From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: How bad is the deficit/debt? (was Re: The essence of Clinton)
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:36:57 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: howard@netcom.com's message of 07 Oct 92 01:06:33 -0400

howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.004516.27017@eng.ufl.edu> jason@hal.eel.ufl.edu
>(Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>>>Of course.  The deficit before Reagan was right around this year's defense
>>>budget.  The deficit as we know it today WAS the fault of
>>>the Reagan/Bush era borrow-and-spend policies.
>>
>>WHAT?????????  Are you crazy?  Where did you get that?
>
> Well, I was wrong... the debt was about 3 times this years defence
>budget, or around 1/4 of what the debt is now.  So Reagan and Bush are
>only responsible for the national debt quadrupling.  Source: United We
>Stand, Perot's book.  His source was listed as OMB.

If you are going to discuss these issues in an international forum,
you might wish to first educate yourself on the difference between
"deficit" and "debt."

Also, there are a number of ways to measure dollars and you have
picked (like Mr. Perot) the absolute most misleading and least useful
way of doing so.  A gallon of gasoline, by your measure, costs five
times as much as it did in 1972 (because the 1972 price was $0.25 and
today's is $1.25).  Does this mean anything?  Of course not.

A better measure would be to measure the debt as percentage of GDP.  A
thought experiment to conduct along these lines would be to answer the
question, "Who is better off: the family with an income of $20,000
that is $5000 in debt, or the family with an income of $40,000 that is
$10,000 in debt?"  (I know that this is an oversimplification, but the
point is still valid.)

I don't have the numbers handy, but when looked at this way, the
national debt doesn't seem so grim.  (You may regard this as "an
exercise for the reader," I guess.)  I consider the deficit/debt
problem to be a major national issue and regard a balanced budget as a
highly desirable goal, but I am also capable of putting things into
perspective.  Ross Perot's hysterics on the subject are nothing new,
but his inexplicable credibility when talking about this subject have
done more to harm rational political discourse in the U.S. since . . .
well, since anything I can think of.

Now, the *service* on the national debt as % of GDP is a genuinely
alarming number.  Still, there are those of us who believe that every
one of those mandatory, non-discretionary dollars spent servicing the
debt is one less dollar the federal government can use to screw up our
lives (and I speak, objectively I hope, as one whose mouth is firmly
planted on the federal teat).
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh