Where Did the National Debt Come From?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The question Bo Tai possibly wanted to put front and center is where did the *federal* debt come from -- there is no 'national' financial debt. The straightforward answer to that is from the Federal Reserve Bank, via Congress. The more-involved answer is from a debt-based fiat money system, as enabled by the Federal Reserve Bank, as abdicated to by a profligate and pandering Congress.
And did Bo Tai or US News give us this rollover link (budget deficit and debt):
http://politics.usnews.com/topics/subjects/deficit-and-national-debt
Again with the 'national.' Is it just Bo Tai who doesn't know the distinction between national and federal, or is it the entirety of US News as well?
But let's get to Bo Tai's more-likely question: Given we're not Q and the space-time continuum limits our actions to the present, at this moment, who is credible when it comes to the federal debt, in terms of what to do about it?
President Obama's original 'debt-reduction plan' was to double the annual deficit and then cut it in half -- four years later. Now President Obama's latest 'debt-reduction plan' is spread over twelve, not four, years. And that latest Obama 'debt-reduction plan' came about only because he and Reid were dragged to it, by Boehner via the Tea Party via the Nov. 2010 midterms.
Though already half over, we wouldn't even have a federal budget for the rest of this fiscal year, nor any serious consideration of debt reduction, if not for the republicans, as empowered and motivated by the Tea Party. That current, curiously-sudden, spur-of-the-two-year-moment (Obama + Reid) - Pelosi 12-year 'debt-reduction plan' is a wart-like outgrowth of the (Reid + Pelosi) - Obama one-year congressional plan post Feb. 2010 to not make yet another whopping federal deficit from Obama official prior to the Nov. 2010 midterms.
Anybody else pick up on the curiously-sudden nature of that 12-year 'debt-reduction plan' from Obama? Within a week of being dragged to the budget agreement that averted a federal government shutdown, hmmm, Obama has a new 'debt-reduction plan.' Curious, isn't it, how quickly that emerged into public view?
Take your pick between a magnifying glass and a scanning electron microscope: You won't find debt-reduction credibility in either (Obama + Reid) - Peloi or (Reid + Pelosi) - Obama. None of them had any debt-reduction credibility before the Nov. 2010 midterms -- as they most certainly pounded the hell out of debt-creation -- and all of them have even less now. At the current rate of democrat BS tripling every couple years, by Aug. 2012, Obama's latest-latest 'debt-reduction plan' will be spread out over not four, not twelve, but 36 years.
-------------------------------
P.S. Bo Tai when credible is Tea Party, with a two-week lagtime:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/04/15/the-numbers-behind-the-385-billion-or-352-million-budget-deal

dom youngross of OH 11:45AM April 17, 2011

We need to give more money to Cindy Mack and Susan Karches! We should eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and give all of those proceeds to Waterfall TALF Opportunity. We should also create special "non-recourse loans" to elite media pundits and reporters who are bravely scolding America into giving up their silly entitlements. This would repair all of the problems in the world....don't you all agree?

Working Man of ID 9:34AM April 17, 2011

You speak as though presidents can spend as they wish. The house is the one who does the spending. The president can submit all the budgets he wants. Doesn't mean congress has to agree. The surpluses in the 90's were with a repub controlled congress but Clinton gets the credit since he was president. This does not take into account demagoguery and politics being played as both sides of the aisle will spend themselves into re-election. We can play the blame game on which side is at fault as I once used to. Problem is, you will look stupid if you tow either party line. The real issue here is neither side is serious about reduction. Tax increases are not the answer. People being responsible for themselves would be a start. Quit relying on government to take care of everything.
Another question-where did all the stimulus money go and what did it accomplish other than bailing out big banks and AIG- by the way- all these people are rich because of the bailouts. And dems and repubs both agreed upon this, so the notion the dems are looking out for the little guy is a joke. I figured that out 30+ years ago. I hope Donald Trump runs and ruffles a few feathers. At least he doesn't pander to everyone and speaks his mind. About time someone spoke up and quit worrying about who they might offend. America is a deeply divided nation-(thought Obummer was supposed to fix that), and the world is in unrest like I've never seen (thought Obummer was supposed to fix that too). I am an independent conservative-the repubs don't represent me either, they are weak and spineless and just try to be dems. We need a true leader who doesn't care about re-election- I know this is unrealistic looking at who is considering running, so I guess I'll just concede that we will no longer be the great nation we once were. It's a shame.

Karl Gene of NV 11:36PM April 16, 2011

You need to look a bit closer to the actual figures, and quit paying attention to the Left's rhetoric.
From 1983 until 2000, federal tax receipts pretty steadily increased (from 600.6 B in 1983, to 2.025 T in 2000, all quoted in 2005 dollars) but unfortunately, so did outlay (a total outlay of 2.2 Trillion more than they received), with the exceptions of the years '98 & '99 when the Republicans were in charge in Congress and got the Balanced Budget Amendment passed (1997).
Bush budgets outspent their receipts by 2.13 T between 2002 and 2008, even as the receipts as a portion of GDP rose (not much, but it did indeed rise). No one can say exactly how much his tax cuts cost in revenue, since they also had the mitigating effect of stimulating the economy to some degree.
2009 and 2010 under Obama and the Dems in Congress saw not only a drop in total revenues (due of course to the housing bubble breaking - A Clinton-started problem, not Bush), but a massive outlay increase of 2.7 Trillion, an overspending that even Bush did not match in 8 years (close, but still less).
The "tax cuts for the rich" were actually a 25% across-the-board cut for every demographic, and it actually had the effect of increasing the tax burden of the top earners (as a percentage of overall receipts). See http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm for just one of many reports on that issue.
All of the above aside, it is pretty clear to all but the worst diehard Lefties that we spend way too much - especially so in the sorts of quantities that came in the last 2 years.
The only question that no one agrees on is just how to reduce that spending.

junior of DC 10:20PM April 16, 2011

Ronald Reagan (bless his sole as a patriotic American) started the ball rolling to that has given way to the alarming levels of our modern deficits now. Reagan's tax cuts for the rich have captured the imaginations of wealthy conservatives as the new state religion, even though Reagan raised taxes on the middle class eight times.
Add Bush's Tax cuts to the rich to Reagan's tax cuts to the rich and you get the lowest tax rates in fifty years -for the rich. junior of DC pointed out the problem, that if your spending exceeds the revenue thus the problem. And Reagan and Bush both were extravagant spenders.
We need to roll back Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's tax cuts and we can't be doubling Pentagon spending every decade, like we did under both Reagan and Bushs.
junior of DC, since Bush wasn't taking in as much as he was increasing spending then his tax cuts did significantly contribute to the deficit. It is not 'pretty easy" to see, but Bush's tax cuts to the rich shifted the tax burden to the middle class and working poor (who saw declining wages) all while the rich saw unprecedented gains. Massive spending is big part of the problem but that's mostly military spending that we can't afford.

JBuck of KY 9:26PM April 16, 2011

You can read through a table of Federal tax revenues and outlays here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
It's pretty easy to see that the Bush tax cuts did not cause a decrease in Federal tax revenues - revenues increased both in total $$ numbers, as well as a percentage of GDP.
What DID increase was outlays.

junior of DC 7:50PM April 16, 2011

The equation seems simple enough...the reason revenue is down is not because of the Bush tax cuts, it's because of the fact that more folks are now unemployed than at anytime since Carter. That equals lower revenue.
You can't make up the loss by the well-worn "tax the rich" scheme, when they are paying 50+% of the tax already. You follow the Ryan plan to continue/expand the cuts to business, get them hiring again and revenue goes up as unemployment goes down. This, along w/ real, targeted spending cuts equals SUCCESS.
The lying MSM is doing the country a disservice by continuing to foment the idea that it is A-OK to continue to spend $8 for every $1 you earn. There are enough gullible Americans who will believe that. Maybe that's your goal!

TAJ of LA 9:34AM April 16, 2011

Yet another "quote" from the left-handed NY Times, eh?!? "... The best take I’ve seen comes from a recent New York Times piece..."
In the past, you've also quoted from that left-handed kiddie magazine, "Rolling Stones". So now I'm waiting to hear your "catch phrases" from that left-handed huffington and puffington POS media outlet in Washington!
Makes me wonder if you have an educated (rather than emotional) opinion that is truly all your own! Also, is that really a photo of you?? .....can't help but wonder (...your type, you know!)

Samuel Clemmons of CA 4:46AM April 16, 2011

1. "- Taxes, particularly on the top 10% of wage earners, are at historically low rates for the past 70 years."
What is wrong with that ? History proves tax cuts for rich increase government revenue:
"Tax cuts for the wealthy increase government revenue."
http://www.taxcutsincreaserevenue.com/
_____
“The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates
_____
“Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts”
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total”.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
__________
2. "The last president started a barely justified war (Iraq), and not only didn't increase government revenue to help pay for it, he suggested further tax cuts"
17 UN resolutions. Warnings. Democrats in Congress concerned about WMD before Bush was elected. Including Gore, both Clintons, etc..These Democrats threatened war before Bush.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
3. "The deficits (and debt) started to increase at almost geometric rates after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981"
Out spending income causes debt. Look at that chart including barry. Debt from all Presidents from Washington to and including Reagan it takes to equal 2 years of barry.
barry in 2 years has more debt than 8 years of bush.
4. "Between 1980 and 2008, the only time the rate of increase in the national debt slowed was during the only Democratic administration in that 28-year period."
Who controlled Congress ? Contract with America slowed Bill Clinton spending down. Newt closed government down twice to get Bill to sign a balanced budget. Bill had spending on his mind before Newt. Let's not rewrite history here.
5. "blame Congress for all financial ills."
A very good point. Best of the lot.
For every $1.00 Ronald got cut, fifty cents was added. Compromise has always existed. You think any cuts of substance would occur now if Nov 2, 2010 had not happened. Remember barry disgusting remarks having to agree to tax cuts to rich.
Let’s take Bush being blamed for Clinton's recessions, when Bush tried to stop recession:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/
Or Bush lied about WMD:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Is not always easy to assign blame or credit. You have shown you have the same problem...

Bill Hedges of MO 1:52AM April 16, 2011

To blame only one party for the current situation is at best, disingenuous. At worst, it's flat out intellectual dishonesty, ignoring facts that disagree with your opinions.
Some of those facts:
- Taxes, particularly on the top 10% of wage earners, are at historically low rates for the past 70 years.
- The last president started a barely justified war (Iraq), and not only didn't increase government revenue to help pay for it, he suggested further tax cuts.
- The deficits (and debt) started to increase at almost geometric rates after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981.
- Between 1980 and 2008, the only time the rate of increase in the national debt slowed was during the only Democratic administration in that 28-year period.
And just a question for those who would blame Congress for all financial ills. If you're going to hold Congress responsible for the budget and finances, why don't we call the Reagan tax cuts the O'Neill tax cuts? Why do we call the budget by the president's name, and not something else?

Nick of NY 11:01PM April 15, 2011