# US National Debt



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Here is an interesting graph of the US national debt, broken down by presidential administrations. Originally found here: [link]










I wonder what a similar graph of the CDN debt would look like.

Tawk amungst youselves.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Looks like Clinton was starting to flatten out the curve. I thought he was a tax and spend Democrat? 

It really started to climb with Reagan. I thought also that tax cuts were the Republican answer to putting more money into the pockets of the populace and thus stimulating the economy? 

Perhaps the debt and the deficit are not as closely linked as many people think. Or perhaps surpluses are (surprise surprise) managed differently by each party.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex said:


> Looks like Clinton was starting to flatten out the curve. I thought he was a tax and spend Democrat?


Gee, I thought he was a tend to sex Democrat!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Cigar sales?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

changed the meaning of "smoking a fatty" single handlely.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

as this data been adjusted for inflation? if not then it's meaningless.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Hi,

If this is some anti Bush thing, you are probably already talking to the converted.

s.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Tawk amungst youselves.


I'm actually feeling a little verklempt about the U.S. economy. My wife & I bought a condo, and you just know that Canada will be greatly affected when the poop hits the fan down there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gw. when the holders of the bonds and notes for the US debt start to demand higher interest rates, that is when it all starts to "hit the fan". We shall see.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

TMR, where have you been?

If it were adjusted for inflation, are you suggesting it would be flat, or flatter?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Below is the U.S. annual deficit to GDP ratio. Shows how costly the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were...they were really just tax shifting.

-3% 1977 Carter
-3% 1978 Carter
-2% 1979 Carter
-3% 1980 Carter
-3% 1981 Reagan
-4% 1982 Reagan
-6% 1983 Reagan
-5% 1984 Reagan
-5% 1985 Reagan
-5% 1986 Reagan
-3% 1987 Reagan
-3% 1988 Reagan
-3% 1989 Bush
-4% 1990 Bush
-4% 1991 Bush
-5% 1992 Bush
-4% 1993 Clinton
-3% 1994 Clinton
-2% 1995 Clinton
-1% 1996 Clinton
0% 1997 Clinton
1% 1998 Clinton
1% 1999 Clinton
2% 2000 Clinton
1% 2001 Bush
-2% 2002 Bush
-3% 2003 Bush
-4% 2004 Bush


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Tax shifting from where to where? Please expand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I naturally revert to economicese due to training 

If a government pays for a tax cut by borrowing money, the interest on the borrowed money is paid by future tax payers. A shift to the future. 

Also, if the tax cut is not distributed the same as the taxes that are collected, the cost of interest is shifted. For example, if a a tax cut is $1 trillion, of which 90% goes to the 'wealthy' then, if the money is borrowed, how is the interest paid? If the wealthy only pay 80% of the extra taxes a government takes in, there is a shift. The shift may not be bad or good, that depends on your opinion of whether the status quo was good or bad.

It's very difficult to track, and easy to blame the rich because too many people think they are a bottomless source of social welfare, but Bush's tax cuts were strange looking, with regards to income and relative to Canadian tax cuts I've looked at. This does not mean they are 'bad'..what is bad? Economics can tell you what will create the most total wealth, but the distribution of that wealth is a social decision.

I think I was still using economicese. Sorry, if it's not clear tell me and I'll try again.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

That is a good explanation and it does clear things up somewhat. So you are describing temporal shifts (future taxpayers) and potentially shifts laterally to other tax brackets.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> TMR, where have you been? f it were adjusted for inflation, are you suggesting it would be flat, or flatter?


it wouldn't be flat, but flatter yes. the data goes back to 1938, when a dollar was worth significantly more.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

It'd be flatter, but I bet some of the spikes would still be pretty pronounced.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But the GDP to deficit ratios as inflation proof........and THEY are the smoking gun.

Interesting article here

http://www.mises.org/story/967

How prescient was this last paragraph



> While the United States undoubtedly has the military might to reach into every country and assert its global empire, its precarious financial and economic foundation may crumble under the burden of rising international debt. Even if we ignore the geopolitical overreach and the growing Muslim suspicion of everything American, the pyramid of American debt calls for caution and repair. There would be no greater irony and tragedy than for American troops to enter Baghdad and the American dollar to fall from loss of international support. *Many a victory has been suicidal.*


and it's waaay worse than when he wrote that article.

If a victory is suicidal.....what's a defeat in these circumstances.....


----------

