Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[TheJedi]

What I find telling is where we see the largest increases and it seems to contradict certain long held arguments regarding spending.

http://www.icyte.com/system/snapshots/fs1/2/a/a/c/2aac39edc1310e4130795214956150ea73ffd942/index.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

 

[TheJedi]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

 

[Moonglow]

What I find telling is where we see the largest increases and it seems to contradict certain long held arguments regarding spending.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your not suppose to show how GOP presidents spent trillions to increase the debt...

 

[TheJedi]

It's not so much about Rep or Dem but more about settling claims about debt and GDP with regards to tax policy and spending.

I just find it fascinating and Political Chic is right, numbers can be deceiving but I felt the chart regarding Debt as a % of GDP to be telling so I would be interested to read other people's takes on this.

 

[KissMy]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

 

[TheJedi]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

Could you please post a link to the sources of this info as a courtesy to the other posters?

 

[Uncensored2008]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

Could you please post a link to the sources of this info as a courtesy to the other posters?

Dude, you know that if he complies, he'll be posting a picture of his anus, right?

I mean, we ALL know that is the source...

 

[TheJedi]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

Could you please post a link to the sources of this info as a courtesy to the other posters?

Dude, you know that if he complies, he'll be posting a picture of his anus, right?

I mean, we ALL know that is the source...

Actually, I'd be inclined to agree with his assessment but I would first like to see the source material before I render judgement.

 

[KissMy]

Both Bushs were Big Spending job loss disasters. Massive price increases during their terms. Clinton & Democrat congress CUT Spending. Obama has also slashed deficit spending.

Clinton & Obama administrations have the best job creation records. Employment of working age population consistantly rose at faster rates than at any of the best time under either Bush administration. Bushs destroyed massively destroyed more jobs than they ever created. Notice the steepest job growth occurred under the Clinton Administration with Democrat House & Senate.

 

[TheJedi]

OK. I found the source for his charts though I have yet to locate the exact study these are referencing:

Economic Research - St. Louis Fed

Seems like a pretty cool site. I am going to check it out and see what I can find.

 

[TheJedi]

Couldn't find this studied with the posted charts, but I found this gem. It's one of the more rational takes I have seen debt to GDP ratio:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/11/ES1120.pdf

In contrast, expenditures were
above their 1950-74 average level in all but 5 of the 38
years from 1970 through 2007: On average, expenditures
increased from 18.3 percent of GDP for 1950-74 to 20.8
percent of GDP for 1975-2007. In short, the average deficit
as a share of GDP rose 1.9 percentage points from 1950-74
to 1975-2007, which is more than accounted for by the same
period’s 2.5-percentage-point increase in spending as a
share of GDP.
Hence, the rise in the national debt from the 1970s
through 2007 is entirely a consequence of the federal gov-
ernment’s increase of expenditures without an offsetting
increase in revenues to pay for that additional spending.
If nominal GDP increases at the same rate as the debt,
the debt-to-GDP ratio remains constant. For 1960-74, the
deficits were relatively small and nominal GDP growth
relatively rapid, so the debt-to-GDP ratio declined. In con-
trast, for 1975-2007, the deficits were larger and nominal
GDP growth slowed, nearly doubling the debt-to-GDP ratio.
As one might expect, the most recent experience is dif-
ferent: The marked increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio dur-
ing the past three years is a consequence of both an increase
in expenditures and a reduction in revenue. Specifically,
average expenditures increased to 23.2 percent of GDP
while average revenue declined to 15.8 percent of GDP,
which makes this contribution to the deficit about equally
divided between increased expenditures and declining
revenue.

 

[Indeependent]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

PC...Too many charts to back up your "statement of fact"; my middle aged eyes can't handle all the reading.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

They cut spending from what to what?

 

[KissMy]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

They cut spending from what to what?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

They cut spending from what to what?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

Saw that chart the first time.

Now do you have one that shows they cut spending?

 

[oldfart]

OK. I found the source for his charts though I have yet to locate the exact study these are referencing:

Economic Research - St. Louis Fed

Seems like a pretty cool site. I am going to check it out and see what I can find.

There is no study. FRED is a huge database of over 30,000 data series with a graph generator. You pick your data series, time periods, and get your graph.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....but even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

 

[TheJedi]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....but even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

 

[PoliticalChic]

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....but even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

"I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt...."


You're not really this dense....are you?

Where did you find "we only point out one party for increasing debt."



The specific point was the myth that Clinton had surpluses.

I believe I've put that fable to rest.