Thread: Do you think Bush's situation is fair?

1.) Iraqi War : Inevitable
2.) CIA Leak Probe : Utterly rediculous and already proven to be without foundation. They can't just stop hoping they'll find something though.
3.) The Miers Nomination : Radicals looking for a fight, on both sides.
4.) Having to deal with all these natural disaster ordeals : There has been alot lately.
5.) All these talks with Korea / Asian countries of nuclear disarmament : And Iran and now Venezuela. Isn't it interesting how many countries with Dictators are looking for Nuclear resources. Maybe the world will end with a "bang" after all.

I agree. It's alot of bad press by people who don't like him blaming him for anything and everything and it's starting to bear fruit. You couldn't pay me enough to put up with the character assasination that occurs at high levels of politics.

Just thought I'd state this that when Bush was elected the debt of the U.S. when to $1.4 billion as of 2001.

Originally Posted by SamuraiDude128

Just thought I'd state this that when Bush was elected the debt of the U.S. when to $1.4 billion as of 2001.

I'm going to post this link again.
Chart: go to pg 6.

If you look at the bottom chart you will see "Debt to GDP%". That is what our debt is as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product or what the entire country makes in a year. This is very important since when you go in for a loan the first thing the bank will figure is your or "Debt to Income Ratio". The more you make the larger the debt you can accrue without difficulty.

Now if you will check the chart of the "Debt to GDP%" you will notice that begining in 96~97 it started to plummet and continued to go down until 9/11. The deficit% as of 2001 was significantly lower then previous years no matter what the hard #'s were because of a corresponding rise in the GDP. Since then it has risen app to the level of the late 80's. Or in other words there is little to no problem with the national debt because even if the #'s go up the GPD is also rising at the same time. What's more, if the President gets his way with the budget the "Debt to GDP%" will hit 1.7 by 2008, well below the 40 yr average.

And that is your economics lesson for today.

Uhhh, is the chart in mill or bill... or thousands?

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Originally Posted by Arrianna

I'm going to post this link again.
Chart: go to pg 6.

If you look at the bottom chart you will see "Debt to GDP%". That is what our debt is as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product or what the entire country makes in a year. This is very important since when you go in for a loan the first thing the bank will figure is your or "Debt to Income Ratio". The more you make the larger the debt you can accrue without difficulty.

Now if you will check the chart of the "Debt to GDP%" you will notice that begining in 96~97 it started to plummet and continued to go down until 9/11. The deficit% as of 2001 was significantly lower then previous years no matter what the hard #'s were because of a corresponding rise in the GDP. Since then it has risen app to the level of the late 80's. Or in other words there is little to no problem with the national debt because even if the #'s go up the GPD is also rising at the same time. What's more, if the President gets his way with the budget the "Debt to GDP%" will hit 1.7 by 2008, well below the 40 yr average.

And that is your economics lesson for today.

I take it that the charts only include external Goverment debt (Bonds, Treasury bills), but does not include internal debt and obligations, (such as the Social Security Trust Fund). Under the Regan administration, contributions to the Social Security Trust fund was diverted into the general fund. If you include the Social Security obligations (which is becoming more and more of an issue as the Baby Boomers start to approach retirement age...) that can easily add an additional 3 to 4 Trillion dollars to the national debt...

Originally Posted by Arrianna

If you look at the bottom chart you will see "Debt to GDP%". That is what our debt is as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product or what the entire country makes in a year. This is very important since when you go in for a loan the first thing the bank will figure is your or "Debt to Income Ratio". The more you make the larger the debt you can accrue without difficulty.

Now if you will check the chart of the "Debt to GDP%" you will notice that begining in 96~97 it started to plummet and continued to go down until 9/11. The deficit% as of 2001 was significantly lower then previous years no matter what the hard #'s were because of a corresponding rise in the GDP. Since then it has risen app to the level of the late 80's. Or in other words there is little to no problem with the national debt because even if the #'s go up the GPD is also rising at the same time. What's more, if the President gets his way with the budget the "Debt to GDP%" will hit 1.7 by 2008, well below the 40 yr average.

You always know your stuff, Arrianna! Lol, a good life skill...knowing your factoids. I admire that ^^;;
Teach me how to be as smart as you haha.

Originally Posted by LenMiyata

Grumble Grumble Grumble

I take it that the charts only include external Goverment debt (Bonds, Treasury bills), but does not include internal debt and obligations, (such as the Social Security Trust Fund). Under the Regan administration, contributions to the Social Security Trust fund was diverted into the general fund. If you include the Social Security obligations (which is becoming more and more of an issue as the Baby Boomers start to approach retirement age...) that can easily add an additional 3 to 4 Trillion dollars to the national debt...

I get SSI from the Social Security Administration which is like $800 a month. My understanding is that each year we have a certain amount left "in a pool of the national treasury", however! Typically politians have to estimate what will be left over in this "pool of money" at the end of the year, so often they are struggling to figure out what to do with readjustment fees / cost of living finances, ETC. It's like a gamble so to speak from what I understand (like putting money into a pot and seeing what's left over, the people who recieve social security get that). I was told that there never was an instance when they "came up short federal money, in regards to social security." Have I been informed correctly? I think Social Security has been around since the early 1900's. For reference, I am quoting my source from one of my teachers in high school.

Grumble Grumble Grumble

Originally Posted by tasukuchan

I get SSI from the Social Security Administration which is like $800 a month. My understanding is that each year we have a certain amount left "in a pool of the national treasury", however! Typically politians have to estimate what will be left over in this "pool of money" at the end of the year, so often they are struggling to figure out what to do with readjustment fees / cost of living finances, ETC. It's like a gamble so to speak from what I understand (like putting money into a pot and seeing what's left over, the people who recieve social security get that). I was told that there never was an instance when they "came up short federal money, in regards to social security." Have I been informed correctly? I think Social Security has been around since the early 1900's. For reference, I am quoting my source from one of my teachers in high school.

Ever since the formation of the Social Security Trust fund back in the 1930s, Social Security has always been a Ponzi scheme. Up to now, it's worked because the inflow from the Social Security deductions from wages have always been greater then the outflow for retirement benefits. (It has been said that Social Security remained solvent in the 70s and 80s, thanks to the 'benefits' of the Tobacco industry, where the average age of death for lung cancer was 45, well short of retirement age...) But when the Baby Boomer generation retires (and longer life expectency), the percentage of people of working age will be the smallest at any time in US history. It's expected that without some kind of reform, (with some combination of higher taxes on the payroll, and lower benefits) the Social Security Trust fund will run out of money. When this will occur is under considerable debate, and no doubt it will become an issue during the next presidential election...