Oldbabe said:
The facts say otherwise. Check out this chart from the Century Foundation (scroll down to figure 2, The National Debt as a Percentage of GDP).
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=540
The percentage has risen dramatically for every Republican administration since Eisenhower and fallen for every Democratic administration. It is now at its highest level since around 1956.
The link you used was from an off shoot of the Century Foundation -- slightly left of center. I couldn't find an equivalent link to the official US government data. I'm sure it's there I just am not willing to chase it down all afternoon. The data linked for the report you cited goes to a non-US government website which makes me somewhat wary. The data do appear to be reasonable but the last 2 years were both estimates. Actual 2006 data from the US Treasury website was lower than the estimate. I didn't check on 2005.
Your referenced article made their "point" by using "total debt" which includes the laughable (IMHO) treasury debt that is issued to the SS Administration and not the "debt held by the public" which is generally considered the "true" US debt. One part of the federal govt owing another part of the federal govt money doesn't really seem to be "true" debt. Using "debt held by the public" tells a different picture with the debt between 1992 and 1999 averaging 46.7% (Clinton). The period from 2000 on (using the estimated values) averages 36.2% (Bush II).
The overall publically held debt fell during Nixon, went up slightly under Carter, went up strongly during Reagan and Bush I. Clinton rode the crest and it began to come down during his second term. Bush II has been pretty flat until the estimated data shows a big uptick (Katrina? Iraq?) The debt correlates better with the overall economy than repub vs. dem which seemed to be the goal/point of your reference.
Increasing "debt" to the SS Administration reflects the employment taxes (SS and Medicare) collected rather than the pseudo-debt it creates -- the sign of the strength of our economy. Hopefully, you don't believe you have a real account with the SS Administration that has your money in it.
JB said:
The Cato institute is definitely a conservative think tank. I'm suspicious of their numbers but didn't bother to look into them. At first glance Oldbabe's reference was a shock. The numbers just didn't hold up and it became clear they were supporting their agenda.
I believe Carter was probably the smartest and most decent "modern" president but everything that poor man touched seemed to go to crap. His presidency will be forever tainted by having the US impotent for many months by the Iranians.
He would be a great ex-president if he'd just stick to building houses. Both Clinton I and Carter just can't stop trying to bash the current president. That was the most unseemly part of Teddy R. I'm sure they will be judged the same. Presidents have historically done best if they leave gracefully and let the new man run the country.
