RSSThe Growing National Debt Combined 1968 – 2007
This chart illustrates the magnitude of the debt that is typically quoted in the media. It is far too time-consuming (as illustrated in the preceding explanation) for a reporter to explain the distinction between the two components, and it makes for better headlines to say that the national debt is almost $10 trillion. The $4 trillion number is useful, however, in that it serves as a reminder that the United States has made a huge commitment to Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients and other beneficiaries in the future. But as shown later, this commitment is far larger than $4 trillion.
4 Responses to “The Growing National Debt Combined 1968 – 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Ross Perot, the founder of EDS and one-time presidential candidate who pretty much put Bill Clinton into the White House, is known (and parodied) for his love of charts. To that end he has an interesting website full of various charts — Perotcharts.com.
October 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The TRUTH be know…(one more time!!!) Mr. Perot DID NOT put Slick Willie into the White House. Accurate exit polling clearly showed that 50% of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton, & 50% would have voted for Bush…so, it was a wash. If you remember, Clinton’s campaign slogan was ” It’s the economy , stupid”, and that is exactly what is causing B. Husssein Obama to possibly get elected. Wall street has contributed 3 times the amount to Obama’s campaign then was given to the McCain campaign. It doesn’t take a Ross Perot to figure out what is going on. They want our economy to tank…until AFTER the election since the Dems benefit more from a depressed economy. Republicans become the losers. If Iraq or Afganistan was raging, people would have a more sobering outlook at the election and would vote with their HEART & LOGIC…and NOT fall for what they want to hear. What on Earth ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? What we as Americans are most bankrupt of is MORALS & ETHICS, otherwise this whole banking fiasco wouldn’t have happened. Our elected represenatives just added 3/4 of a TRILLION $’s to OUR national debt.
” All evil needs to prosper is for GOOD people to do NOTHING” (paraphrased) Edmund Burke – American Patriot
October 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
This chart is very interesting. When Clinton was president the annual deficit disappeared and the “debt” went down. However, I notice that the intragovernmental debt continued to rise even during those years. Which leads to this question:
When the deficit supposedly went away, was that really because of the higher taxes and base closings (and the constant government shutdowns) or was it artificially propped up by larger “borrowing” from SS and Medicaid? Or does that borrowing count toward the annual deficit spending total?
I hope this makes sense …
November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The charts shows that “budget surplus” doesn’t mean what many folks think it means, nor even what federal politicians (who should know better) imply that it means.
Clearly the chart shows that the total debt has risen every year since Reagan. The last year that the total debt actually decreased was 1969. The budget “surplus” claimed for the Clinton administration ignores the fact that the treasury owes money to Social Security and to other government entities.
Even bright guys manage to get confused here. Here’s a quote from then Senator Obama a few months ago:
“When President Bush came into office we had a budget surplus and the national debt was little over five trillion dollars. It has doubled over the last eight years.”
He talks as if “budget surplus” means that we owe less total money at the end of the year than we did at the beginning. If he didn’t understand this as a Senator, hopefully someone will clue him in before he starts submitting his own budgets.
I appreciate these charts, but I believe they’d paint a fairer picture if they showed the debt first and then clearly showed that the federal concept of a budget surplus is nothing more than an accounting fiction.
If you’d like to see the data (presumably used by the chart above), see table 7.1 in the following document:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf