Video: The National Debt Road Trip
posted at 2:15 pm on July 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
King Banaian sends this eye-opening presentation on the speed in which we have added to the national debt over the course of the last century. It comes from the blog Political Math, which made a big splash when it demonstrated what the Porkulus bill looked like in pennies. This time, PM casts the rapid increase in deficit spending in terms of speed and distance for a road trip. How fast would Barack Obama be going compared to those who drove the car before him?
This has more than one lesson within it, First, we can point out yet again that the deficit hawks on the Left had much more concern over the driver than the speed and distance. Another clear lesson? We spend less when one party holds the White House and the other controls Congress, especially the House — although not always, as the Reagan years show.
Mostly, though, the lesson here is that when a callow, self-involved, charismatic fellow invites you for a road trip, don’t let them drive your car. You’ll wind up regretting it (NSFW):
Update: Must be getting around today — The Anchoress had it posted before I did. And no, I’m not driving to California, but I wish I was …
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Actually you’ll end up with him declaring the car is his and demanding gas money.
highhopes on July 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM
“isn’t He dreamy?”
Heh. And frighteningly correct.
Abby Adams on July 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM
“You f*cked up, you trusted us.” Should be the slogan for the Obama addmenustration.
volsense on July 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The Obama addmenstruation?
Daggett on July 27, 2009 at 2:23 PM
how this doesn’t compute w/ the ardent leftists is a mystery to me.
toenail on July 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Wow! Great video. Puts it in perspective. Let’s send it around.
Christian Conservative on July 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Sweet! Greensboro got a plug. We’re on the map!
Just so you people know, Greensboro was named after Revolutionary War General Nathaniel Greene. . . for your next cocktail party.
ThackerAgency on July 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Hahaha
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
This is an old video. Might have been posted here or at Michelle’s website. Definitely seen this before.
clement on July 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Math is hard!
WashJeff on July 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
At that rate and direction, it looks like we’ll soon be in China. How ironic is that?
genso on July 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
OK… that last “haha…” is turning into a bahahabahaha
*tear*
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Wait. Is Ed driving to California today and is he driving Obama’s debt car?
WashJeff on July 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Sadly, a drunken 8 year-old is driving the car, and all of the passengers are locked in the trunk.
…and I’m getting carsick.
cntrlfrk on July 27, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Obama is a clunker that I want to trade in!!!!!!
search4truth on July 27, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Just wait until Barry hits a bump in the road at 173mph. I can hear the screaming now “It’s all George Bush’s fault”.
GarandFan on July 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM
I don’t think we could pay another country enough money to take him.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Is there anything “Animal House” can’t teach us?
catmman on July 27, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Wonder what that would sound like at 173mph.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I love this!!! :D
(64 mph)=Too #*&@ Fast!!!
(174 mph)=Isn’t he dreamy?
FontanaConservative on July 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM
But… but… I LIKE driving fast…
Romeo13 on July 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Don’t even get me started on leaving your girlfriend alone with the professor who supplies you with pot…
Ed Morrissey on July 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Absolutely. The Obama numbers are absent any REAL emergency. Bush had to pay for Katrina and 9/11 in his budget. If the economy doesn’t grow like they want, or there is a natural disaster like an earthquake in LA/SF or another hurricane in NO and the speed will increase.
ThackerAgency on July 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I’d probably vote for the next person promising on their life to put on the brakes and put the car in reverse.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM
So Obama, then. Because that’s what he’s promising.
(Although beware… Geraghty’s Axiom still applies.)
Abby Adams on July 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM
really need to put this in context of the actual Debt Burden. Not just the raw Debt number, which means comparing the increase in Liabilities with the Increase in Assets.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM
That’s a great comparison, although a little long. Truman was helped out by reducing military spending after World War II, and we all had good reason to like Ike.
It would also be interesting to see the comparisons for Kennedy/Johnson (Great Society/Vietnam), Nixon/Ford, and especially Carter (inventor of the Misery Index). After Ike, this video left out 20 years of history, and jumped to Reagan.
Hey Barry, Give us a brake.
Steve Z on July 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM
He didn’t swear on his life… although some hear (uh-hmmm) probably wish he had…
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Spending is spending. Spend on the military to defend the country and on diplomacy. Return the rest of the spending to the states. The government doesn’t need the kind of assets they are amassing….political cronyism.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM
On that note, few years back the Debt to GDP ratio was at around 25% or so. Today its at 88%, the GDP is going in reverse and the Debt is flying high
jp on July 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Another important “learning experience”:
It might really matter who’s in charge of Congress. Focus on 2010!
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Can the $-making machines keep up?
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM
talking about things like a Growing Economy(GDP rising is general metric used).
Under Reagan for example, our Assets outpaced Liabilites(Debt) by about a 10 to 1 ratio. The Dems still hammer Reagan for the “Debt” though, in reality he reduced the Debt Burden. Same was happening under Bush(though not as dramatic) until the last 12 months or so.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 2:44 PM
however keep in mind that during WW2 the Debt to GDP ratio was well over 100%(worse than today).
the key is and always will be Economic Growth, something Obama doesn’t have a clue about unless his “Green” pipe dream pays off or some new major Invention comes along
jp on July 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM
OMG! There are no seat belts in this car…and the only air bag is the fool who’s driving it at breakneck speed!
Barb Dwyer on July 27, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Your fault, you payed for the Obama shuck and jive act, now you are going to sit and watch it.
tarpon on July 27, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Thanks for posting a 2 month old video.
Riposte on July 27, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Nowhere else to drive to once we get to that point…
except over the cliff into the Pacific Ocean! Is that where he is taking us?
PrincipledPilgrim on July 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Bernake can add to his resume that he presided over one of the worst financial debacles in history…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865498517982625.html
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Naw… those shovel ready jobs will make a bridge to Hawaii.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I understand what you meant. It seems though, that we are willing to have the debate from a starting point that allows what has happened in the past rather than what should be the optimal. This allows each Congress and administration, regardless of ideology, to keep spending. This just encourages the types of cronyism that we have now. If we are going to take this government back, then we should do it with an understanding closer to the rights of the federal government set forth in the constitution.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Precisely. If we keep approaching this as a matter of just doing things better than Obama, we’ll be screwed; however, if the right comes together and says, we MUST go in reverse, then our goals would be beneficial to the country.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Now, where is Ralph Nader standing on his soapbox screaming “Unsafe At Any Speed”?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 27, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Everything you need to know in life can be learned from watching Animal House…
Wyznowski on July 27, 2009 at 2:54 PM
After watching the Obama car wreck, he’s probably getting ready for 2012… Good luck Nader!
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 2:55 PM
To expand on my point….what is it about the percentage of GDP that allows government to grow. Because the private sector economy grows does not give the government the right to grow along with it. It is a false premise to base the size of government on percentage of GDP and only gives the government license to steal more money from us through taxes while using the money to buy votes.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 2:55 PM
its not politically possible to change things like that peacefully anyway. For one thing Spending will automatically increase as the Baby Boomers retire anyway, we have more elderly than we use to now which is part of the reason spending has increased.
in addition to that, a certain amount of “pork” is invevitable because to get elected in this system it takes Millions and Millions of Dollars. This is done within a Political Framework which allows for intervention into businesses. Whoever gets elected will have done so with Financial donations and support from select Lobbyiest, they are then forced into some pork spending to these interest. Unless that Public/Private collusion is closed OR we get a Dictator of some sort, this stuff isnt’ changing. Obama of course did this at insane levels in the midst of a financial crisis
There’s alot of moral blame to be thrown at “Main Street” as well, not just Wall Street and Washington
jp on July 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM
And then, of course, during a cyclical downturn in the economy, what happens? It isn’t the strong private businesses going bankrupt, it’s the governments going under and guess who bails them out? Anyone who thinks the government has saved this economy is just buying into their lies.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I think I would have liked to see it in terms of per-capita or as a fraction of GDP.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
it increases Tax Revenues for one thing, allowing them to spend the funds. a shrinking GDP will shrink Tax Revenues(happening now) putting Governments in danger fiscally, which will eventually have an ugly breaking point if Growth doesn’t resume.
the big problem is how the system is setup currently and what voters demand individually(while universally whining about what others with different interest demand).
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
The government should have never been involved in this aspect of our lives to begin with.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
It might take Obama to teach us this…
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Voters like their own pork dished out in their backyard, they just hate other peoples ‘pork’.
all politics is Local
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM
i know that we are on the same side of this ultimately but, for once I’d like to see the debate opened to everything involved, not just to try to restrain the growth of government, but dial it back…a lot.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM
As it should be and my point exactly.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I am enjoying the Animal House clips today. Keep ‘em coming.
Dean Wormer to Student Obama: “Arrogant, Elitist, and Stupid is no way to go through life.”
Mallard T. Drake on July 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
This is racial profiling.
Western_Civ on July 27, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Its not perfect, by any means, but allowances need to be made for things getting more expensive. You do not want to deter a war with the military budget of, say, Honduras. As population increases, and as the sophistication of the threats to our freedoms increase, the cost of protecting those freedoms goes up.
Now, if you want to complain about SS, welfare, and unemployment insurance, or even the public highway system, be my guest. The federal government doesn’t have any business spending a dime on those, let alone a share of GDP.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Keep posting until the American Public gets it — that the socialists are trying to destroy the economy and are banking on you to do nothing.
Christian Conservative on July 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM
One of my first posts on this topic was for the government to spend on military and diplomacy and return the rest of the spending to the states. My point is to get the conversation off the GDP formula which is marketed by the government to keep most from knowing they are being robbed.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Wait a second…
First, what kind of war? War on Drugs is something conservatives should be looking at. There’s probably a lot of expenses that are going into this that are doing nothing put marginalizing (not empowering) certain demographics.
Secondly, if we are talking about the “real” kind of wars, well what exactly are “real” wars? Ones where we go to Islamic countries, take out their dictators, then pay for them to modernize a la Sharia?
Maybe it’s the desire to have troops in every country in the world (we’re getting there…)
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM
It’s amazing that under FDR we were going at 40mph. That’s without inflation considered in this little tale.
shick on July 27, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Does that somehow make it irrelevant? Life must be tough when you are so far ahead of the curve….
Mallard T. Drake on July 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I am happy that we have a military presence in S Korea and Japan…maybe even Germany, though I don’t see the need given our contributions to NATO. The point is to help provide protection for our allies. Beyond that, not a big fan.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM
and keep in mind there are some Crackpots out there(which are considered to be limited government libertarians) that are Lying about the Military cost in the Budget and have recently stated they would rather Drastically cut current Military spending(because he lives in Pinko land) instead of attacking Nanny State spending by the Feds.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM
At high speeds cars crash. I doubt Obama is trained as a race car driver, so we will inevitably soon be in an ambulance going much slower…
I question what does the road back from the disaster Obama is creating look like. How do we ever recover from this idiot?
petunia on July 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
War was an example — and I deliberately used the word “deter” because I didn’t want to get into peace time disarmament. Law enforcement is another example of a justified expense, including the enforcement of laws restricting dangerous substances, particularly if laxity in enforcement in one state causes it to become a source of contraband.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I don’t mind helping out S.K. for historical and current reasons. Japan… eh? Don’t really see the point if they’re in S.K.
Germany? Don’t really see the point – unless we are planning on invading Russia.
NATO – not holding my breathe for them to protect
GeorgiaUkraine.Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:18 PM
He adjusted for inflation, but not for productivity growth.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM
we’ve also spent money stationing troops abroad in someway, for as long as the country has existed.
Part of the cost of those bases are paid for by the host countries also, so the actual cost of keeping the troops over there isn’t what some say it is. Unless you include, as they do, the Salary cost of the Military personell abroad(which would mean abolishing their positions in addition to getting rid of the bases).
some “libertarians” will never learn though and ‘connect the dots’ on the fact that Trade and libertarian Economics is dependent on a “Strong Horse” military power protecting the Trade Routes. Like we are doing now and the British did before us.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Japan because we foisted a constitution on them that prevented them from building an adequate military. They are trying to change that now. Still, our presence there is more about China and Russia than anything.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM
As much as many won’t address this, military spending has pork in it too. Let’s start fighting wars (even in war time) to win and not to build nations and test out drones.
Are you referring to Marijuana? If so, I fail to see how the War on Marijuana is justified – btw it’s not really working.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Rumsfeld tried this, well not abolishing the funding of it, but moving it from Germany and COld War interest to War on Terror interest. Germans had a fit about it causing a geopolitical problem.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Agreed. I say it’s time we encourage them to change.
As I pointed out earlier, if we still have a presence in S.K., I don’t see why we’d need to be in Japan.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I imagine that there are bases where it is actually cheaper to station troupes abroad than at home.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Yeah… wonder why… maybe cause we give them free protection. *rolls eyes*
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I’m all for these types of presence. We are in over our head in Afghanistan and soon Pakistan, though. Time for either going in to win it or getting out. This is the same MO as Vietnam and with the same political will as well.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM
China, Russia and……Global Commerce.
would Hong Kong be an Economic Libertarian wonderland had the British not taken the big stick in there, and the concepts that go with it: including Economics, British Common Law(and business law), etc? Who do you think China eventually learned from to do what they are doing Commercially?
Point is, this type of Spending pays rewards, and has paticularly in Japan, South Korea….hopefully one day in Iraq.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I thought that maybe if we understand their religion of Peas, we’d get along swimmingly.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Well, that and Meth, primarily.
Its all the same, really.
Count to 10 on July 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Others may know more about this than I but it seems that the Army is in SK and the Marines and Navy in Japan.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Not sure the progress, but we had/have a base in Bolivia. The contract on it is/was up and the Bolivian chavez leaning Government was/is claimng they want us gone. So last i heard we were looking at relocating the base to Columbia where they want us and it meets the strategic objectives(Chavez) down there.
jp on July 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM
First… why did the Brits succumb to dead, stagnant socialism while HK was booming?
Secondly, although HK has a good record on many things in the markets, it still has a bad rep when it comes to their large number of gov’t housing projects…
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM
… eh… OK. I think meth is far more addictive.
But they do have one thing in common – people are still doing them. Drug Wars cause the price to go up (the impoverished users become poorer) and puts more money in the pockets of those in the black market.
Upstater85 on July 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Good points about HK and commerce. Those days of influence that the UK held in HK are over now for the Western countries. China and Russia might can still play that game but not us.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Don’t see that with this administration.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:31 PM
“Obama Supporters Use Latest Debt Projections to Press for Constitutional Amendment Allowing Involuntary Servitude” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-supporters-use-latest-debt.html
Mervis Winter on July 27, 2009 at 3:32 PM
…and printing trillions and triggering higher interest rates (long term rates have already doubled), and triggering crushing inflation which effectively takes money out of your bank account and wallet and makes you earn less. Obama is a master at accomplishing his kill-America agenda by slight of hand isn’t he? Of course, he’s aided by the fact that MOST Americans don’t even know what inflation is. Sad.
marklmail on July 27, 2009 at 3:35 PM
The concept of “managed inflation” has always been government speak for taxation.
genso on July 27, 2009 at 3:39 PM
pull over, I think I’m going to puke.
workingforpigs on July 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Got to be honest… that video confused me more than anything. I prefer how Beck has explained it.
RightWinged on July 27, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Excellent illustration of the relative speeds at which different administrations/Congresses put on debt.
Obama is gonna hit a pothole at that speed and tumble 30 times in a huge wipeout – 2010 and 2012 elections.
Sapwolf on July 27, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Get on over to Cafe Press and make a bumper sticker. I’ll buy one.
rockhead on July 27, 2009 at 4:28 PM
174?! Better learn how to draft.
Jeff from WI on July 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »