Show HN: Exploring the US Budget, 1962-2019

by nni • 12 years ago

69 38 12 years ago

How does the national debt increase from $5,656,270,901,633.43 to $5,674,178,209,886.86 during a year with a $200,000,000,000 surplus?

nni3• 12 years ago

I assume you are referring to 2000. I am very much a newbie in this stuff, but think that the "story" from the OMB outlays/receipts data (which is what this is based on) is only part of the story. For example, I read somewhere that some were arguing that this "surplus" in that period was not a good thing in some respects. There's a lot to learn.

dripton• 12 years ago

It wasn't a real on-budget surplus. It was only a surplus if you took the revenue from Social Security tax and ignored the obligation to later pay Social Security with it.

nni3• 12 years ago

Hey dripton - curious what your thoughts are on this: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-unde...

I think that this gets into what the deal might have been with respect to whether you count the social security tax or not. I think that they conclude there is a "surplus" either way, although it is of course smaller. However, you might be referring to something else.

judk2• 12 years ago

SS benefits are paid from current taxes. There is no Social Security Lock Box, its was a metaphor.

dmix• 12 years ago

Did some math for fun:

DoD 2000-2014 = $282 billion to $587 billion = 2.08x increase over 14 years.

Total 2000-2004 = $1.79 trillion to $3.65 trillion = 2.03x increase.

So since 9/11 DoD seems to be expanding at the rate of total government expansion, which is pretty rapid. Compared to the 14 years before that from 1985-1999.

DoD 1985-1999 = $246 billion to $262 billion = 1.065x increase over 14 years

Total 1985-1999 = $946 billion to $1.7 trillion = 1.7x increase

So the total government is growing at a similar rate, but DoD exploded in size in the last 14 years.

refurb• 12 years ago

It all depends on the time period you measure across.

1985 was near the peak of the Reagan cold war build up. No surprise the budget didn't grow between then and 1999.

Retric• 12 years ago

Unfortunatly the US budget is intentionally misleading in a wide number of ways.

For example there is a lot of DoD spending that's not included in those numbers. Such as veterains affairs. Also, those numbers don't take into account inflation or the current GDP.

frogpelt2• 12 years ago

They split it up by discretionary and mandatory.

Supporting veterans or paying government employees' promised pensions is considered mandatory. Buying 12 new aircraft carriers is not mandatory.

b2themax• 12 years ago

Good job, great visuals make it easy to understand the numbers.

frogpelt2• 12 years ago

The projections show the deficit being almost equal to the debt service payments in 2017-2019. There's a lesson about debt in there somewhere.

imaginenore• 12 years ago

Inflation-adjusted version would be useful.

pdeuchler3• 12 years ago

But would also be difficult, and introduce a political element to it

seanmcdirmid3• 12 years ago

Uhm, no. Inflation is a given; these numbers aren't very useful without adjusting for inflation and population and/or GDP growth.

dredmorbius2• 12 years ago

Yes. Or (as suggested below) spending as percentage of GDP.

pdeuchler3• 12 years ago

Is this on github/bitbucket/google code or am I going to have to dig around the JS to mess around with it?

Regardless, pretty cool.

sheetjs• 12 years ago

Your possibilities aren't mutually exclusive: There are many unminified javascript files floating around that are not OSS.

Is this OSS

Unless the author releases it under an open source license, the answer is no

am I going to have to dig around minified JS to mess around with it?

The unminified source is available at http://learnforeverlearn.com/usbudget/dist/usbudget.js

The source data is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/supplemental (note that XLS files are the normative versions)

pdeuchler3• 12 years ago

Edited comment to change tone and clarify what I was asking

rando289• 12 years ago

Over time comparisons should be inflation adjusted, and optionally adjusted by total population or gdb.

chrismealy2• 12 years ago

The government really is an insurance company with an army.

Agathos• 12 years ago

My impulsive response would be that no insurance company would be stupid enough to sign up for such a certain loss. But then again, AIG.

gobengo• 12 years ago

When you think about it, that's not a bad definition of government in < 140 chars.

chrismealy2• 12 years ago

It's not my line: http://underbelly-buce.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-on-holland-...

Aloha• 12 years ago

This would be more helpful is it was indexed to inflation, the numbers are quite misleading otherwise.

dredmorbius2• 12 years ago

I like this.

First response: I'd prefer the total spending was more clearly highlighted (larger font and/or to the side).

Inflation-adjusted or percent of total GDP would also be useful.

The detail pop-ups are pretty sweet. A little hard to navigate (somewhat a property of space available). Maybe give them more of the window -- if someone's looking at the detail show them the detail and allocate display space to it.

wdr1• 12 years ago

Beautiful visualization! I really like it.

Only semi-related, but something I've always wondered: Like a lot of other sources, this graph shows us running surplus in '98 & '99.

At the same time, the federal debt increased in those years:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histd...

Can anyone explain why?

joshuaheard• 12 years ago

Without looking at the issue, I can say that the "deficit" and "surplus" are for the budget. Actual spending may differ, which may explain the rise of the debt.

MaysonL• 12 years ago

"Debt" includes the Treasury securities held by Social Security and Medicare trust funds, I believe.

pandatigox• 12 years ago

Really nice visualization - helps to put things in perspective. Interesting how 2009 shows a US deficit in the trillions.

judk2• 12 years ago

Sigh, another fancy site that doesn't work on mobile, but could be presented with simple divs/tables or even ASCII art.

nni3• 12 years ago

judk - not sure if you're checking back, but wondering what device you are using. It has some responsive design stuff that should let it be usable on an iPhone in portrait (it just shows the two main bars). Small screen landscape is another issue.

Show HN: Exploring the US Budget, 1962-2019

Related Stories