Tweaking The Numbers...
Does anyone "surf the internet" anymore? Do we all know enough about it to just go to wherever we want to go and then get off the computer when we're done? Well I was surfing a few days ago, just clicking around wherever I saw a link I thought was interesting, and landed on the White House's website summarizing our national debt and how our "deficit" is actually decreasing http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/outlook.html It's interesting how they say they will pay this debt of ours down. What they really claim is that the deficit growth is decreasing. In fact, the whole has nothing to do with what the actual budget deficit number is (currently $8.5 trillion). The White House has the policy that the "size of the deficit" is comparing the Gross Domestic Product - the measurement of the strength of our economy - to the amount of money owed. So, if our economy grows we are allowed to have as much debt as we want, so long as that debt is proportionally low compared to the GDP.
That's their trick. They have no clue of how to reduce our deficit. They're just talking the issue into their political favor. Take a look here: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm Our federal government's debt has increased every year since at least 1987. It has increased every month since at least October of last year, yet the graph on the White House website shows that when you divide the debt created last year alone by the GDP, our "deficit" has actually decreased from 2004 to 2005 and will decrease for the next 3 years. I'll believe it when I see it.
So this idea of paying down our debts is never going to happen, according to Dubbyuh. They're not even going to try. They claim that we are going to grow our economy to the point of lowering the ratio of debt to GDP. The typical smokescreen of "lowering government waste" is just to help cover some of the loss of federal income (big tax cuts to rich people) while they try to grow the GDP. Just a tweaking of the numbers, really. We're actually going to owe MORE money to foreign banks as we do today. What if Houston gets the next Katrina? What if Iran starts a full-on attack against Israel? What if we have another recession? What if the GDP just doesn't grow as expected? There's a hundred reasons why in two years we may not have lower ration of debt to GDP.
But wait a minute. Are these numbers at the White House website even true? I'm seeing some "fuzzy math" here...
Take a look at that line graph on the White House website again. Isn't it interesting that the only time the graph numbers go down is when a Democrat is in office and the only time it goes up a Republican is in office? I like the little dip in the graph at the end. This is also not true and in fact, the debt/GDP ratio being lowered in 2005 is a factual inaccuracy. The White House page conveniently does not list the actual debt or GDP numbers, but if you take the debt listed in the Treasury Department's website and the GDP listed in the Bureau of Economic Analysis, as of October 1, 2005 we have a debt equaling 62.9% of our GDP. Yes, it is only up 0.1% since the previous year, but it is not down to a level of 37% as the White House website would have you believe. It's not even down at all. Where are they getting their numbers? Can I not divide properly?
I think the White House assumes that people like me who fact check on their own either don't exist, or can't do anything about it. Well Mr. President, I can do something about it. I can call your group of budget advisors and policy makers liars. And I can prove it by using your own numbers. It's simple math. The national debt in 1999 was $5.66 billion and our GDP listed at the BEA website is $9.25 billion. Divide 5.66 by 9.25 and you have 61.2 or 61.2% of the GDP equaled the amount of debt our nation owes. This is what the line graph on the White House web page displays. In 2000 the debt goes down to 56.9%, but then starts a steady increase up to last year. Then the magical "dip." It's like the Golden Bullet. If you take the debt/GDP in 2004 ($7.38 billion/$11.75 billion) you get 62.8%. Last year we had 62.9% deficit. What am I doing wrong? How can the numbers from our own government be wrong? Or are we just being lied to and spun to believe that the GOP has a handle on our spending? The last 50 years and the same line graph also proves that to be a very unlikely scenario.
What does this mean? Why should anyone care? I believe this to be an example of the political advantage that the GOP is trying to achieve when it comes to economics. They will say anything they think they can get away with as long as no one can effectively challenge them. Everyone wants to vote for someone who will give them more money. The aura of "lower taxes, more economic growth" is what the Republicans have always seemed to have, but when you actually look at the facts and the numbers behind the spin, the reality of the situation is that we have more debt in return for their presidents. And where is this money I'm supposed to have? Our tax return was measly this year and I thought that everyone was getting these big tax cuts that Dubbyuh keeps talking about. Did you get the big tax break this spring?
No, there was no big tax break for us or millions of others in the lower-middle class. We still have a huge national deficit and will continue to owe money. We're still wasting our tax dollars on pork and defense and not spending it on schools and New Orleans. Our government is just tweaking the numbers.
That's their trick. They have no clue of how to reduce our deficit. They're just talking the issue into their political favor. Take a look here: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm Our federal government's debt has increased every year since at least 1987. It has increased every month since at least October of last year, yet the graph on the White House website shows that when you divide the debt created last year alone by the GDP, our "deficit" has actually decreased from 2004 to 2005 and will decrease for the next 3 years. I'll believe it when I see it.
So this idea of paying down our debts is never going to happen, according to Dubbyuh. They're not even going to try. They claim that we are going to grow our economy to the point of lowering the ratio of debt to GDP. The typical smokescreen of "lowering government waste" is just to help cover some of the loss of federal income (big tax cuts to rich people) while they try to grow the GDP. Just a tweaking of the numbers, really. We're actually going to owe MORE money to foreign banks as we do today. What if Houston gets the next Katrina? What if Iran starts a full-on attack against Israel? What if we have another recession? What if the GDP just doesn't grow as expected? There's a hundred reasons why in two years we may not have lower ration of debt to GDP.
But wait a minute. Are these numbers at the White House website even true? I'm seeing some "fuzzy math" here...
Take a look at that line graph on the White House website again. Isn't it interesting that the only time the graph numbers go down is when a Democrat is in office and the only time it goes up a Republican is in office? I like the little dip in the graph at the end. This is also not true and in fact, the debt/GDP ratio being lowered in 2005 is a factual inaccuracy. The White House page conveniently does not list the actual debt or GDP numbers, but if you take the debt listed in the Treasury Department's website and the GDP listed in the Bureau of Economic Analysis, as of October 1, 2005 we have a debt equaling 62.9% of our GDP. Yes, it is only up 0.1% since the previous year, but it is not down to a level of 37% as the White House website would have you believe. It's not even down at all. Where are they getting their numbers? Can I not divide properly?
I think the White House assumes that people like me who fact check on their own either don't exist, or can't do anything about it. Well Mr. President, I can do something about it. I can call your group of budget advisors and policy makers liars. And I can prove it by using your own numbers. It's simple math. The national debt in 1999 was $5.66 billion and our GDP listed at the BEA website is $9.25 billion. Divide 5.66 by 9.25 and you have 61.2 or 61.2% of the GDP equaled the amount of debt our nation owes. This is what the line graph on the White House web page displays. In 2000 the debt goes down to 56.9%, but then starts a steady increase up to last year. Then the magical "dip." It's like the Golden Bullet. If you take the debt/GDP in 2004 ($7.38 billion/$11.75 billion) you get 62.8%. Last year we had 62.9% deficit. What am I doing wrong? How can the numbers from our own government be wrong? Or are we just being lied to and spun to believe that the GOP has a handle on our spending? The last 50 years and the same line graph also proves that to be a very unlikely scenario.
What does this mean? Why should anyone care? I believe this to be an example of the political advantage that the GOP is trying to achieve when it comes to economics. They will say anything they think they can get away with as long as no one can effectively challenge them. Everyone wants to vote for someone who will give them more money. The aura of "lower taxes, more economic growth" is what the Republicans have always seemed to have, but when you actually look at the facts and the numbers behind the spin, the reality of the situation is that we have more debt in return for their presidents. And where is this money I'm supposed to have? Our tax return was measly this year and I thought that everyone was getting these big tax cuts that Dubbyuh keeps talking about. Did you get the big tax break this spring?
No, there was no big tax break for us or millions of others in the lower-middle class. We still have a huge national deficit and will continue to owe money. We're still wasting our tax dollars on pork and defense and not spending it on schools and New Orleans. Our government is just tweaking the numbers.
<< Home