There is a graphics file that is being linked around the web on political sites involving George W. Bush's effect on the U.S. National Debt. It is quite a shocking graphic, but it can be very misleading because it doesn't take any other economic factors into account like GDP, inflation or anything else for that matter.
This is the graphic that people are looking at.
Now, I took the data set from that website and looked up Nominal GDP for the corresponding years. When you go ahead and take the US National Debt as a percentage of the Nominal GDP (which is not adjusted for inflation, etc either) it gives you a more clear picture of what has happened relative to the economy.
Keep in mind, I am not an economics expert of any kind. Hell, I am not even giving an opinion on Bush's performance in terms of the U.S. National Debt, but I thought that if people were going to really look at the issue, they ought to be armed with something a little more meaningful than a raw number that hasn't been adjusted for any of the economics that are also occurring at the same time that the nation is incurring a national debt.
Article comments
1 - Eric Berlin
Interesting, Craig. Looking at either graphic you'd have to give the Dems credit for holding the line on debt while the GOP has, for the most part... not.
2 - FilteringCraig
Eric, if you look at the first with stark increases it is kind of deceiving. When you give the graph a denominator as I did on the second one, you can see that the GDP was also growing to generally keep up. So, I think you should be carefully drawing a one-line conclusion like that.
3 - Eric Berlin
I hear you Craig. What I'm saying is that even when looking at the second graph you can see that debt was reined in more effectively by Carter and Clinton than by Reagan and Team Bush.
4 - FilteringCraig
Clinton's numbers might have been affected by Microsoft and the tech bubble, but draw your own conclusions.
5 - Dave Nalle
Once you adjusted the figures to be more accurate, of course, Clinton has the highest debt ratio. Ironically, Carter had the lowest, but the economy at that time was totally in the tank. There seems to be a correlation between a strong economy and a high debt to GDP rating.
The original chart, of course, really just relfects the general and steady numerical growth of the debt, which is cumulative and thus almost meaningless.
Dave
6 - FOOBAR
uhhh..
both misleading.
How about interest on the debt as a percentage of the federal budget
The GDP argument is meaningless.
7 - Craig Lyndall
Meaningless is a bit strong I would say. To say it is meaningless is to say that there is no correlation what-so-ever between the government's spending and GDP. I don't know what the exact correlation is, obviously, but I think it exists.
8 - Debra Riley
326145: Hey, does anyone know where I can find a list of gas stations with low prices in my area?
9 - mornons
you guys are all morons. Don't make up "fake graphs" to push your political morons (Both parties).
Our GDP sucks and our national debt is completely absurd. Clinton put us in the black, and Bush tanked us just like EVERY BUSINESS HE HAS RAN. Now China is dumping our bonds because our economy sucks. Why don't you look at WHO OWNED our debt by president? Has any president come close to Bush?
You can always make a graph to make your side look "good". But atleast present the REAL facts so you do not look as dumb as the president you are supporting.