[remember]

The debt burden has gone down over the past decade even though revenue dropped more than spending. The reason is that the economy grew so much.

You're wrong. The following table shows the items that you're looking at plus the deficit:

       DEBT, DEFICIT, RECEIPTS, AND OUTLAYS
                 (percent of GDP)

          Gross   Public    Total    Total  Unified
  Year     Debt     Debt Receipts  Outlays  Deficit
---------------------------------------------------
  1992     64.1     48.1     17.5     22.1     -4.7
  1993     66.2     49.4     17.6     21.4     -3.9
  1994     66.7     49.3     18.1     21.0     -2.9
  1995     67.2     49.2     18.5     20.7     -2.2
  1996     67.3     48.5     18.9     20.3     -1.4
  1997     65.6     46.1     19.3     19.6     -0.3
  1998     63.5     43.1     20.0     19.2      0.8
  1999     61.4     39.8     20.0     18.7      1.4
  2000     58.0     35.1     20.9     18.4      2.4
  2001     57.4     33.0     19.8     18.5      1.3
  2002     59.7     34.1     17.8     19.4     -1.5
  2003     62.4     36.1     16.4     19.9     -3.5
  2004     63.7     37.2     16.3     19.8     -3.6
  2005*    65.7     38.6     16.8     20.3     -3.5

          Gross   Public    Total    Total  Unified
AVERAGES   Debt     Debt Receipts  Outlays  Deficit
---------------------------------------------------
Clinton
 94-01     63.4     43.0     19.4     19.5     -0.1
Bush
 02-04     61.9     35.8     16.9     19.7     -2.9
 02-05*    62.8     36.5     16.8     19.9     -3.0

* projected
Source: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables 1.3 and 7.1

The averages appear to pretty much agree with the averages that you plotted. On average, the public debt was 43 percent under Clinton and 36 percent under Bush. However, the average deficit was nearly zero under Clinton and 3 percent under Bush. What gives?

A closer look at the debt shows that Clinton inherited a public debt of 49.4% of GDP and, during his term, it came down to 33% of GDP. Bush then inherited that 33% of GDP debt and it is projected to rise back up to 38.6& of GDP this year. What you have shown is that, if a President inherits a debt level that is 16.4% of GDP below that inherited by his predecessor, the debt is likely to average a lower percent of GDP even if he runs significantly larger deficits. Bush's policies have helped cause receipts to drop from 19.8% to 16.8% of GDP and outlays to rise from 18.5% to 20.3% of GDP. As a result, his tax-cut and spend policies have caused the balance to drop from a 1.3% of GDP surplus to a 3.5% of GDP deficit. This, in turn, has caused the public debt to rise from 33% to 38.6% of GDP and the gross debt to rise from 57.4% to 65.7% of GDP. No surprises there.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are basically comparing apples and oranges. The debt is a result of the receipts and spending under all previous presidents. The only thing that is effected by a specific President's policies is NEW debt, that is deficits. How can you blame Clinton for the high level of debt that existed when he took office? Likewise, how can you credit Bush for the less debt (as a percent of GDP) that existed when he took office? The answer, of course, is that you can't. If you want to judge the effect of a President's policies, you need to look at the DEFICIT, not the DEBT.

[Moonman62]

How can you blame Clinton for the high level of debt that existed when he took office? Likewise, how can you credit Bush for the less debt (as a percent of GDP) that existed when he took office? The answer, of course, is that you can't.

Politics is the art of blaming everything bad on your opponent.

I was wondering if you have any explanation for long term bond yields being so low. Greenspan seems to be stumped.

[fooman]

This data does not make much sense, and in any is not updated to reflect the increased revenue from dynamic scoring.

[expat_panama]

1The debt burden has gone down ...   · 29.You're wrong... the public debt was 43 percent under Clinton and 36 percent under Bush....   ... blame Clinton for the high level of debt that existed when he took office?

That's an excellent point and it needs to be borne in mind, but the real "apples and oranges" problem here is the mix of politics and economics. 

Then again, we need all four to eat, so we do the best we can.  IMHO the Wash Times article muddled the two a bit, but but let's focus on this concept of debt burden.  I pointed out that it's lower now.  You pointed out that the debt burden is increasing now while it was falling before.   Let's get comfortable with the fact that we're both right-- neither of us is "wrong".

Our concept of debt burden is the amount of the debt and the size of the economy and of our wealth.  The graphed  averages in post 1 show how the size of the economy can make irrelevant the effect of fiscal policy.  Average deficit increased while average debt decreased.

An exclusive concentration on fiscal policy says that it's impossible for the debt to decrease with a period of increasing deficits.  Yet it happened.  The key to understanding the situation is economic growth.  That's why I was excited about the comment in the article on how "the economy is growing much faster than expected."

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey remember, expat said :The debt burden has gone down over the past decade even though revenue dropped more than spending. The reason is that the economy grew so much.

As your table shows, the debt burden has dropped over the past decade, 1995-2005, from 67.2% of GDP to 65.7% of GDP. Revenue did drop more than spending. Revenue went from 18.5% to 16.8% (drop of 9.2%) of GDP, spending went from 20.7% to 20.3%(drop of 2%) of GDP.

So, what's your disagreement with expat_panama's statement again?