The Edmund Fitzgearld & the National debt
 

The Gordon Lightfoot song about the Edmund Fitzgerald carrying 26,000 tons
of iron ore makes for an interesting comparison. It is said all the gold in
the world would weigh just over 100,000 tons. (a final Jeopardy question a
while back). This is four Edmund Fitzgerald loads. At the current gold price
of $ 465 per oz., how would you think the entire worlds gold supply would
compare to our national debt?----- The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt. Trouble coming?
Dixon

OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Dixon" wrote in
:

The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.

But selling the superfluous properties the govt owns would pay it all off.

Hell yes. Who needs some wide open space where the deer and the
antelope play, anyway?

Yellowstone? Pave that sucka and put up a WalMart. They can use
geothermal energy for heat.

Yosemite? Can you say ticky tacky condos? We could hang actual pictures
in all the picture windows, so the new residents will know what the
place looked like before the cinderblocks blocked the view.

Gettysburg? Leave a statue off in a corner someplace, and carve it up
with cul-de-sacs and a strip mall.

Little Bighorn? Put up a refrigerated desert concession and advertise
it as Custard's Last "Stand".

If there are any of those pesky darned birds and animals still hanging
around, shoot the critters after sending a couple of dozen off to
various zoos. Lop off those dang trees while we're at it. Didn't Rush
Limbaugh tell us all that pollution is actually caused by trees?

As far as the Capitol Mall goes, who the hell needs that in this day
and age? Send all the congresspeople home, let them debate in chatrooms
and vote on the internet. No point in maintaining the Federal Justice
Building, either; we'll just let Bush decide who gets shot and who
should live, much simpler than screwing around with a bunch of ACLU
liberal lawyers in any case.

Once we get the debt down to zero by selling off all the government
property in the US, we can go back to spending like a bunch of drunks
on a holiday and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

Chuck,
It is nice to see you are thinking rational.


wrote in message
oups.com...

OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Dixon" wrote in
:

The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.

But selling the superfluous properties the govt owns would pay it all
off.

Hell yes. Who needs some wide open space where the deer and the
antelope play, anyway?

Yellowstone? Pave that sucka and put up a WalMart. They can use
geothermal energy for heat.

Yosemite? Can you say ticky tacky condos? We could hang actual pictures
in all the picture windows, so the new residents will know what the
place looked like before the cinderblocks blocked the view.

Gettysburg? Leave a statue off in a corner someplace, and carve it up
with cul-de-sacs and a strip mall.

Little Bighorn? Put up a refrigerated desert concession and advertise
it as Custard's Last "Stand".

If there are any of those pesky darned birds and animals still hanging
around, shoot the critters after sending a couple of dozen off to
various zoos. Lop off those dang trees while we're at it. Didn't Rush
Limbaugh tell us all that pollution is actually caused by trees?

As far as the Capitol Mall goes, who the hell needs that in this day
and age? Send all the congresspeople home, let them debate in chatrooms
and vote on the internet. No point in maintaining the Federal Justice
Building, either; we'll just let Bush decide who gets shot and who
should live, much simpler than screwing around with a bunch of ACLU
liberal lawyers in any case.

Once we get the debt down to zero by selling off all the government
property in the US, we can go back to spending like a bunch of drunks
on a holiday and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that the
federal government only purchase land for "forts and other needful
buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the debt can be
assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government
of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was at
one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would have
been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be given
back to the French.

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far better
than government-owned ones, since private entities have an interest in
reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by government are far
more likely to be clearcut.

There's a real easy solution to that problem. Stop making sweetheart
deals with loggers and ranchers. It's called pork, and is just another
form of corporate welfare.


After all, where would you rather visit a restroom in New York - the
Waldorf or the subway?

I'd rather visit the Statue of Liberty.

and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.


And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but
then again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:31:48 -0700, tschnautz wrote:

and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.


And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but then
again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?

Uh, it might not be who you think.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that
the federal government only purchase land for "forts and other
needful buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the
debt can be assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was
at one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would
have been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be
given back to the French.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the US you'd know that Thomas
Jefferson explicitly STATED that the LP was in fact illegal.

I don't recall reading about Jefferson stating that. From what I remember,
it was the Federalist Party that opposed the purchase...citing that the
Constitution did not allow for acquisition of new lands or negotiation of
treaties without the consent of the Senate.

Can you point me to a source showing that Jefferson stated that the LP was
illegal?

Harry,
If you really have a "bozo bin", why do you keep taking people out of the
"bozo bin" and then putting them back in the "bozo bin". Any rational
individual would think you really don't have a "bozo bin", but really just
want to talk about your "bozo bin".

By the way, what position did you play when you were on U of Kansas's "Rugby
Team".




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
OlBlueEyes wrote:

Nevertheless, I would still point out that:

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far better
than government-owned ones, since private entities have an interest in
reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by government are
far more likely to be clearcut.


Absurd on its face.



(2) the three most famous historic residences in the United States -
Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Biltmore - are all in PRIVATE hands. From
the Monticello website: "As a private, nonprofit organization, the
Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support". From
Mount Vernon's: "Mount Vernon does not accept grants from federal, state
or local governments, and no tax dollars are expended to support its
purposes."


Absurd argument.



After all, where would you rather visit a restroom in New York - the
Waldorf or the subway?

Idiotic argument.

Stick to drooling on your bib. Now, back in the bozo bin you go.

OBE,
When you use profanity like that you sound like many of the leftwing nutjobs
who post in rec.boats. ; )



"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Nevertheless, I would still point out that:

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far
better than government-owned ones, since private entities have an
interest in reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by
government are far more likely to be clearcut.


Absurd on its face.

Not at all. Absolutely true and verifiable.

(2) the three most famous historic residences in the United States -
Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Biltmore - are all in PRIVATE hands.
From the Monticello website: "As a private, nonprofit organization,
the Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support".
From Mount Vernon's: "Mount Vernon does not accept grants from
federal, state or local governments, and no tax dollars are expended
to support its purposes."


Absurd argument.

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os a
****sucking infected ****.

Jefferson believed the LP one of his greatest achievements, also expressed
concern about overstepping the government's powers as outlined by the
constitution.
"His brilliant negotiation and ties to France led to the Louisiana Purchase
for $15 million, doubling the size of the nation. Nonetheless, the deal
troubled Jefferson, who did not wish to overstep the central government's
powers as outlined by the Constitution, which made no mention of the power
to acquire new territory. It was Jefferson who authorized the famous Lewis
and Clark Expedition (1804-1806), led by Meriwether Lewis, a military
officer who was Jefferson's clerk at the White House."

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/...naPurchase.htm


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that
the federal government only purchase land for "forts and other
needful buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the
debt can be assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was
at one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would
have been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be
given back to the French.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the US you'd know that Thomas
Jefferson explicitly STATED that the LP was in fact illegal.

I don't recall reading about Jefferson stating that. From what I
remember, it was the Federalist Party that opposed the purchase...citing
that the Constitution did not allow for acquisition of new lands or
negotiation of treaties without the consent of the Senate.

Can you point me to a source showing that Jefferson stated that the LP was
illegal?

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:27:13 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be given
back to the French.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the US you'd know that Thomas
Jefferson explicitly STATED that the LP was in fact illegal.

He had concerns about stepping on states rights, but he made the deal
anyway. So, should we give the Louisiana Purchase back to the French?

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os a
****sucking infected ****.

Now THAT tripe certainly makes you credible, huh?

Kevin,
That quote sounded as if you are Harry made the post.


wrote in message
ups.com...

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Now THAT tripe certainly makes you credible, huh?

Dixon wrote:
The Gordon Lightfoot song about the Edmund Fitzgerald carrying 26,000 tons
of iron ore makes for an interesting comparison. It is said all the gold in
the world would weigh just over 100,000 tons. (a final Jeopardy question a
while back). This is four Edmund Fitzgerald loads. At the current gold price
of $ 465 per oz., how would you think the entire worlds gold supply would
compare to our national debt?----- The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt. Trouble coming?
Dixon




Check my math guys, but I have the US national debt at
$7,939,664,349,738.56

so figure $465(price of gold) X(16/.083 (troy OZ to US oz))x2000
(pounds/ton) x 100,000 (tons of gold in the world = $17,927,710,843,373.49

Jim, wrote:
Dixon wrote:

The Gordon Lightfoot song about the Edmund Fitzgerald carrying 26,000
tons of iron ore makes for an interesting comparison. It is said all
the gold in the world would weigh just over 100,000 tons. (a final
Jeopardy question a while back). This is four Edmund Fitzgerald loads.
At the current gold price of $ 465 per oz., how would you think the
entire worlds gold supply would compare to our national debt?----- The
value of the all the worlds gold would not even pay one- fifth of our
debt. Trouble coming?
Dixon



Check my math guys, but I have the US national debt at
$7,939,664,349,738.56

so figure $465(price of gold) X(16/.083 (troy OZ to US *pounds*)x2000
(pounds/ton) x 100,000 (tons of gold in the world = $17,927,710,843,373.49

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:31:48 -0700, tschnautz wrote:

and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.


And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but then
again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?

Uh, it might not be who you think.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm

Nice chart.

A casual eyeballing shows that when Truman took office, the national
debt was at 90% of the GNP. During his administration, the national
debt dropped to 70% of the GNP.

Under Eishenhower, the national debt dropped from 70-55% of the GNP.

Under Kennedy and Johnson, the national debt dropped (during a time of
war) from 55-40% of the GNP.

Under Nixon and Ford, the national debt dropped (while there was still
a war going on) from 40-35% of the GNP.

Under Carter, during a time of high inflation and recession, the
national debt only dropped a few percent, from about 35% of the GNP to
about 32% of the GNP.

Under Ronald Reagan and Bush the First, the national debt *rose* from
32% of the GNP to 65% of the GNP. *Doubled as a percentage of the GNP*
(!)

Under Clinton, the national debt dropped from 65% of the GNP to about
57% of the GNP. In retrospect, Clinton should have done more to reduce
the debt as we had a "boom" economy throughout much of the 90's- but at
least it went down as a percentage of the GNP during his term.

Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.

Here's the scary part. The debt has actually increased in dollars
something like 40% since the begining of Bush II's administration. If
the economy stumbles on the price of oil, the sword rattlers get us
involved with Iran and/or North Korea, or even the tiniest little burp
sends us into a recession we could theoretically see increased spending
and decreased GNP that would put us into unimaginable national debt vs.
GNP numbers.

On 3 Oct 2005 17:17:43 -0700, wrote:


OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Dixon" wrote in
:

The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.

But selling the superfluous properties the govt owns would pay it all off.

Hell yes. Who needs some wide open space where the deer and the
antelope play, anyway?

Whoever it is would be willing to pay for it, I am sure.

Yellowstone? Pave that sucka and put up a WalMart. They can use
geothermal energy for heat.

Best idea I have heard recently, although I am sure that there are
more profitable uses of Yellowstone
Yosemite? Can you say ticky tacky condos? We could hang actual pictures
in all the picture windows, so the new residents will know what the
place looked like before the cinderblocks blocked the view.

OK

Gettysburg? Leave a statue off in a corner someplace, and carve it up
with cul-de-sacs and a strip mall.

OK

Little Bighorn? Put up a refrigerated desert concession and advertise
it as Custard's Last "Stand".
Doubt anyone would come. Nobody goes as is.

If there are any of those pesky darned birds and animals still hanging
around, shoot the critters after sending a couple of dozen off to
various zoos. Lop off those dang trees while we're at it. Didn't Rush
Limbaugh tell us all that pollution is actually caused by trees?

As far as the Capitol Mall goes, who the hell needs that in this day
and age? Send all the congresspeople home, let them debate in chatrooms
and vote on the internet. No point in maintaining the Federal Justice
Building, either; we'll just let Bush decide who gets shot and who
should live, much simpler than screwing around with a bunch of ACLU
liberal lawyers in any case.

Once we get the debt down to zero by selling off all the government
property in the US, we can go back to spending like a bunch of drunks
on a holiday and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and 1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.

It was over 70% when Eisenhower was in office...and never topped 65% until
1994 when Clinton was in office.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...6/pdf/hist.pdf

(see Table 7.1...which is on page 119)

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Jim, wrote:
Dixon wrote:

The Gordon Lightfoot song about the Edmund Fitzgerald carrying 26,000
tons of iron ore makes for an interesting comparison. It is said all the
gold in the world would weigh just over 100,000 tons. (a final Jeopardy
question a while back). This is four Edmund Fitzgerald loads. At the
current gold price of $ 465 per oz., how would you think the entire
worlds gold supply would compare to our national debt?----- The value of
the all the worlds gold would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.
Trouble coming?
Dixon



Check my math guys, but I have the US national debt at
$7,939,664,349,738.56

so figure $465(price of gold) X(16/.083 (troy OZ to US *pounds*)x2000
(pounds/ton) x 100,000 (tons of gold in the world =
$17,927,710,843,373.49


100,000 tons x 2000 lbs./ ton = 200,000,000 lbs.= 2,916,666,560 troy oz.(1
lb. = 14.583332797487612 troy oz) x $465
=$1,356,249,995,000 or roughly 1.35 trillion. The nat debt is roughly 7.94
trillion. 7.94 trillion divided by 1.35 trillion is 5.88.

Dixon

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:43:48 -0400, thunder
wrote:


Hell yeah - let the Frenchies pay for rebuilding New Orleans.

When they are finished, threaten them, they give up and we get it all
back.

France has it's own problems. Funny, it seems the focus is always on the
USA.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051004/...erty_france_dc

Eisboch

wrote in message
ups.com...

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Now THAT tripe certainly makes you credible, huh?

Now I've seen everything.

Eisboch

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.


Yep. I think ol' rec.boats has sunk to a new low. Sad.

Eisboch

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and 1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.


It was over 70% when Eisenhower was in office...and never topped 65% until
1994 when Clinton was in office.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...6/pdf/hist.pdf

(see Table 7.1...which is on page 119)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.

I thought it was JPS posting.

31. thunder Oct 4, 6:03 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: thunder - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:03:32 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 4 2005 6:03 am
Subject: The Edmund Fitzgearld & the National debt
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:31:48 -0700, tschnautz wrote:
and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but then
again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?



Uh, it might not be who you think.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm


This may be more accurate

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:01:32 -0700, tschnautz wrote:


http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm


This may be more accurate

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

It's the same data. It's just a more comprehensive look. It still shows,
the debt grew more under Reagan and the two Bushs, than other
Presidents, Republican or Democrat. And, it still shows the downward dip
under Clinton.

Bill,
It did sound like jps or Kevin, normally you do not see conservative
resorting to such childish behavior. ; )


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.

I thought it was JPS posting.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ

"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message
...
Harry,
If you really have a "bozo bin", why do you keep taking people out of the
"bozo bin" and then putting them back in the "bozo bin". Any rational
individual would think you really don't have a "bozo bin", but really just
want to talk about your "bozo bin".

[Yawn] He doesnt have a kill file. He has been caught many times responding
to people he has claimed to put in his "bozo bin"...me included.

By the way, what position did you play when you were on U of Kansas's
"Rugby
Team".

LOL!


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ


I assume you stopped typing in mid sentence just as you were about to
ask, "What effect do you believe that having a Republican congress had
on the reduction of national debt (as a percentage of GNP) during the
Clinton administration?"

You probably quit because you realized that I would point out we have a
Republican congress now, and have had during the entire BUSH II
administration, while our national debt has climbed from the mid- 5
Trillion range to a couple of bucks below 8 Trillion.

Apparently, the Republican congress argument doesn't hold water.

I will grant you this: having the congressional majority and the POTUS
from different parties does tend to create some "gridlock" in
government. For fans of smaller government and restrained government
spending (that would include little liberal ol' me)a smaller, less
invasive government restraining spending and operating within fiscal
reality would be preferable to the mess we have now.
In a perfect society, the POTUS and the congressional majority would
never be of the same party- just another one of the "checks and
balances".

wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the
GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the
debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on
lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic
policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ


I assume you stopped typing in mid sentence just as you were about to
ask, "What effect do you believe that having a Republican congress had
on the reduction of national debt (as a percentage of GNP) during the
Clinton administration?"

You probably quit because you realized that I would point out we have a
Republican congress now, and have had during the entire BUSH II
administration, while our national debt has climbed from the mid- 5
Trillion range to a couple of bucks below 8 Trillion.

There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.


Apparently, the Republican congress argument doesn't hold water.

I will grant you this: having the congressional majority and the POTUS
from different parties does tend to create some "gridlock" in
government.

I'll agree with that assessment as well.

For fans of smaller government and restrained government
spending (that would include little liberal ol' me)a smaller, less
invasive government restraining spending and operating within fiscal
reality would be preferable to the mess we have now.
In a perfect society, the POTUS and the congressional majority would
never be of the same party- just another one of the "checks and
balances".

In a perfect society, there'd be no Democrats.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion. What about the
other $2.3 *trillion*?

Face it, fiscally conservative does not apply to modern day Republicans.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion.

The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion...which is almost half of the
yearly deficit. The increased spending on Homeland Security accounts for a
big chunk of the remaining deficit.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:QMS0f.9129
In a perfect society, there'd be no Democrats.


and that perfect society would be call Shangri La ; )

The Edmund Fitzgearld & the National debt
 

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:41:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:00:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There are extenuating circumstances right now. Namely, a war in Iraq.

Oh please, the War in Iraq accounts for $200 billion.

The war in Iraq accounts for $200 billion...which is almost half of the
yearly deficit. The increased spending on Homeland Security accounts for
a big chunk of the remaining deficit.

Boy, you sure do play fast and loose with facts. That is $200 billion
over the course of the war, not per year. We were talking a $2.5
*trillion* debt, that this Republican has saddled us with. According to
the Whitehouse site, Homeland Security costs roughly $100 billion per
year. I'll throw in pre 9/11, so that makes 5 years @ $100 per = $500
billion. Add the $200 billion for the war, and we are at $700 billion.
Leaving $1.8 *trillion* in debt. The biggest extenuating circumstance is
Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect5.pdf