Add your comments
Not already registered?
Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
Mike P wrote on Jul 15, 2009 8:14 AM:
Up until jan 22, it was unpatriotic to cast dispersions at a sitting administration. Almost 6 months into the job, is now plenty of time to start shoveling blame, but in sept 2001 only 8 months had passed since taking office, and blame got shifted to the predacessor. Teflon suits and double standards, keep marginalizing an out of touch party.
Here is some information I found on the history of the federal deficit in the last 100 years. Giving the year and the deficts percentage of the GDP. Negative numbers mean surplus, positive ones mean deficit.
1900 to 1914, it only gets up to .20; 1918, it spikes 11.88; 1919 16.16; 1920 its back in the black -.68; it stays around there, until 1931, .17; working up to 1936, 4.76; 1942, 12.04; 1943, 28.05; 1944, 22.35; 1945, 24.06; 1946, 9.05; followed by 3 years of surplus, where it goes back to fluctuating close to balanced. Stays below 2.76 which hit in 1968, then in 1975 it goes to 3.25. Up to 1992 it averages 3.6. 1993 on it progresses down to 4 years of surplus from 1998 to 2001 with a high of -2.41 in the black. 2002 its back to deficit, 1.51; 2003, 3.44; 2004, 3.53; 2005, 2.56; 2006, 1.88; 2007, 1.16; 2008, 3.21; projected 2009 12.93.
Many folks can use the time line and coincide it with various events in our nations history. For example, World War II, took the deficit to a high of 28.05% of GDP, in 1943. By 1947 it was already back to a slight surplus.
Some folks might remember masters in business from harvard GW, hating to see slight budget surplus, even after more than 2 decades of 3.6 average deficit, and issuing token stimulus checks, rather than paying off the annual loans that had been building on the national debt clock, for many years.
Decades of failed policy and waste have been etched in debt. Responsibilities were ignored, domestic reinvestment has been nill, infrastructure had been completely and catastophicly failing across the country, for years.
At some point constantly ignoring last years overspending became water under the bridge, doing absolute wonders for the strength of the US dollar. Evidently the weak dollar was preferred to fiscal responsibility, so more and more countries with increasingly stronger currencies could invest in buying things, including debt up. This dynamic has contributed to many broad issues, and probably has played a large part in job exportation. Many companies are probably far better off, limiting their exposures to the dollar, while it is constantly at risk of losing ground to most currencies, including the peso.
The old saying sometimes you have to spend money and invest, to make money is what is now happening. Is the US worth actually investing in its self, for a change? It seems many don't feel it is.
GDP is way down with the recession, that most now agree began headed to freefall winter 07/08. It was almost fall, even after some pretty big harbingers, before responding to growing issues began. They evidently simply hoped it would hold out unraveling completely until after Jan 22.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ignore, misdiagnose, or treat symptoms with placebos or the wrong medicine, and a simple cold can become pneumonia. Bubble conditions were preferable to sustainable fiscally sound principles, stops and existing protections were shifted or removed to simply keep bubbles able to grow even more. Issues back to ENRON, Worldcom, and TYCO, were swept under the rug or ignored. Had those fundamental issues been properly confronted in a timely fashion, sustainability might have deflated bubbles to responsible growth that could be maintained. Ignoring them completely led directly to many more companies being overextended and hitting the wall at once.
Irresponsible behavior has consequences. Fixing failure usually has a far steeper price than effective responsible prevention measures. "