Pangloss Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 This'll probably come across like I'm picking on the Dems, but I just happened to catch an ad on my television from the Democratic National Committee. It featured the sad-looking faces of a number of children, and the voicover was talking about how they will be saddled with additional debt thanks to the Bush administration. No problem there -- I am in complete agreement. Then the narrator went on to say that the deficit is $2.7 trillion. No. Really. In point of fact, the deficit is coming in at a bit over $400 billion. I have no idea if they just picked this number out of thin air or what. I mean hell, why not $50 trillion? A hundred? What the hell, a googleplexillion! Sigh.
Douglas Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 This'll probably come across like I'm picking on the Dems' date=' but I just happened to catch an ad on my television from the Democratic National Committee. It featured the sad-looking faces of a number of children, and the voicover was talking about how they will be saddled with additional debt thanks to the Bush administration. No problem there -- I am in complete agreement. Then the narrator went on to say that the deficit is $2.7 trillion. No. Really. In point of fact, the deficit is coming in at a bit over $400 billion. I have no idea if they just picked this number out of thin air or what. I mean hell, why not $50 trillion? A hundred? What the hell, a googleplexillion! Sigh.[/quote'] Hmmmm, the national debt is 2.4 trillion
Pangloss Posted October 20, 2004 Author Posted October 20, 2004 I believe the debt is actually a great deal more than that. But what we're talking about here is the deficit, which is the annual addition to the debt. The two do tend to get confused a lot, but I doubt that's the DNC's excuse.
john5746 Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I haven't seen the commercial, but they may be referring to projected deficits. I have seen this number as a projected deficit in future years. Projections are used by both sides to make grand statements about the future as if it is fact.
Pangloss Posted October 20, 2004 Author Posted October 20, 2004 Even if they are talking about a projected number, it's total BS. The actual quote was "In three years we've gone from a surplus to a $2.7 billion deficit." There's just no defense for this whatsoever. I totally agree that both sides have made ridiculous statements and claims, but there's no excuse for this kind of raw fear-mongering. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. I've already written several reporters about it who are covering the Florida election scene for the New York Times, the Washington Post, UPI and local TV. These are people I've actually corresponded with and whom I know will read my email, but I don't know what the hell else I can do. Sorry, not ranting at anyone here, this sort of thing just burns my behind.
Phi for All Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 National Debt is up over $7.4 trillion. They may be talking about the entire picture, with the international investment position added to the deficit. From an agency of the US Commerce Dept: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2003 was a negative $2,430.7 billion (preliminary) with direct investment valued at current cost, as the value of foreign investments in the United States exceeded the value of U.S. investments abroad. It would still be misleading if their statement actually says "the deficit".
Aardvark Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 That would also be assuming that foriegn investment in the US is automatically a bad thing. A pretty odd assumption.
Douglas Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 I believe the debt is actually a great deal more than that. But what we're talking about here is the deficit' date=' which is the annual addition to the debt. The two do tend to get confused a lot, but I doubt that's the DNC's excuse.[/quote'] I wasn't confused, but I did make a mistake in saying 2.4 trillion.....yup, it's 7.4 trillion. BTW, did you get into the discussion with the fishing boys?
Douglas Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 Even if they are talking about a projected number' date=' it's total BS. The actual quote was "In three years we've gone from a surplus to a $2.7 billion deficit." There's just no defense for this whatsoever. I totally agree that both sides have made ridiculous statements and claims, but there's no excuse for this kind of raw fear-mongering. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. I've already written several reporters about it who are covering the Florida election scene for the New York Times, the Washington Post, UPI and local TV. These are people I've actually corresponded with and whom I know will read my email, but I don't know what the hell else I can do. Sorry, not ranting at anyone here, this sort of thing just burns my behind.[/quote'] So Mr Beale....errr Pangloss, will any of these reporters spread the word around, either via the papers, TV etc
Phi for All Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 That would also be assuming that foriegn investment in the US is automatically a bad thing. A pretty odd assumption.Foreign investments are not a bad thing, but when they exceed the investments we make in other countries by $2.4 trillion, it leaves us vulnerable.
Aardvark Posted October 20, 2004 Posted October 20, 2004 It may seem imbalanced, but it could also denote a certain confidence in the US. People don't invest in countries they think have bad prospects. If US policy adapts to deal with these deficits it probably isn't too late to recitify the situation, but it would take some difficult political decisions.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now