Reagan and Bush spent a ton, Clinton held it steady, then lil Bush started spending like crazy again.
Democrats tax and spend.
Republicans tax, borrow, and spend more.
The Homeless in Phoenix chart reinforces this.
2007-11-16 15:37:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by CaesarLives 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Without knowing a bit of history, that chart is deceiving. Here's why.
Prior to 1973, the USD was on the gold standard. In 1973, the USA went off the gold standard, and not a single USD has been issued since. The currency used today in the USA is the Federal Reserve note not the U.S. Dollar.
(This is going to get a bit convoluted)
Up until the civil war, there was no U.S. currency. Trade was done with gold or silver coins and bank notes, much like today's Federal Reserve note. There was, btw, no income tax. In order to fund the Civil War, congress authorized the issuance of a federal currency, the green back. This currency was mandated by law to be backed up by gold. All the gold in the country became the property of the USA, including the gold still in the ground. The US Treasury was authorized to issue $300 million dollars or so a year in order to pay the federal bills, which during the war included the army and war materials.
This monetary worked out well up to a few years before WWI when the federal budget started exceeding to cap placed on the annual amount of USD the treasury could issue. Also, the industrial revolution in the USA was expanding the US economy at a much greater rate than the currency that was circulating. In other words, the added demand for more currency wasn't being met. Since the value of the dollar was tied to a certain weight of gold, depressions kept occuring due to the lack of currency.
This led to the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, a system of privately owned banks which were authorized to issue currency, Federal Serve bank notes, based on the assets of the bank. As the private sector expanded, the Federal Reserve was able to issue more currency to met industry's demand for currency.
Now, since the Federal reserve system was designed to met the needs of interstate commerce, this gave the US government the right to regulate it in the form of taxation. It was the Federal Reserve act that established the federal govenments right to create an income tax.
With the income tax on Federal Reserve notes and the annual issuance of USD, the federal government was able to pay it's bills right up to WWII, which create a bigger demand for money on the US treasury.
(Have I lost you yet?)
Debt is how the USA paid for WWII, mostly thru the issuance of War Bonds. You chart shows the big spike in the debt that resulted. After WWII, the government and the treasury when back to business as usual, which accounts for the level debt levels thru the 1950s and 1960s. But, all was not hunky dory.
In the 1960s, the government took on 3 very expensive undertakings, the war in Vietnam, a space program, and a federal welfare system. Starting in about 1964, the government was spending much more money than it was taking in from Federal Reserve taxation and the issuance of USDs. To solve this problem, the treasury simply started printing more USDs than there was gold to back them up. This is why the debt level remained the same thru the 60s. The government was diluting the USD.
Governments around the world realized the US Treasury issued more dollars than gold held at Ft. Knox. In 1971, France was the first country to demand gold in exchange for the USDs it held in its reserves. This started a worldwide run on Ft. Knox.
(I'm going to try and make a long story short)
To stop the run on Ft Knox, the gold standard was abandoned, and the US treasury stopped issuing USDs in 1973. There has been a single USD issued since that time. The only currency used today is the Federal Reserve notes, which is valued by the industrial output of the USA. The federal government continues to tax the Federal Reserve system, and rather than issue currency to make up the shortfall, it borrows against future income tax revenue it will earn.
This is a delicate balance. Any time congress decides to add a new federal program, be it a war or a social program, this balance gets all out of whack and we have either inflation, recession, stagflation, or whatever.
To get back to your chart. The period before 1973 is inaccurate, as it doesn't reflect the massive government deficits in the 1960s. Those deficits, which the treasury covered by printing worthless dollars, were the cause of the double digit inflation of the 1970s. It took the private sector Federal Reserve system well into the mid 1980s to earn the value of all the currency issued in the 1960s.
The massive deficits being created today will have the same effect in 3 to 5 years from now, regardless of what is done. If the war in Iraq ended today, it's not likely that the monetary system will recover much sooner than 2020. Factor in the Social Security expense explosion which will start on 2012, it may never recover.
2007-11-17 01:19:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means that around 1980 when the first neo-con President took over that the national debt. started to accelerate at a very irresponsible pace. And that the GOP didn't care about America's future. That chart is a warning signal that we are nearing economic collapse.
2007-11-16 21:55:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Very Little. This chart means more! National Debt as a percentage of GNP.
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_gross_national_debt.htm
2007-11-16 15:24:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I means to me that we are pretty much screwed and not even the next president is going to be able to bring us out of Bush's f**king mess. It means that if any family in this country had that type of increased percentage of debt...there would be an equal percentage rate of suicides...
2007-11-16 15:39:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Amazingly, that both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. spend at the same rate. That's freaky.
2007-11-16 16:44:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it was up to date (through 2007) it would show that our deficit nearly doubled since Bush took office.
2007-11-16 15:15:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Ahhh
That the Bush Ownership Society is not doing as well as they claim.
2007-11-16 15:10:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by whirling W dervish 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
it means we spend too much money
2007-11-16 15:09:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by SFC_Ollie 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
it's what you've been refering to for a couple of weeks or so
2007-11-16 15:21:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by a person of interest 5
·
3⤊
0⤋