National Debt Info-Graphic by President 1945 – 2012

By president, starting with Truman in 1945, this info-graphic shows the growth of the national debt, the growth of the interest on the national debt, the lowest and highest tax rates at the beginning of each president’s term, the average GDP per president and the average unemployment rate during each president’s term.

In addition, at the bottom, the senate and house majorities are included for each president. Red is for the GOP (Republicans) and blue is for the Democrats. This way, anyone may see which party held the majority in one or both houses of Congress during periods where the debt increased the fastest. Starting with Reagan to Obama but not including Obama, the fastest gains were when a Republican was president and the GOP held a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

Using all of the data on this info-graphic, you may discover who holds the most responsibility by president and/or Congress for the growth of the national debt.

Starting with President Carter, pay attention to the growth of the debt in comparison to the changing tax rates and you may discover one of the reasons for the more than $16 Trillion national debt.

Also pay attention to the average unemployment rates of each president and you will learn that as the taxes went down, federal spending went up, and unemployment climbed (on average).  Growth of annual GDP also started to drop as taxes dropped. From Truman – Ford, annual GDP averaged 3.85%, but from Carter to G. W. Bush, GDP averaged 2.96%.

Unemployment also went up as taxes went down. Truman to Ford, the average unemployment rate was 5.41% (and that includes the 8.09% under Ford).

From Carter to G. W. Bush, the average unemployment rate increased to 6.17%.

In fact, starting with Reagan, the total debt each president is responsible for includes the interest to December 2012.

Infographic on National Debt by President

– CLICK on INFO-GRAPHIC for LARGER IMAGE! –

* Reagan was responsible for lowering taxes from seventeen brackets to two brackets and those rates appear in G. H. W. Bush’s column

** The G. W. Bush tax cuts appear in President Obama’s column. However, in 2008, his last year in office, it was the worst year for jobs since 1945 and the unemployment rate was 7.2% in December. The total number of jobs lost in 2008 was 2.6 million. In addition, under-employment reached a record high from 715,000 to 8 million people, the highest since such records were first kept in 1955.  Source: CNN.com

Then in 2008, G. W. Bush’s last year as president, the average GDP for the 4th quarter dropped to almost a minus10%. Source: Treasury.gov

*** Unemployment reached a high of 10% in October 2009 while GDP retreated to a minus 2.6%.  The lowest unemployment rate reached 7.8% in September 2012 (Obama’s presidency does not end until 2016 so we do not have average unemployment for his term or a final average GDP). Source of data: bls.gov

Total GDP growth since 2009 to the first quarter in 2012 has been + 6.8%. Source: Treasury.gov

Data and facts mostly from primary sources:

Note: Deductions are not accounted for

  • Tax Rate in 1945 under Truman (listed tax rates and brackets apply to all taxpayers with twenty-five tax brackets) – average unemployment during his term was 4.26% while GDP grew + 4.82%. Note: During the Great Depression, unemployment reached as high as almost 25%.

23% on earnings up to $2,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $24,931
50% on earnings of $14,000 to $16,000 – adjusted for inflation $174,517 – 199,499
75% on earnings of $44,000 to $50,000 – adjusted for inflation $174,517 – 199,449
94% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $2,493,107

  • Tax Rate in 1953 under Eisenhower (married filing separately with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) – average unemployment was 4.89% during his term while GDP grew + 3%.

22.2% on earnings up to $2,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $16,807
53% on earnings of $14,000 to $16,000 – adjusted for inflation $117,652 – 168,882
75% on earnings of $44,000 to $50,000 – adjusted for inflation $369,764 – 420,187
92% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $1,680,746

  • Tax Rate in 1961 under Kennedy (married filing jointly with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.97% during his term while GDP grew + 4.65%.

20% on earnings up to $4,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $30,017
50% on earnings of $32,000 to $36,000 – adjusted for inflation $240,139 – 270,156
75% on earnings of $100,000 – 120,000- adjusted for inflation $750,434 – 900,520
91% on earnings over $400,000 – adjusted for inflation $3,001,734

  • Tax Rate in 1963 under LBJ (married filing jointly with twenty-four/twenty-six tax brackets) –average unemployment was 4.17% during his term while GDP grew + 5.05%.

20% on earnings up to $4,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $29,331
50% on earnings of $32,000 to $36,000 – adjusted for inflation $234,645 – 263,976
75% on earnings of $100,000 – 120,000- adjusted for inflation $733,267 – 879,920
91% on earnings over $400,000 – adjusted for inflation $2,933,067

  • Tax Rate in 1969 under Nixon (married filing jointly with twenty-five/thirty-three tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.09% during his term while GDP grew + 3%

14% on earnings up to $1,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $6,114
36% on earnings of $24,000 to $28,000 – adjusted for inflation $164,733 – 171,644
53% on earnings of $52,000 – 64,000- adjusted for inflation $317,922 – 391,289
70% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $1,222,777

  • Tax Rate in 1974 under Ford (married filing jointly with twenty-five/thirty-three tax brackets) – average unemployment was 8.09% during his term while GDP grew +2.6%.

14% on earnings up to $1,000 but not over – adjusted for inflation $4,551
36% on earnings of $24,000 to $28,000 – adjusted for inflation $109,231 – 127,437
53% on earnings of $52,000 – 64,000- adjusted for inflation $236,668 – 291,284
70% on earnings over $200,000 – adjusted for inflation $910,262

  • Tax Rate in 1977 under Carter (married filing Jointly with twenty-six/thirty-four tax brackets) – average unemployment was 6.54% during his term while GDP grew +3.25%

0% on earnings up to $3,200 but not over – adjusted for inflation $11,848
36% on earnings of $27,200 to $31,200 – adjusted for inflation $100,712 – 115,522
53% on earnings of $55,200 – 67,200- adjusted for inflation $204,385 – 248,817
70% on earnings over $203,200 – adjusted for inflation $752,375

  • Tax Rate in 1981 under Reagan (married filing jointly with sixteen/seventeen tax brackets) – average unemployment was 7.54% during his term while GDP grew 3.4%

0% on earnings up to $3,400 but not over – adjusted for inflation $8,393
37% on earnings of $29,200 to $35,200 – adjusted for inflation $73,806 – 86,888
54% on earnings of $60,000 – 85,600 – adjusted for inflation $148,105 – 211,297
70% on earnings over $215,400 – adjusted for inflation $531698

  • Tax Rate in 1989 under G. H. W. Bush (married filing jointly with two tax brackets) – average unemployment was 6.3% during his term while GDP grew 2.17%

15% on earnings up to $30,950 but not over – adjusted for inflation $56,004
28% on earnings over $30,950 – adjusted for inflation $56,004

  • Tax Rate in 1993 under Clinton (married filing jointly with five tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.2% during his term while GDP grew 3.88%.

15% on earning up to $36,900 but not over – adjusted for inflation $57,298
39.6% on earnings over $250,000 – adjusted for inflation $388,200

  • Tax Rate in 2001 under G. W. Bush (married filing jointly with five tax brackets) – average unemployment was 5.27% during his term while GDP grew 2.09%.

15% on earning up to $45,200 but not over – adjusted for inflation $57,267
39.1% on earnings over $297,350 – adjusted for inflation $376,725

  • Tax Rate in 2009 under President Obama (married filing jointly with six tax brackets) – average  unemployment reached a high of 10% in October 2009 while GDP shrunk a minus – 2.6%.  The lowest unemployment reached 7.8% in September 2012 (Obama’s presidency does not end until 2016 so we do not have average unemployment or GDP for his term). Source: bls.gov

10% on earnings up to by not over $16,700 – adjusted for inflation $17,466
25% on earnings of $67,900 – 137,050 – adjusted for inflation $71,015 – $143,338
35% on earnings over $372,950 -adjusted for inflation $390,060

____________________________

According to Dave Manuel.com, “From 1948 through to 2009, the United States economy has grown by an average of 3.28% per year. … If we exclude Barack Obama due to incomplete data, then the worst performance was turned in by George W. Bush, as the economy grew by an average of 2.09% per year during his time as president.”

“Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%.

“Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%.”

Do you know the difference between a primary fact gathering source, the media and an opinionated radio or TV talk show or Blog?

Answer: primary fact gathering sources are where the media, talk shows and Blogs get their facts. A few examples of primary fact gathering sources are the US Treasury, the Bureau of Labor Statists, the Centers for Disease Control, the FBI, the CIA Factbook and the World Bank.

However, then what the public hears may be distorted due to political and/or religious bias or political agenda.

The US Treasury reports that, “From 2009 to the present, federal revenues relative to the economy have been at their lowest levels in 60 years.

However, “Growth in the U.S. has outpaced that of other advanced economies (Germany, Euro area, Japan and UK) affected by the global financial crisis.

“Total GDP growth since 2009 to the first quarter in 2012 was + 6.8%.” But in the fourth quarter of 2008, G. W. Bush’s last year as president, average GDP was almost a minus10%.

Then by the 3rd quarter of 2009, GDP had returned to growth instead of loss and has stayed in the growth area since then. Source: Treasury.gov

Other sources used for this post:

Tax Foundation.org

Multpl.com – Unemployment

Truthful Politics.com

World Bank.org

Discover more from The Evolution of a National Burden

______________

Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “Follow”

Advertisements

Jobs: Digging for FACTS – Part 3/3

There is a connection between literacy, income and unemployment: “Literacy and Income: More than 40 percent of adults in the lowest literacy level live in poverty …  43 percent of adults at Level 1 (lowest reading level) were living in poverty, compared to 4 percent of those at Level 5 (highest reading level). … The likelihood of being on welfare goes up as literacy levels go down. Three out of four food-stamp recipients performed in the two lowest literacy levels. … Literacy and Unemployment: Seventy percent of adults with the lowest literacy skills are unemployed or work in part-time jobs.”   Source: Policy Almanac.org

No matter the reason, dropping out of high school is a decision made by the individual. No president, G. W. Bush or Obama, forces anyone to drop out of high school or to avoid college. If a child grows up and cannot read, it is not the president’s fault.

In fact, no US president is responsible for who a child’s parents are (not counting his or her children). For example, my parents raised three children: two learned to read and one didn’t.

I earned a BA, MFA and a teaching credential on the GI Bill after I was honorably discharged from the US Marines. I also had an older brother (by fourteen years) who was illiterate and his life resembled the description in this series of posts and videos of someone that cannot read.

I have never collected unemployment or applied for welfare/food stamps, but my brother and most of his seven children are illiterate as he was, have been unemployed and have collected unemployment and/or welfare such as food stamps.

When I retired from teaching (1975 – 2005) someone was hired to replace me, but the staff at the high school where I taught did not increase. The only way new jobs would be created was if there were more students coming in and new teaching positions were needed, but that wasn’t the case. Instead, the student numbers stayed about the same or dropped. In fact, a dozen veteran teachers retired the same year I did, and we were all replaced with younger teachers, but it was not reported as an increase in jobs since those jobs already existed.

In addition, starting in 2011, about 10,000 baby boomers turned age 65 every day. About 60% of them are expected to retire—about 6,000 per day (2,190,000 annually—old jobs that will need to be replaced by hiring someone else). Source: Answers.com

If the boomers that retire are replaced (I’m sure they will not all be replaced but most will), that means about 180,000 old jobs were refilled in August 2012, the same month that 96,000 new jobs were created due to job growth. If this trend continues, that equals almost four million jobs (both old and new) that will be filled by the end of 2012.

A suggestion:  When the media reports the growth of new jobs, the news should also report how many retired that month and how many people were hired to fill those old jobs in addition to the total number of people that have jobs.

We do learn one thing about the new job numbers.  We discover that private businesses are making more money and the rich are getting richer in addition to the people seeking work that fill a new/old job. Those profits paid off for the top 1% of income earners. The average annual earnings of the top 1 percent of wage earners grew 156 percent from 1979 to 2007. In contrast, earners in the 90th to 95th percentile had wage growth of 34 percent while workers in the bottom 90 percent had the weakest wage growth, at 17 percent from 1979 to 2007. Source: Economic Policy Institute

If you want to know what happens when this level of income inequality exits look no further than the American Revolution (1775 – 1783) against the British Empire; The French Revolution (1789 – 1799), the Russian Revolution (1917) and the Chinese Revolution  (1911) followed by the Chinese Civil War (1927 – 1950).

This is what happens when too many people are out of work and/or are paid too little, are hungry and have no shelter to call home.

Return to Jobs: Digging for FACTS – Part 2 or start with Part 1

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Jobs: Digging for FACTS – Part 1/3

Reuters reported, “Jobs growth slowed sharply in August, setting the stage for the Federal Reserve to pump additional money into the sluggish economy next week and dealing a blow to President Barack Obama as he seeks re-election.”

This report from Reuters is very misleading as you will discover in this three part series. It all depends on how the reporter spins the numbers.

Let me explain.

Nonfarm payrolls increased (new jobs) only 96,000 last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, but in August 2012, there were 142,101,000 civilians working in the labor force while 12,544,000 were unemployed (an 8.1% unemployment rate). In addition, seven-million were job losers or persons who completed temporary jobs.

Another nine-hundred-and-forty-two thousand were labeled as lob leavers (they quit or retired).

What about the people that quit a job or retired and are being replaced—replacing people that quit or retire does not show as an increase in jobs because that job already existed and it isn’t a new job—it is an old job.

To make sense of all this, we will travel back in time to 2008.

In August 2011, there were 139,869,000 employed Americans working in the civilian labor force compared to 13,747,000 unemployed (an 8.9% unemployment rate).

In 2010, the civilian labor force was 139,064,000 and 14,825,000 were unemployed (9.6%).

In 2009, 139,877,000 civilians were employed and 14,265,000 were unemployed (9.3%).

In 2008, President G. W. Bush’s last full year in office and the year the global financial disaster exploded, 145,362,000 civilians were employed while 8,924,000 were unemployed (5.8%).

Now, let’s reverse the clock and move forward again:

By the end of 2009, 5.5 million civilian jobs were lost.

By the end of 2010, only 813,000 jobs were lost.

However, by the end of 2011, 805,000 jobs were added back to the civilian labor force and in one month, August 2012, 96,000 new jobs were created.

Even if new job creation stayed at the same rate as August, it means adding 1.15 million new jobs for 2012—another increase for the second year in a row, but 243,000 new jobs were added in January 2012; February saw a job gain of 227,000; March saw 120,000 new jobs; April added 115,000; May 69,000; June 80,000, and July 163,000.

ADD IT UP: For the first eight months of 2012, 1.113 million new jobs were added.

Someone that is stupid and/or ignorant will point at 2009, the year 5.5 million jobs were lost, the year President Obama was sworn into office, and claim, “Look what happened after he became president.  It is all his fault.”

NO, IT ISN’T!

The fact is that the 2009 budget, the financial disaster and the labor climate in the United States was inherited from President G. W. Bush. President Obama’s first budget was approved by Congress in 2010 and his stimulus package to create jobs still has not been totally implemented (and in some cases Republicans in Congress have blocked some of President Obama’s job stimulus plans). In fact, programs of this size are often phased in over several years. We will not see the results of much of what President Obama started until his second term. If he isn’t elected, any results we see in 2013 will be his—not the GOP presidential candidate.

Continued on September 8, 2012 in Jobs: Digging for FACTS – Part 2

_______________________

Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”