Debt by President

[NightCrawler]

Ronald Reagan: 1.0 Trillion to 2.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

George H. Bush: 2.6 Trillion to 4.0 Trillion ( 4 years )

William J. Clinton: 4.0 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

George W. Bush: 5.6 Trillion to 9.6 Trillion* ( 8 years )


All numbers rounded and "about", George W Bush is only starting his second term but could hit 9.6 trillion when he leaves office in 2008.

Current debt is 7.6 Trillion.


Interesting points:

1. Reagan and Clinton both added 1.6 trillion to the debt in 8 years.

2. Bush Sr. added 1.4 trillion in only 4 years

3. Bush Jr. added 2 trillion in only 4 years

 

[irwincur]

William J. Clinton: 4.0 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

But I thought that he had a surplus?

Oh wait, now that I check the REAL numbers I notice that there never was a surplus. There was one on paper, but not in reality. Seems like another media built myth to crate a god out of Clinton.

 

[Stunt]

It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

 

[Dissipate]

Uh, hello. This debt is just part of the "social contract." Anyone who complains about this debt and their obligation to pay it should just read the "contract" again.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: irwincur

William J. Clinton: 4.0 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

But I thought that he had a surplus?

Oh wait, now that I check the REAL numbers I notice that there never was a surplus. There was one on paper, but not in reality. Seems like another media built myth to crate a god out of Clinton.

Don't be such a dumbass. The number below (in bold) is the yearly fiscal surplus:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.2 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.4 2.0 -164.0 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.2 -103.3 81.3 * -21.9 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.4 -0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.5 3,632.4

2000 2,025.2 1,789.1 86.3 151.8 -2.0 236.2 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.0 -32.5 163.0 -2.3 128.2 3,319.6

 

[Stunt]

Hrmmm...i guess the conservatives are wrong...unless they can give reasoning.

 

[NightCrawler]

Your confusing debt and deficits, deficits are yearly and the debt is the total that continues to grow.

The thread wasn't about yearly deficits only TOTAL DEBT and how much it grew under each President.


PS: There will never be a surplus til the debt is payed down to zero, otherwise taking in more then government spends each year is NOT a surplus.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: irwincur

William J. Clinton: 4.0 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

But I thought that he had a surplus?

Oh wait, now that I check the REAL numbers I notice that there never was a surplus. There was one on paper, but not in reality. Seems like another media built myth to crate a god out of Clinton.

You sir, are a delight.

Articles like these are the reason I read the P & N forums. Totally foolish comments lacking any basis in fact. Btw, try using a spell checker, it'll make you sound smarter.

I usually don't make comments like these, but come on, that was just "plane" dumb!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

It is goverment accounting. The goverment owes itself more than $3T(social security IOUs and such) The liberals like to leave those debts off when talking about the "balanced budgets" in the 90s, however they have no problem bringing them forward today.


However if you index the debt to GDP and/or inflation, things are not nearlly bad as they seem.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

It is goverment accounting. The goverment owes itself more than $3T(social security IOUs and such) The liberals like to leave those debts off when talking about the "balanced budgets" in the 90s, however they have no problem bringing them forward today.


However if you index the debt to GDP and/or inflation, things are not nearlly bad as they seem.

About as bad as it has been in 50 years or so (GDP wise).

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: irwincur

William J. Clinton: 4.0 Trillion to 5.6 Trillion ( 8 years )

But I thought that he had a surplus?

Oh wait, now that I check the REAL numbers I notice that there never was a surplus. There was one on paper, but not in reality. Seems like another media built myth to crate a god out of Clinton.

You sir, are a delight.

Articles like these are the reason I read the P & N forums. Totally foolish comments lacking any basis in fact. Btw, try using a spell checker, it'll make you sound smarter.

I usually don't make comments like these, but come on, that was just "plane" dumb!

I'm trying to figure out if you've used plane instead of plain intentionally while insulting someone.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

It is goverment accounting. The goverment owes itself more than $3T(social security IOUs and such) The liberals like to leave those debts off when talking about the "balanced budgets" in the 90s, however they have no problem bringing them forward today.


However if you index the debt to GDP and/or inflation, things are not nearlly bad as they seem.

About as bad as it has been in 50 years or so (GDP wise).

While the graph should be updated to show 2004 numbers rather than projections(deficit was lower than projected), your point is valid. We fought WWII with 20% of GDP, today we cant even run our goverment on that.....

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

It is goverment accounting. The goverment owes itself more than $3T(social security IOUs and such) The liberals like to leave those debts off when talking about the "balanced budgets" in the 90s, however they have no problem bringing them forward today.


However if you index the debt to GDP and/or inflation, things are not nearlly bad as they seem.

If you look at the cbo link that conjur posted, you will see in the last column that the total debt went down every year 1998-2001.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
It says in 8years, surplus could have been for a few years.
Although i have heard as well that it wasnt a real surplus from conservatives on this board.
Any idea why it was one on paper, but not for real?

It is goverment accounting. The goverment owes itself more than $3T(social security IOUs and such) The liberals like to leave those debts off when talking about the "balanced budgets" in the 90s, however they have no problem bringing them forward today.


However if you index the debt to GDP and/or inflation, things are not nearlly bad as they seem.

If you look at the cbo link that conjur posted, you will see in the last column that the total debt went down every year 1998-2001.

linkage

Total public debt by year

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

Every year total debt has gone up.

 

[nergee]

Also think about the $2.1 trillion non-mortgage consumer debt added onto the pile.......it's a beautiful world............

 

[Tom]

Well, charrison, to convince me you're going to have to explain this page to me, which has both figures on it.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom
Well, charrison, to convince me you're going to have to explain this page to me, which has both figures on it.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Debt held by public went down one year, while intragovermental debt went up. The result, total goverment debt went up. This is not a hard problem.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: nergee
Also think about the $2.1 trillion non-mortgage consumer debt added onto the pile.......it's a beautiful world............

Think of the 45T in assests the population of this country has...

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tom
Well, charrison, to convince me you're going to have to explain this page to me, which has both figures on it.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Debt held by public went down one year, while intragovermental debt went up. The result, total goverment debt went up. This is not a hard problem.

well, what i meant is i don't really know what intragovernmental debt is, I suspect it's some kind of bookkeeping, but I don't know how to evaluate it without a better explanation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tom
Well, charrison, to convince me you're going to have to explain this page to me, which has both figures on it.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Debt held by public went down one year, while intragovermental debt went up. The result, total goverment debt went up. This is not a hard problem.

well, what i meant is i don't really know what intragovernmental debt is, I suspect it's some kind of bookkeeping, but I don't know how to evaluate it without a better explanation.

The bulk of it is SS moneys that got spent in the general fund and replaced with bonds.

 

[Genx87]

While the graph should be updated to show 2004 numbers rather than projections(deficit was lower than projected), your point is valid. We fought WWII with 20% of GDP, today we cant even run our goverment on that.....

The graph doesnt show the late 1940s where we had 120% of debt to gdp.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

While the graph should be updated to show 2004 numbers rather than projections(deficit was lower than projected), your point is valid. We fought WWII with 20% of GDP, today we cant even run our goverment on that.....

The graph doesnt show the late 1940s where we had 120% of debt to gdp.

While true, it illustrates that we have grown our debt faster than GDP growth since the Reagan years other than Clinton. At some point, it really needs to turn around and let the growth outpace the debt (even if you still have debt) to make the payments easier. Otherwise, a growing debt that's faster than the revenue growth.....well, you know.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

While the graph should be updated to show 2004 numbers rather than projections(deficit was lower than projected), your point is valid. We fought WWII with 20% of GDP, today we cant even run our goverment on that.....

The graph doesnt show the late 1940s where we had 120% of debt to gdp.

While true, it illustrates that we have grown our debt faster than GDP growth since the Reagan years other than Clinton. At some point, it really needs to turn around and let the growth outpace the debt (even if you still have debt) to make the payments easier. Otherwise, a growing debt that's faster than the revenue growth.....well, you know.

I dont know that we are currently growing debt faster than revenue....