dolt. Wait, you called me dense? These numbers I poster ARE from the TReasury. Here let me quote from the artical I linked"
The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago.
See the TReasury part? Your blind hatred for me apperantly has caused you to not see straight, therefore miss the truth directly in front of you.
Idiot.
blackangst1
Lifer
Overall? Yeah he does. Another tax cut would be nice too...but shrinking deficits are a start. At least we arent going backwards, which is something the neolibs cant admit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
