addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › U.S. National Debt Clocks -- Oct. 1, 2008 @ 10 Trillion

U.S. National Debt Clocks -- Oct. 1, 2008 @ 10 Trillion

Old T.
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 877

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'"
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Franciso D'Anconia character on the meaning of money

Annual GDP in billions of "current" dollars

1929 103.6
1930 91.2
1931 76.5
1932 58.7
1933 56.4
1934 66.0
1935 73.3
1936 83.8
1937 91.9
1938 86.1
1939 92.2
1940 101.4
1941 126.7
1942 161.9
1943 198.6
1944 219.8
1945 223.1
1946 222.3
1947 244.2
1948 269.2
1949 267.3
1950 293.8
1951 339.3
1952 358.3
1953 379.4
1954 380.4
1955 414.8
1956 437.5
1957 461.1
1958 467.2
1959 506.6
1960 526.4
1961 544.7
1962 585.6
1963 617.7
1964 663.6
1965 719.1
1966 787.8
1967 832.6
1968 910.0
1969 984.6
1970 1,038.5
1971 1,127.1
1972 1,238.3
1973 1,382.7
1974 1,500.0
1975 1,638.3
1976 1,825.3
1977 2,030.9
1978 2,294.7
1979 2,563.3
1980 2,789.5
1981 3,128.4
1982 3,255.0
1983 3,536.7
1984 3,933.2
1985 4,220.3
1986 4,462.8
1987 4,739.5
1988 5,103.8
1989 5,484.4
1990 5,803.1
1991 5,995.9
1992 6,337.7
1993 6,657.4
1994 7,072.2
1995 7,397.7
1996 7,816.9
1997 8,304.3
1998 8,747.0
1999 9,268.4
2000 9,817.0
2001 10,128.0
2002 10,469.6
2003 10,960.8
2004 11,685.9
2005 12,421.9
2006 13,178.4
2007 13,807.5

Source: U.S. government, Bureau of National Affairs --­
Burnaby, BC
Post #: 1
Plano, TX
Post #: 789
I am currently in the middle of reading Alan Greenspan's "Age of Turbulance". There is a lot of great info regarding this subject, and he has mentioned some things he was concerned about, including the way those that normally wouldn't be approved for homes they couldn't afford, although helping more Americans own houses, could cause major problems in the future.

Great book.....

That is an interesting chart. I am no economist (nor have I played one on YouTube), but I think the fact that it grows hire under Republicans (according to the chart) is a good indication of when cutting taxes before cutting spending, or not doing both at the same time, could be a good factor.

It bugs me that the government didn't really do much with the surplus revenue when it had it to pay down the national debt.....
Old T.
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 887
That's an interesting resource, Michelle.

It somewhat supports the idea that with a Democratic president, Republicans balk at spending and big government, but with a Republican president, no one balks at spending.

But there were other factors at work, too. For example, there was a dot com boom of the 90s that helped the economy during Clinton's administration. Since 9/11, the "War on Terrorism," especially in Iraq, is costing tremendously, in lives and treasure. Meanwhile, the planting of the seeds of disaster, such as the mortgage lending crisis, can take years to produce poisonous fruit in another administration.

I personally think that both political parties are very far from rational principles. The government deficit spending and borrowing--regardless of which particular party is in the White House--is a symptom of the dominant philosophy of the people. The state and local governments are operating the same way. Many individuals are living the same way.

In addition to the federal debt of about 11 trillion dollars (after passage of the bailout bill last week), not counting other types of liabilities, it appears that State and local government debt is about 2 trillion dollars. See:­ If these figures are approximately correct, then the total public debt is about 13 trillion dollars.

For scale, it appears the Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) of the United States is about 13 trillion dollars.

It appears the public debt is growing faster than the GDP and the public debt equals or exceeds the GDP.

The 2008 federal budget proposal is about 3 trillion dollars, including about 400 billion for interest payments. This does not count State and local governments.

At some point, investors will start to consider that the domestic government bodies may not be able to repay the government or municipal bonds. When that happens, the government entities will have to pay increasing interest rates on such bonds to attract investors.

What happens when interest payments go from about 10% to 20%--or higher--of the governmental budgets?
Burnaby, BC
Post #: 2
Dot doc boom resulted in 35% increase in the government revenue under Clinton yet according to that article he only increased government spending by 9%.

This report indicates that Congress has approved a total of about $859 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks. That is the defense spending component. During this time, however, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion (that’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch) and that is not counting the bailout bill.
A former member
Post #: 114
I'm still not sure whether Dem's are worse than Rep's. Officially Rep's are better, but in reality it's just a choice between how they'll mess things up.
Scott C.
Dallas, TX
Post #: 88
On the plus side, the farther our dollar falls the less 10 trillion really seems like. I mean you used to really be able to buy something with a trillion dollars.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy