Bloomberg News published a new round of polling data last night, most of it relating to the economy and the larger fiscal debate. The results are largely in line with expectations -- most Americans prefer President Obama's debt-reduction plans over Republicans', and would like Congress to delay the sequester to avoid hurting the economy.
But there was one question in the poll that struck me as especially important: "Let's turn to the federal budget deficit. This is the amount the government spends that is more than the amount it takes in from taxes and other revenue. Is it your sense that this year the deficit is getting bigger or getting smaller, or is it staying about the same as last year?"
I put together this chart to help highlight the Bloomberg results. A 62% majority believe the deficit is getting bigger, 28% believe the deficit is staying roughly the same, and only 6% believe the deficit is shrinking.
In other words, in the midst of a major national debate over America's finances, 90% of Americans are wrong about the one basic detail that probably matters most in the conversation, while only 6% -- 6%! -- are correct.
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
And yet, 90% of Americans don't believe the demonstrable, incontrovertible, entirely objective truth. It's worth pondering why.
Public ignorance on this scale is, to my mind, understandable given the political conversation. Literally every day, Republican officials proclaim that the deficit is spiraling out of control, threatening the fate of Western Civilization As We Know It. The media often fails to play a constructive role, with news organizations playing along, telling the public that the deficit is necessarily a bad thing, and that policymakers have a responsibility to address it immediately.
Indeed, for the typical American news consumer, I imagine there's an assumption that comes alongside the fiscal debate: "The deficit must be getting bigger in a hurry, otherwise it'd be stupid for Washington to invest so much time and energy on this issue, instead of other pressing matters."
But the facts are the facts, even if only 6% of the country is aware of them.
Leave a Comment:
We speak about 99% literacy rates in the US, but our math literacy rates are abysmal, 5%? maybe 10%?
They argue in the school newspaper here, available for free everywhere in this college town about Zinn. I've read some of Lies My Teacher Told Me. So, I conclude that literacy alone is not enough. What good is it if we read lies? And now we have video. How many lies there? We should educate our students in watching, too, I think. It is easy to confuse words and misunderstand statements made in video presentations, a.k.a television, but also internet videos. Some of us I dare say not only misunderstand what we watch but find it difficult to get over our biases to watch and then others among us are denied useful knowledge in reading and watching. I do find it valuable to know who leans left and who right, who is a democrat and who a republican. I remember being denied that kind of information in the 70's and 80's.
Forgive me, got a little off topic.
BTW, I really appreciate all of the distinctions, explanations,
and metaphors given above.
But really where is the back-up to any and/or all of this information. Where are the links to factual data and the discussion of who is distinguishing fact from a game of telephone.
Ms. Wiley, a good website to play around with is the Department of the Treasury's Debt to the Penny data service:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
You can go there and get the raw numbers on the outstanding public debt figures. This is a more honest source because it takes into account the real operating deficits effects, as opposed to massaged figures that use various percentages and/or don't exclude accounting tricks like the off-budget versus on-budget definitions, etc.
Thank you for the answers on the national debt and the deficit. Can you tell me now what is a balanced budget? It does not mean the debt has been erased? It means there is no deficit? I only recall Clinton's balanced budget. It was the first balanced budget I had ever experienced. Did Eisenhower do it? I was not old enough to really know Eisenhower being born just after he was first elected. I was 6 when he left office.
It would mean there is no deficit. A perfectly balanced budget would mean we take in the exact same amount as we spend, so the total debt would not change. When you have a surplus, as we had in the late 90's, some of that surplus can go to paying off the long-term debt. That was the first time in years that the total debt actually went down instead of up. As for Eisenhower, I don't know about that one. With the high marginal taxes and booming economy, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the budget was balanced.
Clinton had only a balanced "budget", as the federal government places many of its spending activities "off budget". The national debt grew every year under Clinton, as well most presidents of the previous generations. From mid-jan to mid-jan, the national debt under Clinton's last 3 years grew by 128, 83, and 21 billion.
I think the unforgivable voice (or lack thereof) belongs to the news media. Matter of fact, I think most of the world's problems could be mitigated (or at least not distorted and sensationalized) if a responsible, educated and ethical news media would properly attend to its appointed role in our democracy. Afterall, they ARE coined the "Fourth Estate" for a reason.
Its bad enough that a Faux News exists to counter the legitimate media, but for the established arms of journalism to acquiesce in promulgating this blather is, well, unforgiving. Heck, as it is they're doing little more than carrying water for Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes.
The fact that the year over year deficit does down is irrelevant while the total debt continues to go up. Republicans will unfairly beat us over the head with it until the total debt curve starts to bend downward even though they are responsible for much of it.
::flips blonde hair side to side:: "honey..well yes...I overspent our income...but but...I did spend a teensy weensy bit less than last year" aren't you proud of me.?!......won't you take me out to dinner?!...stomps and pouts..."I am making big sacrifices"....(nevermind that the debt...er credit card balance is higher and payments are now bigger then ever)....does Maddow want to have informed viewers...or not....this makes me think: not.
That's an "informed citizenry " which too many of us aren't.
Which is why Repubs can get away with this s***.
The phrase could be made so much more obvious if the media simply referred to the deficit as the annual deficit. One more word, but so much more clarity.
For those who like raw numbers, here are the mid-jan to mid jan numbers for the last five years, subtracting the outstanding public debt figure of one year from the previous.:
1435
1701
1729
1180
1196
in billions. So Between the last year and the one before that, the operating deficit was up slightly, in terms of pure numbers without massaging them for effect. The average for the 4 years of the Obama term is 1451.5
Steve: great article and from the comments it has obviously informed a lot of people, not just about the debt and deficit, but also about the uninformed state of the American public.
(But please: the deficit shrank or it has shrunk. Shrink, shrank, shrunk. Shrank is simple past tense of the verb to shrink. Shrunk is past participle and should be used with have, has, or had. Sorry, old English teacher reaction.)
Misinformation is the currency with which Republicans buy votes.
This article is semantic BS, and like putting lipstick on a pig. The one year deficit may be decreasing but as long as we have any deficit the total national debt is increasing.
When the debt increases that means the interest on the debt is increasing so less revenue is actually being used and more revenue goes to interest.
There will be a GO FISH card tournament, only for caucasians 40 years and older. Participating states are AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, SC, and TN.
Hey y'all, just remember what happened on JANUARY 3, 2007 ? So until the mid-term elections in 2010 who ran congress ? January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIALSERVICES!
Who was it that asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
who in 2009 passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets?
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending.
In a nutshell, what the Democrats are saying is we inherited a deficit that we voted for and then we voted to expand that deficit four-fold since that January 20th.
There is absolutely No Question that both parties are responsible for the current economic disaster.
Sorry but you are so far off base its not funny. First clue, dems won both houses in 2007 but they did not take office until 2008. The damage was already done by the time the Dems were sworn in. Funny how you whiners that claim both sides are guilty never get facts in place.
I am getting so sick of Washington the Republicans are going to do their damdest to sink the country and totally destroy an hope of returning to normal and we let them do it. Why in hell vote it doesn't do any good. Compare to a year ago and where are we. The only way any of this changes is when the WE THE PEOPLE take to the streets and take back government. Washington is so full of theives it is disgusting.
I empathize with your distress. But I don't agree that "taking back government" can be accomplished directly from "the streets". It sounds messy. And IF we could take back the government (which we put there) by physically taking to the streets, who would clean up the street mess afterwards?
I don't find it at all surprising that Americans aren't getting the facts about the deficit or Obama or anything else important. The GOP has become a band of liars, and they have Limbaugh and Hannity and Fox noise all backing up their lies, retelling their lies, and doubling down on their lies.
They are the party of hate and lies.
Too often the mainstream media does not correct them. They let the lies slide by, as well.
Plus, most Americans are not interested in politics. They prefer soap operas and sit-coms. I've spoken to people who do not know who the VP of the US is! I recently was asked if Obama was a Democrat or Republican by an otherwise normal looking woman.
Deficits are important in showing what the immediate financial health of the government is. The debt is more important since it gives the overall picture of our governments financial health. In other terms... I have had a cold for the last few days and last month I had a cold as well, giving the perception that I am sick all the time. But I haven't been sick but those two times in the last year. So in the big picture I am a pretty healthy person. Deficit vs. Debt.
The deficit this year is projected to be smaller by $600 billion, totaling $845 billion for 2013. That is the first time it will be under $1 trillion since 2008. Why? Higher taxes, not spending cuts.
National debt, in my opinion is the more important of the two, and is growing at an alarming rate. Bush's first 4 years he added $1.7 trillion to the national debt. The total debt added during all 8 years in office was $4.4 trillion. Lets compare that with the amount Obama has added to the national debt; $5 trillion in just his first 4 years. Pretty big difference. Just so you know you can find these facts where I got them, the treasury website.
I don't want to make this a right or left thing, what this needs to be is a conversation about facts. The fact is both sides have added to our debt. Yes we need to raise some more revenue by simplifying our tax code but our real problem is that we spend way past our means. Spending got us into this situation, so wouldn't it be logical to stop doing just that?
Is it any wonder that most people in the US are mislead when the media business and the entire news agency is in the pockets of big business?
Rachel, maybe Americans are just seeing the bigger picture. You may be correct, but only technically, based on a small frame of reference. In the broader scheme of things, 2007's budget deficit was $161B. In 2008, it was $459B. In 2009, it exploded to $1413B, and has only shrunk slowly since then, back down to $901B this year. That's fine, but it doesn't matter if the deficit is shrinking as compared to the biggest explosion of the deficit in history. It's still close to those levels, and far too high. That's what the country understands, and to say that they don't get that the deficit is actually shrinking as compared to last year is missing the mountain because you're staring at the molehills.
Rachel Maddow is known for playing tricks with words. The fact of the matter is that our debt is being added to constantly. We have a deficit every year. We spend more than we take in. A lot more. What difference does it make if the amount of the deficit is lower one year to the next. Constant deficit spending is unsustainable.
If you don't believe me, try maxing out all your credit cards, and then tell the bank you reduced the amount of your indebtedness this year over last. It wouldn't matter!
Projecting your behaviors onto RM really you attempt that here on her blog, LOL. Guess what after your first sentence everyone knows that you are playing concern troll , here is a clue, you should have started whining in 1981 when Reagan took the country for the worlds leading loaner Nation to the worlds leading borrowing nation. BTW, trying to compare a household budget to the national budget is rather lame and clearly shows you know nothing about National budgets.
I think RM enjoys the discussion. I don't have to agree with her to write in her blog. I agree 100% with your point about Reagan. I never said I was partial to the republican point of view. It's a known fact that debt of this magnitude is unsustainable for a business, an individual or a nation. It's rather dubious economics and logic to state otherwise. When the president's debt commision was formed in 2010, there was bipartisan agreement on this matter. Trust me, if our debt and deficits are not dealt with, things much worse than 2008 will surely be the result. It's only a matter of time.
This is not a right/left issue. It is a discussion about the facts.
This is typical Maddow BS. WHITEHOUSE.GOV's OWN NUMBERS show otherwise. If it was 600 billion less than when Obama took office, that would give them a 200 billion surplus. The year Obama took office, it jumped from $459 Billion, to $1413 Billion. Projected at 900 billion this year. Maddow, you should try to use actually facts for once.
Try adding the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and Medicare Part D to that $459 billion and you'll find that GWB was cooking the books, so to speak.
By the way, 600 minus 459 is not zero. And $900 billion is less than $1 trillion plus. I hope to FSM you have an accountant!
Yes the deficit is getting smaller, very slowly, but is still over 1 trillion dollars. And federal spending is still actually on the rise. The reason the deficit is slowly shrinking is because Obama, having previously promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, raised taxes on EVERYONE. Anyone that actually has a job has seen their paycheck shrink a good amount since 2013 hit, regardless of social class.
So basically he is still spending more while taxing the crap out of people in the US that actually have jobs.
Government spending, like any spending contributes to the economy, and recirculates through the economy. It is the circulation of money that often drives an economy. Also, Government often provides those things that private industry will not, as there is not profit in it. Regardless, it may well be things that people would want and need, such as roads etc. When the wealthy fail to provide these things and instead, hoard their money, the only way to get it to circulate again may well be to tax it away from them to re-spend on publicly needed projects. Perhaps even Pharoah (the government of ancient Egypt) knew this and that is why he built pyramids. New evidence may show these public works projects were to employ the unemployed.
How much better to build roads and other things all people could use.
Maddow should include herself in the 90% of the uninformed. One of the main reasons for the public's "ignorance" on this issue is the confusion between the "debt" and "deficit". Which is understandable since politicians and the media often use these terms interchangeably and incorrectly. Case in point: In the very first column, Maddow erroneously references "President Obama's debt-reduction plans". Neither Obama nor the Republicans have any plans to reduce the DEBT. This would require budget surpluses which are a pipe dream for the next decade at this point. Don't blame the public for being ignorant on the issue when moron media members like Maddow can't even get the facts that are central to point they are trying to make right.
Amazing shooter 242 is still peddling bull@!$%# 24/7
Well, interest rates... the cost of borrowing is pretty cheap. If you're gonna borrow, now's the time to borrow. If you give the money to contractors (US businesses) to build or rebuild stuff that needs to be done, well this is a good time to do it. Because so many people are idle and drawing unemployment, but not as much as if they were working and SPENDING those Government dollars back into their neighbors businesses. And fixing/repairing stuff we need to fix anyway.
That would tend to kickstart a slow economy. Everybody makes money, invests and commerce is good. That's much better than people getting laid off, not paying taxes, not buying stuff from places that keep us employed. If THEY are laid off, it might happen that YOU will get laid off too because they're too broke to visit the place where you work with CASH. We call that DEMAND.
Rich people don't hire new workers without DEMAND ready to buy stuff. Instead, rich people store that money in the stockmarket where it sits idle. They'll only hire people if there are (middle class) customers standing in line with money to spend, and you don't have enough workers to satisfy that demand to make stuff to SELL to them (at a fair profit!).
That's the truth of it. Republicans don't really buy into this truism because their contributors are already rich. And too short sighted to worry about NEXT YEARS customers. They'd rather pay them less now and get more profit NOW. Why is this? Because most wealthy people aren't really businessmen. THey're investors and they just want their stocks to increase in value and profits. And they intend to SELL them and buy cheaper stocks. Not to build more widgets this year and next, and the year after. It's too bad, but thats what happens when you get a mature economy like ours.
The wealthy just want to skim off the gravy...they dont want to cook the meal, or open up a restaurant to support themselves for years. They're just TEMPORARY owners.
This is today's business model. Making durable companies isn't important. In fact, Mitt Romney made HIS profits, tearing companies down piece by piece for profits. What a horrible choice the Republicans made, nominating a vulture capitalist as their candidate! They destroy business and fire people...and end profit making companies.
Or buying weak companies, borrow lots of money in those companies name by suckering bankers, and then bankrupt them, screwing those who loaned them money.
They're gaming our society to get rich. We need a government who's Justice Department will have the balls to investigate and imprison them for a very long time for fraud. And who have rules preventing them from screwing employees before firing them.
That will NOT be a Republican government. If any, it would be a Democrat government because they are more loyal to workers and regular folks than the fat cats who try to buy elections to get you ordinary folks to vote for Republicans. So they can steal more from you and your children. Not rocket science.