Truth or Dare, Election Ramifications Options

[Hellfighter]

As you know I'm not pro-Bush on his foreign policies... now that they've got some political clout, will the Dems now ante up and tell us how their influential input will reset the future course in Iraq? I'm thinking not. What are your solutions?

My idea>>> in 1 year US troops should pull out of Baghdad area- then let the Iraqi security forces get a taste for hardcore pulling of their weight. US troops can then deploy along the borders while Iraqi's get school of hard knocks training in large operations by themselves in that area of Iraq. With victories will come confidence. Iraqi citizens will also be getting what most of them hypothesize- US troops out supposedly means a de-escalation of terrorist attacks. As for secterian violence, I don't think US troops can stay in Iraq forever to police that. Sooner or later Iraqis have to sort that out by themselves alone.

[Old Man Mike]

Looks like we have a failure to communicate. One more time in summary form:

Kleerance showed what first appeared to be an alarming chart with US Defict as a percentage of GDP. The chart ended in 2005 with a 6% deficit.

Old Man pointed out that the chart did not have the most current data. The US Deficit as a percentage of GDP will be under 3% for 2006. This improvement is primarily due to the TAX CUTS which drastically increased growth and tax revenues. Meanwhile France, Germany, Greece and Italy are all expected to exceed 3% for their Deficit as a percentage of GDP, primarily due to a faltering economic expansion and rising social security spending.

Kleerance then tried to switch the discussion from Deficit as percentage of GDB to Deficit as dollars only. He even tired to claim that a chart showing deficit only in dollars is the same as a chart showing deficit as a percentage of GDP. If GDP goes up more than deficit dollars goes up, then the percentage goes down.

Old Man said shame on Kleerance for trying to switch the discussion from % of GDP to absolute dollars. Reminds me of those that will claim unemployement is up based on the number of people unemployed instead of the percentage of people unemployed. I expected better.

Old Man Mike

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Looks like we have a failure to communicate. One more time in summary form:

Kleerance showed what first appeared to be an alarming chart with US Defict as a percentage of GDP. The chart ended in 2005 with a 6% deficit.

Old Man pointed out that the chart did not have the most current data. The US Deficit as a percentage of GDP will be under 3% for 2006.

Where did you get this data? I tried to search for it, but could not find a definate projected trade deficit as percentage of GDP. But I did find this from a editiorial in NYT from yesterday.



"Just as the summer driving season was winding down, oil prices started to fall. The combination of less demand and lower prices was a potent mix, helping to narrow the United States' trade gap significantly in September, to $64.3 billion from $69 billion in August, according to the latest tally.

That's welcome news, illustrating yet another upside to curbing the nation's oil consumption. But it's also sobering. The decline in September's trade deficit was the largest in nearly two years. And yet, the United States remains squarely on track for a record trade imbalance in 2006: a projected $790 billion, compared with $717 billion last year.

(snip...)

As recently as a few years ago, economists warned that a nation was courting a financial crisis if the size of its trade deficit exceeded 3 percent of its economy. Today, the United States' deficit is approaching 7 percent. The best way to avoid the worst is to define the problem honestly, and craft the remedies accordingly."



Now, how could the US be projected for a record $790 billion trade deficit, $73 billion more than last year, yet cut the perecage as compared to GDP in half? Did the US GDP more than double in 1 year? That's one hell of a year!

The NY Times says the projected deficit as a percentage of GDP is closing on 7%. Their numbers seem to back that up. Maybe you're making a mistake on the 3% Mike. Your source wasn't a republican ad poster, was it?



Also don't know how you attribute an upper class tax cut from 4-5 years ago to a drop in the trade deficit as percentage of GDP 4-5 years later after several years of record trade deficits. The two seem completely unrelated, and, as pointed out, I don't think there's been a drop at all in the trade deficit for the year, in real dollars or percentage of GDP.