Feb
27
Feb
25
Ben Templesmith, a comic book writer and artist, posted this link via twitter the other day. Turns out Ben is apparently quite the political commenter.
Anyway, the article he posted is quite interesting. In short, it looks at the value of the national debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) over the last 58 years. What's interesting here is that the percentage of debt dropped significantly during Democratic presidencies, but rose sharply during Republican presidencies. This flies in the face of Republican claims of fiscal responsibility. Here's the chart from the article:
And another from a related article:
Most of the excuses I've heard for this revolve around the previous presidents causing a decline that didn't occur until they were out of office. They, in effect, reversed the trend of previous Republican presidents while the were in office, but the effects were not felt until the next president was in office. Based on the above charts, however, it appears that's not the case.
There are, of course, other factors as well. For instance, I'm willing to bet that the GDP increased quite a bit over the course of those 58 years. It's quite possible that the GDP increased faster than the debt dropped. In fact, this image from Wikipedia proves this point:
The image page on Wikipedia has the raw numbers, but to summarize, the GDP was roughly $1 trillion in 1950 and $57 trillion in 2007. That's a 5700% increase in GDP. So let's break this down a bit.
In 1950, debt was roughly 90% of GDP which puts it at $900 billion. In 1980, debt was somewhere around 35% of GDP. GDP in 1980 was $9.5 trillion, so debt was $3.3 trillion. That's a $2.4 trillion, or 260% increase in debt over the course of 30 years. GDP increased 950% during the same time.
During the Bush/Reagan years, debt jumped to 65% of GDP. GDP at the end of 1992 was $22.8 trillion which puts debt at $14.8 trillion. That's an increase of $11.5 trillion, a 350% increase while GDP only increased 240%.
On to the Clinton years where GDP increased to $30 trillion and debt decreased to about 60%, or $18 trillion. So while the percent of debt decreased, debt itself actually increased roughly 120%. GDP increased 130% over the same time, so things were generally a wash.
Finally, the Bush Jr years. GDP in 2007 was $57 trillion and debt was about 70% or $39.9 trillion. That's a 220% increase in debt, more than doubling the debt since Clinton. GDP only increased 190%, so we actually lost more money than we gained.
Based on these numbers, I think we can comfortably say that the original article is correct. During the Republican years, we lost more money than we increased, and during the Democratic years, it was the opposite. So who's more fiscally responsible?
Feb
21
There have been a few items in the news recently that have been bothering me a bit. Not so much bothering me that they exist, or are in the news, but they bring up questions that I don't have answers to. Questions that fall in the realm of morals and ethics, I suppose.
First up is the mortgage bailout. The basic idea behind this thing is to help out homeowners who are in danger of being foreclosed on because their house value dropped. Obama outlined four key elements to the plan:
- refinancing help for four to five million homeowners who receive their mortgages through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
- new incentives for lenders to modify the terms of sub-prime loans at risk of default and foreclosure
- steps to keep mortgage rates low for millions of middle class families looking to secure new mortgages
- additional reforms designed to help families stay in their homes
Obama claims they won't help out those people that took on a mortgage they knew they couldn't handle, speculators, dishonest lenders, etc. But how can they be sure everyone they help out truly deserves it? And what actually determines whether they deserve it? What are the criteria they need to meet?
Why do they deserve to be bailed out when someone like myself does not? I took the responsible road of living within my means and as a result, it appears I may end up paying for the mistakes of others. In the end, as a taxpayer, I'll end up footing the cost of lowering the price of all of these mortgages.
So do these people deserve to be bailed out? There are lots of people out there who take advantage of welfare, disability, and all of the various other social programs out there. Who's to say they're not gaming the mortgage system as well? And again, why do they deserve to be bailed out while others do not?
Let's take a look at another example. Earlier this month, a woman gave birth to octuplets. She has been dubbed Octo-Mom by the press. A few days after giving birth, it was discovered that she had six other children. By the way... If she already had six children, wouldn't that make her Tetradeca-Mom instead?
Anyway, there have been reports that she will be losing her house to foreclosure, kinda like many others throughout the nation. But even in the midst of this, she is looking at million dollar homes? There had been a lot of speculation about her using the birth of her eight children as PR to make millions, and maybe this proves the point. So this begs the question, does she deserve to make millions? Should she get a free ride just because she birthed 14 children?
And herein lies my dilemma. On the one hand, I'm more than happy to let these people drown. They got themselves into this mess, either through neglect or deceit, so why should I, or others, foot the bill for their mistakes?
But then there's the other side of this. What about those that are being brought down, just by being associated and dependent? What about the children? What about the spouses? What about those who really have no choice? For the most part, they don't have the ability to help themselves, and thus they must suffer the consequences.
So what's the right answer? Do we help out those that truly don't deserve it, just to help those that have no choice? Or do we let them deal with it themselves, thusly ignoring the plight of the innocent?
I, myself, don't have the answer. I suspect the answer is a personal choice for each person, and probably tells way too much about you, but it's an answer I want nonetheless. Insight is interesting...
Feb
18
Ok, let's get the first part out of the way. Here's the cartoon:
Ok, now that you've seen it, what's your first reaction? Well, mine was twofold. My immediate reaction was that the cartoonist (Site is actually down at the time of this writing) was using the recent chimp attack combined with the typical "monkeys run the government" schtick. About a microsecond later, the "Oh shit" flag went up and I realized that it could be seen in a racist light by comparing Obama to a monkey.
I believe my first reaction is the correct interpretation, only because I can't figure a way to fit the shooting into my second reaction. Still, I have to question what the editors at the New York Post were thinking. Well, ok, there's the "official" word from the Post, but come on..
And, of course, Al Sharpton has to jump up and down and start screaming. But, as much as I don't like the guy, I almost agree with the ruckus. His statement was as follows:
"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."
"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"
To be honest, I think Sharpton actually spoke justly this time around. I hope he doesn't try to make an issue out of it and lets it just die on its own, though. We shall see.
Regardless, this incident brings to light the fact that race issues are not, in fact, gone. Just because we have a black president now does not mean that racism has vanished. So do your part and try to get to know someone before judging them on their skin color, ethnicity, religion, etc. Seriously, there are some incredible people out there that are not at all like you.
Feb
6
This whole stimulus thing is getting a bit out of hand now... My wife and I spent some time talking about it last night and I think we both agree that while stimulus is needed, it's being handled very poorly.
From our perspective, the economy works kinda like this. Your average person spends money on necessities such as food, clothing, etc. In a good economy, people tend to splurge a little bit and by better cuts of meat, higher quality clothes, etc. When the economy sours, they tighten the budget a bit and settle for the generic brands. But, no matter how you look at it, the necessities of life continue to be bought and paid for.
Those necessities, in turn, provide income for the local businesses and provide paychecks to the workers. Those workers are often the same people that are paying for the necessities in the first place. And so the cycle goes on. During an economic downturn, businesses don't bring in as much and may have to reduce the workforce in order to stay in business.
So now we have the unemployed. Unemployed people can obtain money to buy necessities in two general ways. First, they can apply for unemployment, assuming they had a previous job for a certain period of time. Or, they can apply for government assistance. The latter is, essentially, free money, though there are often strings attached. Of course, my personal opinion is that there are not nearly enough strings attached, but that's another story.
Now the unemployed have money to get necessities, which pays the workers, etc. The cycle is a little bigger, but still functional. Of course, because these people are unemployed, they tend to save as much as they can, effectively hoarding their money when they can. This is difficult, at best, but they really don't have any other options. The job market dried up because of the bad economy, so getting a job is out of the question.
All of the actors above pay taxes in one form or another. Generally, those on government assistance don't pay taxes because their income is too low, but they still pay sales tax, real estate tax, etc. Those on unemployment still pay normal income tax.
Ok, so once we get into this cycle of tightened budgets and unemployment, how do we break it? Well, the "perfect world" answer is to just spend more. Stop tightening your belts and start spending what you have. And that will work, but it's against human nature. The problem is, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) are the guiding lights of the times. Fear of losing a job, uncertainty and doubt about the future all help to kickstart our built-in self-preservation instincts. How do we protect ourselves? Well, if we need to have money to survive, we start hoarding whatever we can. That way, we have it later, just in case.
Right, so let's make more money available then. But how? How about tax cuts. If we cut taxes, that reduces the amount people have to pay, giving them more disposable income, right? Yup, exactly right. But, because those people are still unemployed, human nature says they'll merely stuff that new income away with the rest to make sure they can survive for the forseeable future. Make no mistake, tax cuts help, but the average person will just squirrel away the money, not spend it.
How do we get people to spend their money then? We've given them more, but it did little or no good. What will it take? Well, jobs is a good start. A person with a job tends to feel more secure as opposed to one that does not. This is true even if the job they have is not completely secure. The problem is, jobs are scare because no one is spending. Because no one is spending, there's no demand for products. No demand for products means that businesses don't need workers to produce or sell those products, so they don't hire anyone.
Crap! We're still stuck in a rut! What now?
How about we create some jobs? Ok, great. How the hell do we do that? Force manufacturers to make more stuff? Well, you can't really do that, now can you. But we can create demand for products by buying them, right? But we don't want to just buy stuff to create jobs, we should probably put that stuff to good use. And how can we do that? By building and repairing our infrastructure, of course.
If the government spends money on repairing roads, renovating buildings, and other such activities, it creates a demand for raw materials. This, in turn, creates demand for workers both for the manufacturer of the raw material, as well as for the business being tasked with the infrastructure job. Workers get money, spend money, create demand, etc. Overall, this reduces the tightness of the market a bit.
So infrastructure spending is the answer then, right? Well, sort of. From my point of view, we need to attack this thing on multiple fronts. Jobs won't open up instantly, and people still need to survive today. My wife has come up with a plan that she believes will work. Let me lay it out briefly.
First, create a bill that handles the tax cuts. Obama ran on a platform of tax cuts, and this would let him live up to that promise. Simple enough, tax cuts for those making under $250,000 per year. That's it. Nothing else. Push it through and see what happens. Democrats should approve because that was Obamas platform. Republicans should approve because they seem to like tax cuts. Additionally, this gives Obama street cred and political capital to spend later.
Second, create a bill that extends support for those out of work. Add additional time to unemployment benefits. Extend welfare, food stamps, and other government aid. Put a time limit on it! We don't want this forever, just for the immediate future. Push this through. Not sure how much trouble this one would be, but I don't think it would see much contention as there are existing provisions in the current stimulus bill to do this already.
Last, infrastructure. Infrastructure comes in many parts. There's traditional infrastructure such as roads and buildings, park maintenance, etc. That will likely be the destination for most of the stimulus money. Jobs created here would be on road and maintenance crews, industrial jobs, etc.
There are other areas that can be tapped as well. For instance, the existing fleet of vehicles that the government uses can be converted to hybrid and eco-friendly vehicles. Obviously a one-shot replace everything approach would be foolish, but there are likely a lot of vehicles due to be replaced. And, of course, those vehicles need to be built, so car makers have jobs. An added benefit here is increased demand for hybrid/eco-friendly vehicles which can lead to additional research in the area, producing better vehicles, etc.
How about modernizing government buildings? This includes items such as adding infrastructure to the building for network connections, modern telephone equipment, etc. In addition, the buildings can be made "greener" by using alternative lighting, heating, and electricity sources. This adds a benefit of ecological responsibility to the equation. Jobs here would be in construction, HVAC, IT, etc.
And there may be other areas that can be tapped as well. Care has to be taken, however, to prevent foolish spending from being added. First of all, spending that is not directly stimulus related should be ejected altogether. Second, let's concentrate on items that will generate long-term jobs and inject capital into the economy in a rapid manner. So, for instance, as important as some people think digital television convertor boxes are, I don't see this as something that will generate long-term jobs. Screening and preventing STDs? I don't think that has a place here either.
There's a lot to be done, and I think there's a clear path to saving our economy. But, if we squander the opportunity we have now, we may not get another. So please, let's get this right. Let's not have another bank bailout situation.
From our perspective, the economy works kinda like this. Your average person spends money on necessities such as food, clothing, etc. In a good economy, people tend to splurge a little bit and by better cuts of meat, higher quality clothes, etc. When the economy sours, they tighten the budget a bit and settle for the generic brands. But, no matter how you look at it, the necessities of life continue to be bought and paid for.
Those necessities, in turn, provide income for the local businesses and provide paychecks to the workers. Those workers are often the same people that are paying for the necessities in the first place. And so the cycle goes on. During an economic downturn, businesses don't bring in as much and may have to reduce the workforce in order to stay in business.
So now we have the unemployed. Unemployed people can obtain money to buy necessities in two general ways. First, they can apply for unemployment, assuming they had a previous job for a certain period of time. Or, they can apply for government assistance. The latter is, essentially, free money, though there are often strings attached. Of course, my personal opinion is that there are not nearly enough strings attached, but that's another story.
Now the unemployed have money to get necessities, which pays the workers, etc. The cycle is a little bigger, but still functional. Of course, because these people are unemployed, they tend to save as much as they can, effectively hoarding their money when they can. This is difficult, at best, but they really don't have any other options. The job market dried up because of the bad economy, so getting a job is out of the question.
All of the actors above pay taxes in one form or another. Generally, those on government assistance don't pay taxes because their income is too low, but they still pay sales tax, real estate tax, etc. Those on unemployment still pay normal income tax.
Ok, so once we get into this cycle of tightened budgets and unemployment, how do we break it? Well, the "perfect world" answer is to just spend more. Stop tightening your belts and start spending what you have. And that will work, but it's against human nature. The problem is, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) are the guiding lights of the times. Fear of losing a job, uncertainty and doubt about the future all help to kickstart our built-in self-preservation instincts. How do we protect ourselves? Well, if we need to have money to survive, we start hoarding whatever we can. That way, we have it later, just in case.
Right, so let's make more money available then. But how? How about tax cuts. If we cut taxes, that reduces the amount people have to pay, giving them more disposable income, right? Yup, exactly right. But, because those people are still unemployed, human nature says they'll merely stuff that new income away with the rest to make sure they can survive for the forseeable future. Make no mistake, tax cuts help, but the average person will just squirrel away the money, not spend it.
How do we get people to spend their money then? We've given them more, but it did little or no good. What will it take? Well, jobs is a good start. A person with a job tends to feel more secure as opposed to one that does not. This is true even if the job they have is not completely secure. The problem is, jobs are scare because no one is spending. Because no one is spending, there's no demand for products. No demand for products means that businesses don't need workers to produce or sell those products, so they don't hire anyone.
Crap! We're still stuck in a rut! What now?
How about we create some jobs? Ok, great. How the hell do we do that? Force manufacturers to make more stuff? Well, you can't really do that, now can you. But we can create demand for products by buying them, right? But we don't want to just buy stuff to create jobs, we should probably put that stuff to good use. And how can we do that? By building and repairing our infrastructure, of course.
If the government spends money on repairing roads, renovating buildings, and other such activities, it creates a demand for raw materials. This, in turn, creates demand for workers both for the manufacturer of the raw material, as well as for the business being tasked with the infrastructure job. Workers get money, spend money, create demand, etc. Overall, this reduces the tightness of the market a bit.
So infrastructure spending is the answer then, right? Well, sort of. From my point of view, we need to attack this thing on multiple fronts. Jobs won't open up instantly, and people still need to survive today. My wife has come up with a plan that she believes will work. Let me lay it out briefly.
First, create a bill that handles the tax cuts. Obama ran on a platform of tax cuts, and this would let him live up to that promise. Simple enough, tax cuts for those making under $250,000 per year. That's it. Nothing else. Push it through and see what happens. Democrats should approve because that was Obamas platform. Republicans should approve because they seem to like tax cuts. Additionally, this gives Obama street cred and political capital to spend later.
Second, create a bill that extends support for those out of work. Add additional time to unemployment benefits. Extend welfare, food stamps, and other government aid. Put a time limit on it! We don't want this forever, just for the immediate future. Push this through. Not sure how much trouble this one would be, but I don't think it would see much contention as there are existing provisions in the current stimulus bill to do this already.
Last, infrastructure. Infrastructure comes in many parts. There's traditional infrastructure such as roads and buildings, park maintenance, etc. That will likely be the destination for most of the stimulus money. Jobs created here would be on road and maintenance crews, industrial jobs, etc.
There are other areas that can be tapped as well. For instance, the existing fleet of vehicles that the government uses can be converted to hybrid and eco-friendly vehicles. Obviously a one-shot replace everything approach would be foolish, but there are likely a lot of vehicles due to be replaced. And, of course, those vehicles need to be built, so car makers have jobs. An added benefit here is increased demand for hybrid/eco-friendly vehicles which can lead to additional research in the area, producing better vehicles, etc.
How about modernizing government buildings? This includes items such as adding infrastructure to the building for network connections, modern telephone equipment, etc. In addition, the buildings can be made "greener" by using alternative lighting, heating, and electricity sources. This adds a benefit of ecological responsibility to the equation. Jobs here would be in construction, HVAC, IT, etc.
And there may be other areas that can be tapped as well. Care has to be taken, however, to prevent foolish spending from being added. First of all, spending that is not directly stimulus related should be ejected altogether. Second, let's concentrate on items that will generate long-term jobs and inject capital into the economy in a rapid manner. So, for instance, as important as some people think digital television convertor boxes are, I don't see this as something that will generate long-term jobs. Screening and preventing STDs? I don't think that has a place here either.
There's a lot to be done, and I think there's a clear path to saving our economy. But, if we squander the opportunity we have now, we may not get another. So please, let's get this right. Let's not have another bank bailout situation.
(Page 1 of 2, totaling 6 entries)
