Take no notice

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
Contributor
HQqNGCibMAE4opk
 
Yakuda said:
Just wondering thats all.
Click to expand...

The graph is directionally accurate on the big picture, but it rounds numbers, uses a dual-axis scale that can overstate visual alignment, and the 2026 endpoints are a bit high or rounded.


Federal debt (blue line)


  • 1950: about $257 billion ($0.26T). On a scale that goes to $42T it looks like near-zero, which is why the line starts flat on the bottom.
  • Growth stayed relatively modest for decades, then accelerated after the 2000s (especially 2008 and 2020).
  • Recent figures: FY 2025 around $36–38T; by mid-to-late August 2026 official totals were in the $38–40T range. The graph’s top labels ($36.7T and $42.17T) are in the right neighborhood but not exact for a single snapshot.

The hockey-stick rise in nominal debt is real.


Women in Congress (green line)


  • Early 1950s: roughly 10 women serving at once (House + Senate). The low start on the chart is correct.
  • 119th Congress (2025–2026): about 150–155 women (including some variation from special elections/appointments). That is ~28% of voting members (535 total).

The long rise, especially from the 1990s onward, is also real.


What the graph does well

Both series really did stay low for a long time and then climb sharply in recent decades. The overall shape is not fabricated.


What to watch


  • Debt is shown in raw dollars, not inflation-adjusted or as a share of GDP (debt/GDP was actually higher right after WWII than it is today).
  • 2026 endpoints are slightly rounded compared with official tallies around August 2026.

Bottom line: the trends are factual.
 
Diogenes said:
The graph is directionally accurate on the big picture, but it rounds numbers, uses a dual-axis scale that can overstate visual alignment, and the 2026 endpoints are a bit high or rounded.


Federal debt (blue line)


  • 1950: about $257 billion ($0.26T). On a scale that goes to $42T it looks like near-zero, which is why the line starts flat on the bottom.
  • Growth stayed relatively modest for decades, then accelerated after the 2000s (especially 2008 and 2020).
  • Recent figures: FY 2025 around $36–38T; by mid-to-late August 2026 official totals were in the $38–40T range. The graph’s top labels ($36.7T and $42.17T) are in the right neighborhood but not exact for a single snapshot.

The hockey-stick rise in nominal debt is real.


Women in Congress (green line)


  • Early 1950s: roughly 10 women serving at once (House + Senate). The low start on the chart is correct.
  • 119th Congress (2025–2026): about 150–155 women (including some variation from special elections/appointments). That is ~28% of voting members (535 total).

The long rise, especially from the 1990s onward, is also real.


What the graph does well

Both series really did stay low for a long time and then climb sharply in recent decades. The overall shape is not fabricated.


What to watch


  • Debt is shown in raw dollars, not inflation-adjusted or as a share of GDP (debt/GDP was actually higher right after WWII than it is today).
  • 2026 endpoints are slightly rounded compared with official tallies around August 2026.

Bottom line: the trends are factual.
Click to expand...
I understand how graphs work I just wondered where you got it. Thanks for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top