<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Article debating why he just might be, the debt thing is just scary. Even the war is no excuse for how much debt has been created.</font>

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po..._125323_125323

[ 04-11-2006, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Point: The debt ceiling has been raised over 70 times in the last 50 years. It being raised now is nothing new, even though the author used the phrase "thus avoiding the first-ever default on U.S. debt" -- something that makes you think this isn't commonplace.

The debt ceiling was raised four times under Clinton... and now, four times under Bush. Both of 'em are underachievers... they should be looking at 8-10 increases, statistically speaking.

I don't claim that debt is good -- I try to avoid it, generally. However, claiming that the sky is falling because of it is something that some journalists do in order to get published.

Really, Bungleau? You owe $30,000 more than you think you do. That's the per capita amount of US debt. Every single US Citizen can look to their debt load, and add $30,000 to account for what our government owes. It's actually pretty scarey.

But, the worst in 100 years? Not likely. Hard to beat out Warren Harding who found scandal in his administration but didn't report it. (Um... unless we find out the same thing about GWB at some later date.)

William Taft was pretty much a waste of space too. Nothing like using the Presidency as a stepping stone to something else (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.) :rolleyes:

In terms of just the debt, Reagan was worse. You can debate as much as you want whether it was worth it (I personally am of the opinon that the USSR collapsed without much help, but whatever.) While the debt is currently higher as a percentage of GDP, it grew way more under Reagan. Thank you Star Wars.

Supporting Graph - I wish I could find one that separates Reagan from 1-Term Bush, but life ain't perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...l-Debt-GDP.gif

[ 04-12-2006, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

I understand that, Timber. That's not my point, though. My point is that sensationalizing the debt by pretending that relatively commonplace events are now something new is a cheap trick that plays on people's lack of understanding.

It's along the lines of the politician crying out against his opponent because "it's a known fact that they practice nepotism at the family business, and his sister is a thespian in wicked New York". Sounds nasty until you translate it into familiar words.

And per capita debt is not a personal obligation, but a simple means of equating something to make it more understandable. Average household debt as of 2004 was approximately $86,000 with mortgage, $14,000 without. I'm an overachiever with my mortgage, an underachiever without it. But nowhere is there a note that indicates I owe an additional $30,000.

That $30,000 comes from "*IF* the debt were divided among all Americans, their share would be...". That big ol' IF in the front indicates that it's a game of data mining. It's just as valid to say that if the debt were divided among the 14,405 school districts in the US, they would each owe $624,783,061 and change for their part of the debt.

I'm not saying that debt is good -- far from it. I'm saying that inciting people about it with half-truths doesn't help. But it sure sells newspapers.

Either way you cut it, the debt is a big ol' suck on our money supply. We have to pay (meaning:borrow) interest -- just interest -- on the national debt this year that could run the Iraq war for a year. That's a lot of money down the toilet. And who owns our national debt? China. South Korea. Europe hasn't bought much of it in 10 years, because we became an investment risk.

Would you lend us money?

But, we cajole the Asian nations into lending us the money. Once every 8 or 12 months they talk about buying less of our debt. Makes front page news, and then it's over the next day. I'm betting whoever is sitting in the Oval Office spends about 14 hours on the phone that day racking up charges for calls to Asia. It would be interesting to FOIA those phone records, but there's no way in hell this particular administration is going to let us know anything about the workings of the White House -- hush, hush, top secret, ya know.

As for Reagan, I think by this point in his presidency, he was NOT doing so bad as GWB. Reagan was better about cutting spending when he started building military hardware -- Bush, to his party's chagrin, is not.

One should remind True Moose that during Reagan's presidency the Democrats ran Congress. W doesn't have that excuse, sad to say.

Fair enough. Two things though
1) It wouldn't have mattered anyway. The way you get elected is by spending money, the Republicans and Democrats just do it in different ways. Tax cuts or social programs - neither of them are fun for the debt.
2) I'm not a Bush supporter (quite the opposite), but I don't like to point to one specific thing that would make a president horrible. Is the debt unbelievably massive, and has it gotten worse under Bush? Yes. Is that alone reason to call him the worst President in a century? I don't think so. I think you need to be a touch more creative in disparaging the man.

Fair enough. Two things though
1) It wouldn't have mattered anyway. The way you get elected is by spending money, the Republicans and Democrats just do it in different ways. Tax cuts or social programs - neither of them are fun for the debt.
2) I'm not a Bush supporter (quite the opposite), but I don't like to point to one specific thing that would make a president horrible. Is the debt unbelievably massive, and has it gotten worse under Bush? Yes. Is that alone reason to call him the worst President in a century? I don't think so. I think you need to be a touch more creative in disparaging the man. </font>[/QUOTE]Should we bring up the systematic alienation of our allies and making us as a nation look like one of swaggering idiots, then?

<font color=8fbc8f>No, not at all. True allies support when support is needed. Others, well they go away and bury their head in the sand.
Furthermore, the people I'm surrounded by do a good enough job on their own!

The worst? No, not yet. One who is losing faith from within? A high probable. One who may in fact be changing the minds of party lines? Yes.
There is a one term president who comes to mind, that is still alive and active, who has done more for the country after his tenure than he ever did while serving.</font>