Why the polls don't matter, Romney will be the next President

[mawilson 2,133]

How do 2-3% of GDP deficits increase the debt from 56.4% of GDP to 84.2% of GDP over 8 years?

3% times 8 is 24%. 84.2 - 56.4 = 27.8. 24, 27 - close enough.

Don't forget that Bush also had unexpected tax revenues - from the housing bubble. And yet he still racked up debt like there's no tomorrow.

I won't argue with that. He could have paid off the debt, but he was told by Greenspan that it was too dangerous.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

3% times 8 is 24%. 84.2 - 56.4 = 27.8. 24, 27 - close enough.

If the deficit is about the same as GDP growth, then the debt to GDP ratio should remain roughly the same. Instead the ratio grew 30 points. Something doesn't add up, does it?

I won't argue with that. He could have paid off the debt, but he was told by Greenspan that it was too dangerous.

I thought it was Cheney and the rest of the GOP telling him that "deficits don't matter".

[mawilson 2,133]

If the deficit is about the same as GDP growth, then the debt to GDP ratio should remain roughly the same. Instead the ratio grew 30 points. Something doesn't add up, does it?

Must have been all those things they kept off the balance sheet

[mawilson 2,133]

I thought it was Cheney and the rest of the GOP telling him that "deficits don't matter".

It was Greenspan who seemed very concerned about zero debt.

"The most recent projections ... make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.

...

... continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

...

... we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures, because these actions might occur at a time when sizable economic stimulus would be inappropriate. In other words, budget policy should strive to limit potential disruptions by making the on-budget surplus economically inconsequential when the debt is effectively paid off.

In general, as I have testified previously, if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases. The flurry of increases in outlays that occurred near the conclusion of last fall's budget deliberations is troubling because it makes the previous year's lack of discipline less likely to have been an aberration.

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy

Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

January 25, 2001

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It was Greenspan who seemed very concerned about zero debt.

"The most recent projections ... make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.

...

... continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue.

...

... we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures, because these actions might occur at a time when sizable economic stimulus would be inappropriate. In other words, budget policy should strive to limit potential disruptions by making the on-budget surplus economically inconsequential when the debt is effectively paid off.

In general, as I have testified previously, if long-term fiscal stability is the criterion, it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions than by spending increases. The flurry of increases in outlays that occurred near the conclusion of last fall's budget deliberations is troubling because it makes the previous year's lack of discipline less likely to have been an aberration.

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan

Outlook for the federal budget and implications for fiscal policy

Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

January 25, 2001

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/default.htm

At no time during the Bush administration were we at any danger to have zero debt. We were at least $5TN away from that point. Soon after that testimony we stopped closing in and began to drift further away from the feared "No Debt" scenario. Bush could have produced balanced budgets and not worry about no debt. But he didn't. Instead, he doubled the debt and helped make sure that we'd never pay it off.

Must have been all those things they kept off the balance sheet

That's right. Then the real deficit wasn't 3% - it was 3% plus the cost of the wars we have been fighting all these years. That's what really matters - the real deficits. Whether you carry the extra expenditures on or off the balance sheet, they will end up on that pile of debt and make it grow. Double, to be exact.

[mawilson 2,133]

At no time during the Bush administration were we at any danger to have zero debt.

Not according to the Chairman's testimony.

January 25, 2001 - was Clinton's ghost still in charge then?

Instead, he doubled the debt and helped make sure that we'd never pay it off.

He did what the powers that be told him to do. As if he was smart enough to make his own decisions.

[X Factor 1,112]

Accoriding to news reports, the economy has hit single women harder than married women. President Obama will have a difficult time getting their support IMO.

[james&olya 1,121]

Not all.

Romney is American.

Are you sure? Have you seen his long form birth certificate? And was it proved authentic?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Are you sure? Have you seen his long form birth certificate? And was it proved authentic?

Don't need to. Romney already is on record as being "a guy from Great Britain". Which is okay with the birthers, I suppose. We just can't have a Kenyan in the White House.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Accoriding to news reports, the economy has hit single women harder than married women. President Obama will have a difficult time getting their support IMO.

Obama has other things going for him in regards to single women, though. His stance on birth control and mammograms, for example.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Don't need to. Romney already is on record as being "a guy from Great Britain". Which is okay with the birthers, I suppose. We just can't have a Kenyan in the White House.

Not surprising at all. You should know by now that the seriousness of the birthers is only skin deep.

[rocks 494]

Don't need to. Romney already is on record as being "a guy from Great Britain". Which is okay with the birthers, I suppose. We just can't have a Kenyan in the White House.

England is just a small island

Why does he hate Scotland and Wales, the country he claims his wife is from, so much?

[mox 298]

Accoriding to news reports, the economy has hit single women harder than married women. President Obama will have a difficult time getting their support IMO.

And yet every poll on the demographic I've seen shows otherwise. Women in this country are very in-tune with the candidate who is most likely to take away their access to reproductive care, and it ain't Obama. The Republicans have underestimated the impact their anti-reproductive-care stance has had by magnitudes.

[mawilson 2,133]

who is most likely to take away their access to reproductive care, and it ain't Obama.

It ain't Romney or Ryan either.

[mox 298]

It ain't Romney or Ryan either.

I don't believe the facts support you:

Romney has repeated his plan to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood many times. He said it in a letter to voters that was published in Life News, a self-described pro-life news service. On his website, he goes further and says he will eliminate all family planning funds under the Public Health Service Act. That program, Title X, costs about $300 million and was created in 1970 under the Nixon administration.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/08/barack-obama/obama-slams-romney-on-contraception-and-planned-pa/

(emphasis mine)