No I haven’t. I’ll check it out though. Thanks for the tip.

We went off the gold standard in 1971 (August 15th, to be precise). The first run up in debt was several years after that and corresponded better with the Arab oil embargo. But even that debt would have been manageable. The problems really started when the Republicans under Reagan decided there really WAS such a thing as a free lunch.

It was really the first time I remember Republicans exhibiting their now-trademarked reality-denying ostrich trick of burying their heads in the sand and reapeating over and over, in deviance of all evidence, “Tax cuts do so work! Tax cuts do so work!” They’re still at it, of course, with tax cuts, the Iraq war, and just about anything that smacks of science.

BTW, I’m not necessarily opposed to getting rid of fiat currency. However, there are only two ways the US is going to get rid of its debt now — inflate it away or default. There isn’t going to be another Clinton miracle, and the chances of going back to a gold standard are nil.

put the government in it’s coffin . and shut the lid

Hey Right Wingers…China owns our ass thanks to you. Leave it to the Republicans to make things so bad, that a communist country has to float our boat.

Well a journalist called Dickey Flatt one time and read him a list of government spending that his ole buddy Phil Gramm had voted for, and asked Dickie whether he agreed that each one was worth spending his hard-earned money on. And Dickie just kept saying, “No, no, NO! no, no, NO!!!! no, no….”

So we learned to take anything Phil Gramm says with a bushel basket’s worth of salt.

That’s demonstrable nonsense. In fact, poor people generally eat a diet higher in calorie-dense foods – fats, starches – because they are less expensive, and therefore they tend to be fatter than people who can afford a better diet.

In addition, we are not so far away from having to do something we’ve never really had to do before — re-finance our old debts. As Leslie’s chart shows, deficits started getting bigger in the late 70s and really took off under Reagan. All that debt was financed with 30-year notes. Those notes will have to be paid off starting around now, and really gathering steam starting in 2011.

Bush changed that practice after taking office in 2001. Between 2001 and February 2006, we financed our deficit with 10 year notes. Those 10 year notes will start coming due around 2011.

So, the next couple presidents will have to simultaneously re-finance the Reagan debt and most of the Bush debt. We’d better hope we don’t have to finance a Bush-sized deficit at the same time. Interest rates are going up. And, because the high interest rates won’t be because the US economy is overheated, it won’t help when the US economy slows. It could get very ugly.

P.S. Hugs to Susan. Don’t let the turkeys get you down.

Here’s his bio: He’s the director of the Congressional Budget Office. Prior to that, he was the deputy director of economic studies at the Brookings Institute.
http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/organization/od.htm

Here’s Gene Sperling’s bio: He’s a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served under Clinton as his national economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.
http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/SperlingGene.html

Will look up Peter Orszag and Gene Sperling.

Crackers,
Agree with Taters and the others. You really do owe Susan an apology. She works very hard and she doesn’t get paid for her efforts. There’s a lot of research and writing work involved in putting up meaningful, well-written posts. Each one can take a couple hours at least. Plus, Susan has been very busy on a special surprise project for us all. A summer Christmas present! [Sorry, no hints, I've been sworn to secrecy.]

Leslie,
Peter Orszag is brilliant. ( I like Gene Sperling too. ) He has a remarkable ability to take something complex and make it understandable to a lay person such as me.
I saw him debate Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute on Social Security. It was well done and Orszag shined. Thanks for posting this Leslie.

Cujo, well said. It looks like Susan shook it off by her next post.

Messr. Vosburgh – Did you see what Retired wrote to you on the Swamp Fox thread?

Crackers,
I regret that you feel that way, I would hope that you might consider sticking around. But stay or go – I believe you owe an apology.

I disagree with you about Anne Coulter, though. Ignoring her just let her get where she is now. She and her fans need to realize what she and they are, and we’re just the guys (and gals) to explain it to them. Extra points if you can be as nice about it as Elizabeth Edwards was.

Guthman Bey, the best growth this economy has managed in the last six years is anemic. Usually, it’s barely grown at all, as for instance in the article Leslie pointed out. And Mudkitty’s right, too. I wouldn’t be crowing about deficits that don’t include the SSI and Medicare entitlements obligations, which those numbers almost certainly do. During Clinton’s presidency there was a surplus that was almost as large as the current deficit, and the only people who paid more taxes were the rich.