An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
National Debt Over The Past 50 Years
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “National Debt Over The Past 50 Years”
Gosh, look at those facts presenting their liberal bias again.
Party of fiscal responsibility my ass.
Hmmmmm!
I haven’t seen democrats really push “soaring national debt” as a campaign issue. (I don’t see everything.) Is this because the GOP line, that the Dems will raise your taxes, has scared the Dems off this issue?
Exactly what I’ve been saying for…oh…as long as I’ve been aware of politics.
IMO, Democrats should be pushing the soaring debt issue hard. Sure, some Republicans will say that means Democrats want to raise your taxes. The Democrats can counter with the facts and this simple question: what happens to our taxes when all this debt has to be paid back, which it will, if we don’t work on improving the situation now? The future tax picture in this country is downright scary.
So this is just the annual increase in debt rather than the total debt, not including what’s happened since the current economic boom took effect? And that’s the debt for everyone and every organization, public and private, in the country, not just the Federal government’s debt?
Do you have the same chart with the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP?
Ryan – I agree. Also- should be bringing out the federal government’s incompetence during Katrina. The dems took a cookie-cutter, one-size fits all approach to campaigning that lacks depth or imagination when they came up with the current strategy- conflate every candidate with Bush. I think they shelved “culture of corruption” which might have been a little more effective as well.
Stick,
All told, total debt in America (Personal, Government, Business) is around $70,000,000,000,000 (70 TRILLION DOLLARS)
Stick, here you go
That’s what it looks like except it is including what’s happened since the current economic “boom” (some would question that term) took effect.
Nope, that looks like just the annual increase in federal government debt. Scary when you think of that, isn’t it? Our government’s wild spending and lack of desire to pay for that spending up front is creating a future tax hell.
Remind me again, what are Republicans good at?
Anything besides message discipline?
the truly sad part is the govt has a better debt ratio than the average household.
I hate to pop the Democratic self-congratulation some (esp. since I’m a Dem myself), but these debt numbers do not necessarily represent changes made during the presidency in question. Economic upturns and downturns both lag the policies that help in creating them by some amount of time (how much is something that the experts disagree on, but it’s at least a couple of years). Which means that all presidents unfairly benefit from and are blamed because of the economic policies of the prior president.
Oh, and the president has remarkably little direct control over the economy in the first place – this graph would be a lot more valid if compared with tight vs. loose Fed policies and Fed chairmen as opposed to presidents.
LOL!
You Americans have to get rid of your creditcards. I’m actually quite serious about it. Cut them up and throw them away.
Brian I agree, but this is chart is damning. It’s not just the economic cycle that is responsible, it’s also how much more the government spends per household during Republican presidencies as well.
Mikkel, what the chart at your link tells us is that Republicans aren’t really the party of fiscal responsibility like they claim to be, which I believe is your point. Not a problem. Do we have a list of what contributed to each of the increases (was it military spending, social security &medicare, earmarks, highway funding, etc.)? Knowing what all the expenses were would enable us to better comprehend the data behind the linked graph, just as knowing why flat/reduction areas are the way they are (Clinton benefited from a period of very limited conflict while the two Bushes both had wars to jack up their respective numbers, for example).
See, graphs are snapshots of something that is inherently gray but that has been forced into being white or black (like setting your contrast in Photoshop to maximum). Without a LOT of graphs and/or explanatory text, graphs can be misleading.
I’m not trying to negate your point, but rather to nuance it. If most of the increases are due to something like Social Security as the population ages, then Republicans can attack your claims and point out that it’s a “Democratic” program that is the problem and so isn’t their fault.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and if you’re statistics-based arguments aren’t bulletproof, someone significantly less friendly than me will put a bullet into them eventually.
Yes that’s a great point. Heritage has all sorts of charts. Here is a list of ones on just federal spending. You’ll see they have charts about all your questions. You can see there is tons of nuance — except for the fact that the last six years have by far been the worst on all fronts. It’s the only time where mandatory and discretionary (both defense and non) have skyrocketed. Still, before that period both parties looked just as bad so the Democrat label is unfair imo.
Listen, I really, really hate it when the damn Liberal Media insists on publishing facts I don’t like. But somehow, I still know that this must be Clinton’s fault.
One last point. For mandatory spending, look at the chart “Total Mandatory Spending Excluding Net Interest” not notice it has a constant slope until the last six years. Then look at mandatory vs discretionary and see how it’s starting to accelerate faster and faster due to interest. This is why the debt is so deadly.
Then look at this!
I’ve been going through the charts but haven’t quite found what I am looking for yet. We’ve got deficits per administration, which is important since the administration proposes the budget. I’d also like to see party in control of Congress, or each house, related to this. Has anyone found anything similar yet? I guess I could just do the numbers in my head. Republicans in 1994. Democrats since 70-something, right?
Just adding to the point, and I am a Democrat and liberal, if Democrats had control of Congress from the early 70s until 1994, well that matches exactly the huge increase across Presidents of both parties. Well, that’s not quite fair either. Only 4 years of a Carter presidency in that entire time, so it’s mostly Congressional Democrats and Executive Republicans during the big 70s and 80s upswing in New Debt. Then the Republicans take control of Congress in 94 and look at the numbers dropping. Of course, when the Republicans finally have control of executive and legislative in 2002, it’s a fiscal disaster. Except that the current regime has done miserably in all ways, it’s not clear what conclusions to draw.
OK, ignore me, when I followed the link, I saw that the Congressional control by party is right there as well. Go lazy me. And Dems were in control from much earlier than just the early 70s.
Record debt must run in the family
Close to 60% of our federal expenditures are because of the “New Deal” and “Great Society” programs.
I guess that’s the fault of the Republicans too, isn’t it? Maybe the snarky ones can answer that.
Don’t forget to bring your bullet-proof vests as you visit the “Great Society” inner cities.
I guess that’s the fault of the Republicans too, isn’t it? Maybe the snarky ones can answer that.
Who actually did welfare reform?
Hint:it wasn’t a Republican.
Also I would like to see some proof of your claim.
And some acknowledgement of Republican love of ‘corperate welfare’
Well, I suppose you’re right, Snarky, it wasn’t a Republican who did welfare reform, it was a Republican congress that finally forced a Democrat president to sign onto it. The GOP had been calling for welfare reform for years while the Dems argued that it wasn’t broken, argued that the Republicans were just racist and didn’t care about the poor, argued that even if there were problems, they didn’t trust the GOP to fix them because of course the GOP just wanted to dismantle the New Deal and eliminate all social safety nets, etc, etc.
Gee, these arguments all sound familiar, don’t they? Maybe cause they are being recycled now with the SS reform debate. And then the next time we have a Democrat president, he/she will coapt that issue too.
Pacature,
You have the best analysis. Also, the graph does not say whether it is all debt or publically held debt. If it is all debt then much of the increase in during and after Reagan has come from the increase in social security taxes that have created a huge bookkeeping debt of one part of the government owing another part.
I also wonder how much of the increasing debt is due to the rachet effect. Both parties add new programs during the good times that add to the debt during the economic downturns. How much of the spkie in the first couple of years of Bush is that it was from program created/increased during the Clinton Administration.
Also, in the current politcal climate, no Congressman wants to have a district that pays more in taxes than it receives. The only way to do that is through deficit spending.
And your claiming this isn’t true? Because when I’m around Republicans, this seems to be their worldview. I know for a fact that my father was raised to hate FDR and the New Deal with a passion.
The man positivly hates SS even as it becomes his prime source of living revenue after he lost his ass in the stock market.
Thats a lot of programing to overcome, and I see it in you to CS, even if you are a decent sort.
You can say the GOP forced Clinton, but the fact is, he signed it.
Compare and contrast SS reform in a completely GOP owned Congress and presidency.
The truth is, people will never trust the GOP with SS reform. They suck with mony. Refer to the chart to see what I mean.
Dont feel bad, as a Democrat I get stuck with the misconception that I want to take all your money and give it to crack-smoking black people.
That notion seems just as silly as all the misconceptions about the GOP you are taking umbrage at.
LOL, well, Snarky, I agree completely that this is just as silly. Like most stereotypes, there is often a small kernel of truth: yes, conservatives generally distrust government solutions and tend to prefer market based solutions, and yes, some conservatives fit the greed/corporate welfare/”the poor are poor because they are lazy” type of mentality to a T. Likewise, Democrats tend to want to find a governmental solution to most societal problems, and they tend to want to use progressive taxation to redistribute wealth from the top sectors to the bottom rungs.
I actually do give Clinton credit for signing the welfare reform bill. I think it was the right thing to do, and frankly it was also a shrewd political move. I don’t think that the legislation was perfect but it was certainly a step in the right direction.
As far as Republicans wanting to dismantle the New Deal, I’m sure there are some who would go to extremes but I’d say the general feeling of Republicans that I know is that we don’t want to take away social safety nets but we do see problems with programs that were originally meant to provide that safety net but now have grown into entitlements. We feel that this is a problem in terms of bloated budgets with sacred cows that can’t be touched, and also that many of the programs involve wasteful spending and solutions that create more problems than they solve (creating a cycle of poverty due to the entitlement mentality, and fostering a sense of dependency among impoverished people were problems with the welfare state, for example).
I am for pay as you go. I am also for thinking outside the box.
For instance, we should seriously consider doing away witht he laws now considered vice.
Instead we should tax it heavily(Im including beer and cigerettes which are already heavily taxed), and use those taxes to fund social programs. This goes all the way down to states rights and such.
You dont want to allow say prostitution in your city. Thats fine, but dont look to the federal goverment for money. The feds gave that local the means to raise revenue.
We have to have a certien level of consideration for the less fortunate, but we have a lot of debt to pay down thanks to you know who.
Social engineering cost money, big money. Jail is social engineering, especially concerning victimless crimes. Time to end the more ridiculas attempts to save people from themselves.
That is where the Republicans need to go. Back to their libertarian roots.
PING:
TITLE: Some facts about budget deficits and the parties responsible
BLOG NAME: Stubborn Facts
Last Friday, Justin Gardner at The Moderate Voice posted a chart, from Testing.com, showing that the budget deficit had gone up during Republican presidencies and gone down when Democrats held the White House. True enough, but when it comes to the federal budget there are a million and one ways to look at the numbers. Here’s an analysis I think is a bit more illustrative of what’s really going on. I’ll preface my analysis with the comment that the level of increased spending during the past 6 years with a Republican president and a Republican House of Representatives has been far too high.