Osler's Razor

There is validity to the underlying point you are making, but that chart is not the way to do it. PolitiFact rated that chart as "Pants on Fire" on it's truth-o-meter. And rightfully so. There are big problems with the methodology used in creating that chart, posted by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and moveon.org.

You can read about the problems with the chart here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/

The story includes this bit about the methodology:

"Some economists will tell you that it’s not the size of the debt per se, but rather the size of the debt relative to the nation’s gross domestic product. This helps minimize the complicating effect of economic cycles and inflation. So how do those numbers stack up? Using OMB statistics, here’s what we came up with, using public debt figures not adjusted for the president’s time in office:

Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

So by this measurement -- potentially a more important one -- Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested. Of course, all this goes to show that statistics can be used -- and misused -- to bolster almost any argument."

Again, the point about neither party caring about spending is a valid one. I would submit much of the frustration of tea party types can be traced back to frustrations with President Bush's largess in spending and the sense that he was replaced with someone who didn't think Bush was spending enough-- not to cleverly disguised racism as commenters around here are prone to speculate (tea partiers would dislike a President Biden, too, I promise).

Anyway the point is a good one, but the demonstrative evidence posted is way off base.

-KG
 

Yeah, I've seen that chart a lot. It is sad, but not in the slightest true.
 

"[I]f we want to reduce debt, military spending has to be a part of the solution."

Couldn't agree more.
 

KG--

Thanks for chiming in! Politifact is a good resource to consider. I'm a little confused, thought-- Politifact also says that it is "mostly true" that Obama has raised spending less than anyone else in the last 60 years here.

So, because you were right, I got rid of the defective chart and have now included the numbers in the Politifact post you cite to (the first one, not the second set that "some economists" might assert).
 

After our experiment with deregulation we had an expensive, irresponsible financial crisis. Trillions of dollars left our private and public coffers. Jobs were lost in the private sector. "Some economists" believed that it was timely to forget our history and to neglect job growth and family income and concentrate on short term debt. The vast majority of economists still believed that Keynes was right. That creating jobs after a finance driven crisis job creation is critical for a recovery.

I believe that both Mark's and KG's statistics could be right in what they measure. Mark's don't take into consideration GNP and KG's don't reflect debt from revenue reduction. RRL is wrong, they are both somewhat true.

The discussion is about choices and timing. Total government spending is way down after the stimulus package. Tax revenues and GNP are down so much that we have debt.
Sometimes debt creation is helpful, sometimes it is bad. Sometimes tax cuts are good and sometimes tax increases are the correct course.
In a high growth economy ,increased taxes and reduced gov. spending relative to GNP is appropriate. Following a financial crisis tax reduction and job creating gov spending will create short term debt but long term savings. With this in mind, neither set of figures alone tell us who has best served our long term interest.

Our interest now should be first to create jobs and reduce personal suffering and then address the long term debt when economic growth allows it.

KT should read the latest surveys that show racism is having an increasing influence on our political thought and policies. To oppose President Obama's policies is not racism. The high degree of dangerous hatred is. There is nothing disguised about the hatred as it is more and more encouraged. Don't join them.

When citizens were shown a picture of Pres. Obama's dog Bo they thought he was cute, when he was identified as the President's dog many didn't like the mutt. The millions of government jobs lost have been low paying jobs held by minority and women workers. Meanwhile we cut taxes for "job creators". I am not reassured that you can promise who tea partiers will dislike. We can't responsibly look the other way when we realize the chilling effect this is having on real people's lives. Dad
 

Prof. Osler... Fair enough. I think the "some economists" line from Politifact is when it starts to get into opinion. I probably agree with "some economists" that debt to GDP is a better way to measure debt, but reasonable minds can differ on that one.

And, Dad... I would be interested to see some of those surveys about racism. Where can I find them? I would also quibble with "experiment with deregulation," it's not as if the Bush years were fraught with anarchistic libertarianism, but that is a discussion for another day.

-KG
 

KG; I was referring to financial regulations that were were weakened and not enforced allowing the dangerous and fateful activities that we will will be recovering from for a decade. The deregulation took place over several President's watch. President Bush did accelerate the decline in enforcement, and Pres. Obama has not stepped up. Greed is still safe.

I will get you information on studies of racism and its effect on our legislation. There is a book just released on the subject. Dad
 

KG: Financial deregulation has stripped protections for our citizens and our economy. It has occurred during both Republican and Democratic administrations. Pres. Bush did his best to defang regulatory enforcement. Pres. Obama also. Greed is safe in America.

Uof M has many studies on racism effects on our polices. Also, there is a new book by Michael Tesler of Brown University which tracks racism's spillover effect on policies. Slate also has postings. Racism is hurtful and stupid and is thriving. Dad
 

Dad-- Um... around here, "U of M" is the University of Minnesota.
 

Dad, thanks for the sourcing. I googled "Michigan racism politics study" and found a bunch of things. It will make for interesting reading if I'm ever blessed with some extra time.

-KG