That number is the total amount of federal government debt outstanding as of 12/31/2010. Of that, $9,390,476,088,043.35 (plus about $10 million, or if you prefer, $0.00001 trillion in what is termed “guaranteed debt of government agencies” that is somehow not part of the public debt but is part of the “debt subject to limit”), and $4,585,749,068,174.55 in “intragovernmental debt” (that would be, for the most part, the various “Trust Funds”). To put it in a bit of text perspective, the Gross Domestic Product was $14.119 trillion in 2009, and if projections can be believed, will come in at just over $14.7 trillion in 2010. That makes the public debt just under 64% of GDP and total debt over 95% of GDP.
That dry text doesn’t, however, do it justice. I decided to go through 40 years’s worth (or, give or take a few shakes of a lamb’s tail, about the length of time I’ve been walking the Earth) of calendar-year-ending Monthly Statements of the Public Debt, grab the GDP for each of those years (estimated for 2010), and whip up a “little” frightening chart for you:
Click for the full-size chart
The short version of that chart:
- Between 1970 and 1981, total debt remained right around the 37% of GDP, and publicly-held/guaranteed debt remained right around 27% of GDP.
- Publicly-held debt plateaued right about 40% of GDP between 1986 and 1989, but because of changes to Social Security, the increasing intragovernmental debt, which crossed the 10% of GDP threshhold in 1988, caused total debt to continue to increase at an unchanged rate.
- Sticking with intragovernmental debt briefly, it steadily increased to a high of nearly 32% of GDP in 2009 before multiple “trust funds” began running deficits, both primary (cash) and gross, helping to increase the publicly-held debt as said “trust funds” get monetized through borrowing while there is exactly $0.00 set aside or otherwise available for the purpose.
- Back to the publicly-held debt, it again plateaued at 50% of GDP between 1992 and 1996, with total debt plateauing around 68% of GDP, before “unified budget surpluses” and a gangbusters economy allowed them to go down as a function of GDP.
- By 2000, total debt dropped to about 57% of GDP, with publicly-held debt hitting its post-1981 low of 33% of GDP in 2001. While publicly-held debt remained about 37% of GDP through 2007, the increasing reliance on “trust fund” surpluses caused total debt to increase to about 66% of GDP in 2007.
- The muzzle came off the debt monster in 2008, with publicly-held debt increasing to about 64% of GDP and total debt increasing to about 95% of GDP by the end of 2010.
Several of those in my bloated feed reader, like Dad29, Zip, Allahpundit Stephan Tawney, and ultimately NRO’s Corner crew, found yet another utterance from Barack Obama that has reached its expiration date – one from a 2006 debate in which he opposed raising the debt limit as Senator, an act which his economic advisor now calls “insanity”:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
The publicly-held debt was 37.3% of GDP at the end of 2005 and 36.6% of GDP at the end of 2006, while total debt was 64.6% of GDP at the end of 2006 and 64.4% of GDP at the end of 2006.
Revisions/extensions (7:02 am 1/4/2011) – The Emperor links, and provides a further link to Aaron Worthing at Patterico’s Pontifications and the full Obama remarks that were walked back. The relevant extension:
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
For those who can’t do the math, Obama was complaining about a potential $12.1 trillion total debt by the end of 2011. Well, we’re at just over $14 trillion before we got to the beginning of Calendar Year 2011 (or if you prefer, a quarter of the way through Fiscal Year 2011). The kicker – had Pelosi taken up Obama’s proposed budget, the total debt would be $15.1 trillion at the end of FY2011.
R&E part 2 (7:45 am 1/4/2011) – Dan Spencer points out just how much the debt has gone up under Nancy Pelosi’s now-expired Speakership – $44,662 for every man, woman and child who make up the 310,574,015 U.S. populace.
A minor point of order – the first 9 months of 2008 were largely budgeted by the prior Congress, while the last 3 were budgeted solely by Pelosi and Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid. That explains why the deficit, at least as a percentage of GDP, didn’t increase all that much in 2007.
I might redo the chart to reflect fiscal years instead of calendar ones, but it is a bear to get the numbers.
[…] However, I’ll get ahead of the fiscal curve and explain why a specific element of that, the debt hitting 95% of the Gross Domestic Product, is going to be THE STORY. Yes, we’ve been in that territory before. However, there are three […]
[…] Update: See the comment below by Steve clarifying what’s counted in the national debt. He has further clarification here. […]
It just absolutely baffles me as to how honest people like yourself can post a debt/GDP chart like the one your just posted and not mention ONCE the collapse in tax receipts following the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, sudden increase in UI/food stamp benefits directly related to the massive surge in unemployment and, most importantly, the fall in GDP (and stagnant growth since)during the first months following the crisis. The surge in debt/GDP over the last 3 years is almost ENTIRELY related to the fallout from the crisis of 2008 and has almost NOTHING to do with our long term debt obligations and/or increases in discretionary spending by the federal government. There is no data to support the direction you’re attempting to take your readers in. Zip. Complete garbage.
If you want to make the case that our long term debt structure is unsustainable then be my guest. It’s an easy case to make. But don’t simply throw up a debt/GDP ratio chart and then talk about Nancy Pelosi and issues that don’t effect our debt/GDP in any significant way until years from now. It just being dishonest about current economic reality.
P.S. if you’re going to write the full numerical figure for total debt, why don’t you write out the full numerical figure for GDP? It’s almost as if you’re not really interested in emphasizing that U.S. GDP is approx. $14,700,000,000,000.00. And I also noticed how you never once mentioned what interest rate Uncle Sam is paying on that great big long debt number you stated.
The Treasury has already had to increase the interest offered on new securities beyond what they anticipated because the major buyers are losing confidence in the ability of the US government to pay back the mooney. It hasn’t quite reached the point which Britain has faced a couple of different times (a very-nearly-failed bond offering), but guess what; we’re not far behind. Otherwise, why would that Debt Commission have been formed in the first place.
The danger isn’t a classical default; hyperinflation of the money supply will make sure of that. The danger is that nobody will buy the bonds necessary to supply more cash than the government can tax into its coffers.
Regarding GDP, the Bureau of Economic Analysis does not do that to the penny, while the Bureau of Public Debt does release the daily debt to the penny.
As for the GDP and tax numbers, because you seem to have missed the entire Social Security Crater series, here they are (do bear in mind that, while the BEA reports by calendar year, the Treasury Department reports by fiscal year, which runs from October through September):
2007 – GDP $14.062 trillion, tax receipts $2.568 trillion, with total debt increasing by $0.604 trillion and publicly-held debt increasing $0.235 trillion from CY2006
2008 – GDP $14.369 trillion (+$0.304 trillion), tax receipts $2.524 trillion (-$0.044 trillion), total debt increasing $1.471 trillion and publicly-held debt increasing $1.233 trillion
2009 – GDP $14.119 trillion (-$0.350 trillion), tax receipts $2.105 trillion (-$0.419 trillion), total debt up $1.612 trillion, publicly-held debt up $1.442 trillion
2010 – GDP $14.739 trillion (estimated; +$0.620 trillion), tax recepits $2.162 trillion (+0.057 trillion), total debt up $1.714 trillion, pubicly-held debt up $1.580 trillion
It’s the spending, stupid.
“The Treasury has already had to increase the interest offered on new securities beyond what they anticipated because the major buyers are losing confidence in the ability of the US government to pay back the money.”
You lost me. What did the government “anticipate” paying on treasury yields? Currently, they’re paying 3.38% on 10 year treasuries. If you need historical prespective on this, you can go here:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS10
If what you say is true and the bond market is “losing confidence”, then TIPS spreads should be blowing out right now. Of course, they aren’t. At all. Because the recent upward movement in the yield curve is more due to improved economic data and capital flowing out of bonds and into equities. This is actually good news although we’re still way below growth levels necessary to lower unemployment and stabilize the debt/GDP ratio in any meaningful way.
And the idea of hyperinflation doesn’t really need a response.
And like I said, the “spending” includes a shit load of emergency spending on UI and other measuures intended to sunset as soon as we feel like dealing with the 10% unemployment crisis in this country.
SS is a managable issue we can deal with in the future.
Medicare is the medium and long term nightmare.
When Bush left office, the fed budget was something like $3 Trillion. Last year, it was more than $3.8. Yes, a real spending increase.
Now for some more frightening numbers.
4 years ago, Cost of government (COG)was 50% of GDP. COG=taxes, licenses, permits, fees to government, PLUS those expenditures paid to private firms in compliance with government mandates.
In the years since, it has gone to 54%, 61%, and last year, about 64.5%. In WI, COG is almost 66%. With the laws passed in the last session that will increase both the size of government and the cost to businesses and individuals, COG will almost certainly top 70%. Question regarding the private sector, how low can you go? Note that the share by the private, that is, the wealth producing sector has shrunk to about 35%, and is scheduled to decline further.
Now for the REAALLLY good news! The $14 Trillion debt? Just the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities are on the order of $112 TRILLION, or about $360,000 per man woman and child. and when these liabilities kick in due to our aging population and other factors, COG will exceed 100%. Of course, that is absurd, which to me means only one of 2 things. Either the size and cost of government must be cut drastically, or the proverbial printing presses will work overtime trying to conceal the fact that we are bankrupt. Raising taxes is futile, as this will further suck the live blood from our economy. The only good thing about that avenue is that the pain will be felt sooner, by us, and hopefully less later, by our kids and grandkids.
For more good news, go here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The day of reckoning is at hand, and to put it off is to ensure that the pain will be greater later.