Part of the problem we face is that journalists in this country are largely innumerate. Misleading numbers get into the main stream and take on a life of their own. The partisan media just makes it worse.

Considering I got my numbers from the partisan media, I would have to agree with you

“it’s going to take a while before anyone (Obama or his predecessors) can take credit for finally reducing the deficit.”

Get the deficit back to where we were in the late 90’s could be done in 10 years or so. That’s what it took after the 80’s. Unfortunately, I don’t see anyone who has the political will – that worries me more than the deficit itself.

Fair enough.

Part of the problem we face is that journalists in this country are largely innumerate. Misleading numbers get into the main stream and take on a life of their own. The partisan media just makes it worse.

Instead of bashing Obama, I’ll take a turn at Bush. His ownership society programs helped create the housing bubble.

“You left out the tech bubble bursting. There are other underlying factors than the ones you listed, but I generally agree with what you said.”

Good catch. Bush certainly had his own uncontrollable financial situations like the tech bubble, 9/11 and Afghanistan. But unfortunately for him, his spending habits, and the current recession, have put us into a deep, deep hole, and it’s going to take a while before anyone (Obama or his predecessors) can take credit for finally reducing the deficit.

And yet when it is pointed out to you that many were not, and that it was one of the reasons that the Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and that they lost the White House two years ago for the same reason, you put your pudgey fingers in your ears and say “La La La, I can’t hear you..”

This is why few take your off-topic political keyboard diarrhea here seriously.

But I stand by my statement that the Tea Party wasn’t happy with the spending under either administration…

no problem, I’ve made bad post before, the trick is to correct them.

There are two “tea party” groups. I concur that a lot of people were upset with the Bush spending, but take Whittington for instance. He didnt have a bit of problem with the war spending. To him it is all part of some glorious American empire teaching the folks in the mideast a thing or two…

Where the people started to buzz off the spending was with the TARP…and that has where the fracture started…

The corporate people behind the tea party movement, the Koch’s for instance have an agenda which they are using the tea party angst about as a sort of stalking horse for. Their agenda is to stay connected to the federal treasury….

As for the Chinese. Nothing that they do in space alarms me. The PRC is in the same position that the US was after WW2…they have modern industry, they are cash happy, and slowly but surely feeling burst of nationalism. Nothing wrong with that, we did it after WW2…

What I am worried about is the US remaining a superpower, particularly an economic one. Obama’s space policy helps that.

Robert G. Oler

As someone else pointed out most of what you posted is simply wrong. As is the claim that “spending was winding down”. Bush almost never stopped spending.

Since our posts crossed in the night, I will say directly to you that I was wrong with my numbers. I am wrong from time to time and have no problems admiring it. But I stand by my statement that the Tea Party wasn’t happy with the spending under either administration.

We can agree to disagree on your views about the Tea Party.

What do you think about China’s plans to visit the Moon?
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2010/09/china-gear-up-for-moon-mars-and-venus.html

You left out the tech bubble bursting. There are other underlying factors than the ones you listed, but I generally agree with what you said.

You are correct, except that the cost of the wars was added in but not the other items you listed. After looking at the site you linked not only was I wrong about the $2.1 trillion but also that the deficits were trending downward when you include the off budget items.

So please allow me to join in flaming myself

From 2004-2008 the only year the real deficit dipped below $600 billion was in ’07 and just barely at $500 billion.

That same site has Obama’s total addition to the debt at $2.8 trillion from his inauguration to today. Bush’s was as you stated at $4.9 trillion. So Bush averaged about $600 billion/year and Obama’s is about $1.5 trillion/year.

And probably most important of all, the off budget items accounted for roughly $2.8 trillion, over double the official deficits.

So Obama is definitely on track to out pace Bush, which says a lot, and we can agree

So the first year of the Obama administration added $1.7 Trillion to the debt, an astounding sum, but only 21% more than the debt added in the last year of Bush administration. They are basically in the same awful league.