This is a link to the Historical Tables of the US Government. Go to page 120 and 121.

On page 121 you will see what the debt is now and how the debt for 2003 is projected to be 62.8% of the GDP. Under Clinton, for most of his term the percentage was in the high 60's. ery interesting facts, especially since his claim ti fame was his balanced budget :crosseye:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...4/pdf/hist.pdf

The highest this ratio ever was happened in 1946 when the debt was 121.7% of the GDP.

 

:eek4:

 

Just to keep some perspective, the national debt includes debt owed at every level of government, including local municipalities.

If you want to compare spending during Clinton's terms against Bush, you would do better to look at the federal budget deficit, which is something that the President's signature actually decides.


FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt

 

try to stay on topic. I am talking about the national debt which I hear every liberal hemming and horing about.

 

The expression is "hemming and hawing," and I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://clublet.com/c/c/why?HemmingAndHawing

More to the point, as a taxpaying citizen, I do concern myself with the federal budget deficit and the national debt, both of which are far too high.

 

yeah wrong expression for what i was trying to say.

I agree that the national debt is too high, but if you take it into perspective, we are in better shape now than under clinton.

 

there are 2 ways to look at nat'l debt and they both result in citizens receiving the same benefits. you just have to chose which one you prefer for whatever reasons...

1. more debt, lower taxes, same benefits.

2. less debt, higher taxes, same benefits.

i personally prefer lower taxes cuz it results in more cash in my pocket.

 

Good gahd... we really need the OnTopic forum back.

 

I don't agree in general, but since we're staying on topic, I'll exclude from this post a dissection of civil liberties, federal income tax structure, international relations, and even the price of gasoline.

What you're saying is that you and I are experiencing personal benefit from a national debt that is a lower percentage of the gross domestic product now than during the Clinton Administration.

Decreasing this percentage is accomplished by decreasing the national debt, increasing the GDP, or both. What actually happened?

I'm not really sure that this number has any real meaning. (national debt)/(gdp) * 100 = what?

I'm four years older than I was the last time Clinton was President, and in that time have graduated from college. I'm better off, but President Bush didn't help me with my homework (nor did he help me pay for college, I might add).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "in better shape." Can you be specific?


Note: Adobe Reader is completely broken on this computer, so I have not looked at the PDF that you linked to. If the answers to my questions are there, please cut me some slack.

 

What you hear every liberal hemming and hawing about (and spelling correctly too) is the yearly budget, not the total national deficit.

Under Clinton there was a balanced yearly budget.

Under Bush there is not.