NYT: How the U.S. Got $14.3 Trillion in Debt and Who Are the Creditors

[JMS]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?src=me&ref=general

How the U.S. Got $14.3 Trillion in Debt and Who Are the Creditors

Who Holds the 14.3 Trillion National Debt?

The US Public 3.6 Trillion

• Includes debt held by individuals, corporations, banks and insurance companies, pension and mutual funds, state and local governments.
  

Foreign Countries roughly $4.5 Trillion

• China ------------------------------------1.2 Trillion
  
• Japan ------------------------------------.9 Trillion
  
• Britain ------------------------------------ < 1 Trillion
  
• Oil-exporting countries ------------ < 1 Trillion
  
• Other countries -----------------------1.3 Trillion
  

The US Government 6.2 Trillion

• Federal Reserve System Includes collateral for U.S. currency and store of liquidity for emergency needs. ------------------------------1.6 Trillion
  
• Social Security Trust Funds Surpluses generated by the program that have been invested in government bonds. ------------------------------2.7 Trillion
  
• Other gov’t trust funds ------------------------1.9 Trillion
  

Sources: Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Office of Management and Budget

When the Debt Was Accumulated

Obama ----------------------------------------------- 2.4 Trillion

GW Bush-------------------------------------------- 6.1 Trillion

Clinton------------------------------------------------ 1.4 Trillion

G Bush----------------------------------------------- 1.5 Trillion

Reagan----------------------------------------------- 1.9 Trillion

Carter------------------------------------------------- 0.4 Trillion

Before Carter--------------------------------------- 0.6 Trillion

Sub Totals

Dem President in Office -------------------------4.2

Republican President in Office ---------------9.5

Sources: Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Office of Management and Budget

[Dan T.]

When the Debt Was Accumulated

Obama ----------------------------------------------- 2.4 Trillion

GW Bush-------------------------------------------- 6.1 Trillion

Clinton------------------------------------------------ 1.4 Trillion

G Bush----------------------------------------------- 1.5 Trillion

Reagan----------------------------------------------- 1.9 Trillion

Carter------------------------------------------------- 0.4 Trillion

Before Carter--------------------------------------- 0.6 Trillion

:munchout:

[Kilmer17]

Id like to see it broken down by years and which party was in charge of Congress.

[twa]

That would be inconvenient (edit) Kilmer

everyone knows the president controls the purse...err wait

but let's go with this ...O has created more debt in 2 yrs than any other president

[Thiebear]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- The Bush administration and U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's transition team are cooperating to an unprecedented extent, observers and participants say.

There have rarely been such immediate and important challenges facing a president-elect, and President George Bush has responded by giving Obama's transition team full access to the White House, enabling them to move quickly on the financial crisis, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

"I'm not sure I've ever seen an outgoing administration work as hard at saying the right thing," Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess, who has been involved in presidential transitions since the Eisenhower administration, told the Post. "This is really quite memorable."

Bush has made a smooth White House transition his top priority, saying in a radio address Saturday, "My administration will work hard to ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/09/Obama-Bush-transition-called-smooth/UPI-20571226242368/#ixzz1TW7agso4

Doesn't President Obama have 2009 as 50% his?

[Ellis]

Id like to see it broken down by years and which party was in charge of Congress.

Ditto.

And as was pointed out, when Bush 2 was leaving office, he specifically said he'd authorize some heavily spending on the financial crisis if asked by Obama. Obama and his admin publically asked within an hour or so and Bush authorized it. Hundreds of billions were immediately added in the final days of Bush. In a way, it was a gift to Obama b/c he would've been heavily criticized for it.

[Larry]

but let's go with this ...O has created more debt in 2 yrs than any other president

No he hasn't. It's not even close.

The depression has created a real whopping measure of dept. But Obama didn't do that.

(And yeah, Obama certainly did add to it some. My completely gut-level opinion is that he probably "owns" about 1/4 if the increase in the debt, through things like extending unemployment benefits, the stimulus, and the incomprehensible, to me, idea of "let's not just extend all of the Bush tax cuts, but let's add even more tax cuts, on top of them" stunt that the lame duck Congress pulled.)

(Just as Bush isn't responsible for all of the debt under his watch, either. Part of that debt is because of the recessions that happened during his admin, too. Me, I think that the first one was caused more by 9/11 than by the dot com burst. But regardless of which cause you attribute it to, Bush didn't do it.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, the thing that struck me about this was that its total BS that China owns our debt. Sure, they own a lot of it, but its a total farce to say "China owns our debt."

[JMS]

Congress ---------------- Year took office ---------------- Deficit in Trillions

95 Congress---------------- 1977 ----------------$ 0.12 Trillion

96 Congress---------------- 1979 ----------------$ 0.17 Trillion

97 Congress---------------- 1981 ----------------$ 0.37 Trillion

98 Congress---------------- 1983 ----------------$ 0.44 Trillion

99 Congress---------------- 1985 ----------------$ 0.53 Trillion

100 Congress----------------1987 ----------------$ 0.51 Trillion

101 Congress----------------1989 ----------------$ 0.81 Trillion

102 Congress----------------1991 ----------------$ 0.75 Trillion

103 Congress----------------1993 ----------------$ 0.56 Trillion

104 Congress----------------1995 ----------------$ 0.44 Trillion

105 Congress----------------1997 ----------------$ 0.24 Trillion

106 Congress----------------1999 ----------------$ 0.15 Trillion

107 Congress---------------- 2001 ---------------$ 1.00 Trillion

108 Congress---------------- 2003 ---------------$ 1.15 Trillion

109 Congress---------------- 2005 ---------------$ 1.07 Trillion

110 Congress---------------- 2007 ---------------$ 2.90 Trillion

111 Congress---------------- 2009 -------------$ 2.39 Trillion

112 Congress---------------- 2011 ---------------$ 1.20 Trillion(only half over) projected 2.40

So over the last 34 years the Dems have held congress 22 years and the Republicans have held congress for 12 years ( halfway through the 112 congress now).

Republicans have wracked up $7.7 Trillion dollars in debt in their 12 years in charge.

Democrates have wracked up $7.1 Trillion dollars in debt in their 22 years in charge.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

---------- Post added July-29th-2011 at 02:51 PM ----------

Actually, the thing that struck me about this was that its total BS that China owns our debt. Sure, they own a lot of it, but its a total farce to say "China owns our debt."

China is the largest foreign holder of our debt. They do not hold most of our debt. The American people privately or publically hold the majority of the debt, some 10 trillion of the 14.3 trillion owed.

[Kilmer17]

As Ive been saying.

Both sides have ****ed this up to this point.

One side wants to continue to **** it up.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Between the breakdown on Presidents and the breakdown of party control of Congress, I think its safe to say that lowering taxes adds to the debt. Or are we still debating that?

[Kilmer17]

Between the breakdown on Presidents and the breakdown of party control of Congress, I think its safe to say that lowering taxes adds to the debt. Or are we still debating that?

Lowering Taxes while increasing spending will always lead to that.

Step one is to stop spending. Only one side is proposing that.

[JMS]

As Ive been saying.

Both sides have ****ed this up to this point.

One side wants to continue to **** it up.

But which side is the one which wants to continue to hose it up?

In the 1990's Newt Gingrich and Clinton came to an agreement on the budget deficite which relied on about 2/3rds new revenue and 1/3rd cuts. The resulting agreeemnt created 22 million new jobs under the Clinton era ( give newt lots of credit here too)....

That's more jobs than were created under the eight years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr, and 8 years of Bush Jr COMBINED!

[twa]

I think it is safe to say increasing spending adds to the debt as well as doing nothing adds to the debt

[gbear]

Funny part is I keep coming back to my favorite quote on debt (though I wish I remember who said it),

"When you owe the bank $100, the bank owns you.

When you owe the bank $100,000, the bank owns you.

However, wehn you owe the bank $1,000,000,000, you own the bank."

Ironically, outside of SS, the debt isn't really enough to control the actions and list of acceptable actions for any of hte creditors outside of SS. Is it? Funny to think we haven't got enough debt.

[Kilmer17]

But which side is the one which wants to continue to hose it up?

In the 1990's Newt Gingrich and Clinton came to an agreement on the budget deficite which relied on about 2/3rds new revenue and 1/3rd cuts. The resulting agreeemnt created 22 million new jobs under the Clinton era ( give newt lots of credit here too)....

That's more jobs than were created under the eight years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Sr, and 8 years of Bush Jr COMBINED!

Tell us what the Dem plan is right now?

Does it raise or lower the debt?

[gbear]

Kilmer17, raising the debt is a misleading question. None of the options, including doing nothing, result in us paying less back. Defaulting means paying a higher interest rate on existing debt. So...

True or false, doing nothing which impacts the defecit during a down economy should lower the defecit if the economy grows or resumes growth?

Next question: If defecit is held constant, will the debt as a percentage of GDP shrink as an economy grows?

Final question, Is the best time to determine acceptable amounts of debt A) when the economy is going gang busters when the economy is teetering C) when the economy is at a perceived troth or D) any time but should be done taking into consideration, and based on, a long enough time series to contain both maximums and troths?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Lowering Taxes while increasing spending will always lead to that.

Step one is to stop spending. Only one side is proposing that.

Step one is "to stop" spending? Stop? All of it? Or do reform spending programs and perhaps cut some of them. I assume you mean the latter.

Can you really say that with a 4 trillion dollar bargain offered the democrats have not offered to cut spending?

[Larry]

Between the breakdown on Presidents and the breakdown of party control of Congress, I think its safe to say that lowering taxes adds to the debt. Or are we still debating that?

Well, I think it's safe to sat that lowering taxes and increasing spending adds to the debt.

(It also grows the economy.)

Far as I know, nobody's ever even proposed, let alone tried, cutting spending. (Unless you count the annual Republican demands that somebody else do it.)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, I think it's safe to sat that lowering taxes and increasing spending adds to the debt.

(It also grows the economy.)

Far as I know, nobody's ever even proposed, let alone tried, cutting spending. (Unless you count the annual Republican demands that somebody else do it.)

I should have been more specific because it seems a general slogan is that cutting taxes, by itself, RAISES revenue, i.e. cuts the debt. That one has been played for a long time. "We grow the base because more jobs are created and then we increase revenue." I'm just asking, are we moving out of the BS pit that cutting taxes, in a vaccum, decreases the deficit?

[Kilmer17]

Step one is "to stop" spending? Stop? All of it? Or do reform spending programs and perhaps cut some of them. I assume you mean the latter.

Can you really say that with a 4 trillion dollar bargain offered the democrats have not offered to cut spending?

Rumors of that offer have floated, but I havent seen it offered in a Bill or by the President.

And what was the tax increase part of that offer?

[Larry]

Lowering Taxes while increasing spending will always lead to that.

Step one is to stop spending. Only one side is proposing that.

Step one according to one side.

[Kilmer17]

Well, I think it's safe to sat that lowering taxes and increasing spending adds to the debt.

(It also grows the economy.)

Far as I know, nobody's ever even proposed, let alone tried, cutting spending. (Unless you count the annual Republican demands that somebody else do it.)

Very true. Which is why the Tea Party is gaining so much traction. They actually mean it.

The problem with the GOP rule of the 00s was they spent like Democrats.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Rumors of that offer have floated, but I havent seen it offered in a Bill or by the President.

And what was the tax increase part of that offer?

Well, now you are adding to it. First you said the dems have not offered to cut spending. Now you're saying they haven't offered to cut spending without raising taxes. Now you're saying you need to have your cake and eat it too.

Also, my understanding of the Reid plan is that it cuts close to a trillion dollars of spending without including the "end the war" savings. And my understanding is that Reid's plan does not raise taxes in any way. So, again, I don't think its true that the democrats haven't offered to cut spending, but also don't think its true that the democrats have not offered to cut spending without tax increases.

[Larry]

I should have been more specific because it seems a general slogan is that cutting taxes, by itself, RAISES revenue, i.e. cuts the debt. That one has been played for a long time. "We grow the base because more jobs are created and then we increase revenue." I'm just asking, are we moving out of the BS pit that cutting taxes, in a vaccum, decreases the deficit?

Yes, it has been.

The argument is supported by the fact that revenues have gone up, virtually every year since the nation was founded.

So it's a little like arguing that "every year there's been a massive tax cut, gravity has worked. Therefore tax cuts cause gravity."

No, the sound bite that you're referring has never been abandoned. Nor is it likely ever to be.