11 Responses to “National Debt Over The Last 50 Years”

1. sleipner Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 11:01 am

   This must be in 1950 dollars or something, cause the Republicans are adding what, 700 billion a year now?

2. wj Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am

   Does make the point rather clearly about who are the big spenders in Washington, doesn’t it?

3. Meredith Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 1:28 pm

   That is really telling, especially about Clinton and Bush. What an accomplishment for Clinton, who dropped it all the way down from it’s highest point, and what a miserable failure for Bush, who put it all the way back up!

4. Justin Gardner Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm

   I deleted a comment from a troll. For the reason why, click here.

   And to the troll in question, LEAVE US ALONE!

5. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 9:33 pm

   Now plot out the GDP over the same time period.

6. DosPeros Says:
   October 27th, 2006 at 10:43 pm

   Exactly, Jimmy.

7. Tully Says:
   October 28th, 2006 at 12:39 pm

   What Jimmy said. Without that it’s meaningless. And running it as %GDP is appropriate as well. So is seperating out the public debt from “intragovernmental holdings,” which is money the government “owes” itself.

8. Justin Gardner Says:
   October 28th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

   Okay, here you go.

9. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
   October 29th, 2006 at 3:51 pm

   Pretty solid debt burden of between 50-70% of GDP for the past 20 years. Notice that the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios occurred during the recession years of the mid-late 1970s.

   50-60% is much lower than the 80-90% in Europe or the 120%+ for Japan (who is our larges lender by the way). This means we are paying off old debts and taking out new loans to promote steady growth. That is why we have the lowest interest-on-debt rates in the world. Our markets are always reliable to foreign lenders; low risk = low rates. A sure sign of a healthy, stable economy. No need to get your panties in a bunch Justin. :-P

   Here is an interesting perspective from a non-partsan economist. It is worth adding to the discussion.

10. Tully Says:
    October 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    It’s not easy to compare to the national debt of other countries. They have differing ways of accounting for their debt. The porblem isn’t what we have now, the problem is that it’s increasing, and that a big chunk of it is not really “debt” in the fiscal sense, but “debt” as in “promised future benefits that will grow faster than revenues.”

    Public debt is right now about 40% of GDP. It’s the “intragovernmental holdings” (money the government “owes” itself) that drive it up so high. If we don’t control those program entitlements, especially Medicare and SS, we be screwed. Or our kids are–we’ll demand our SS checks and our Medicare, and bitch about the growing taxes and deficits…

11. PatHMV Says:
    October 31st, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    I’ve done the same chart but expressing the annual surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP. I’ve also more clearly shown which party controlled the House of Representatives during the relevant time periods. The data becomes much more ambiguous when you look at it that way. The trend to reducing the debt actually began a couple of years before Clinton took office, and it really hit its zenith after the Republicans took control of the House in the 1994 elections. See this chart at Stubborn Facts.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• Not a Good Sign
• Churches Help Manage Debt
• Raising The $7.8 Trillion Debt Roof
• Obama To Settle Hillary’s Debt?
• Clinton Holding $20 Million In Debt
• Kerry Endorses Obama
• Unity Between Obama And Clinton?
• Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?
• Retailers Have Worst January In Nearly 40 Years
• Dollar Hits 15 Year Low