Republican presidents have added more debt than Democrats; 6 trillion more

[YumYum]

All the way back to Truman, it’s the R presidents who added the most debt

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F176C8qJmLA/TjNEDYSjzjI/AAAAAAAAGWE/u4f2aHB71jk/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-07-29+at+6.35.45+PM.jpg

A fascinating chart via Wikipedia. In addition to showing how much debt was added during each presidency, all the way back to Truman, the chart also shows debt relative to GDP. The reason for that is that $1 trillion in debt in 1950 was a heck of a lot more than $1 trillion in debt today. So the ratio gives you a sense of how big the figure really is in the dollars of the time.

What do we see? That during Democratic presidencies, all the way back to Truman, there was a decrease in the ratio of total debt to GDP. But during Republican presidencies, all the way back to Nixon, there was an increase in the ratio of total debt to GDP.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/07/all-way-back-to-truman-its-r-presidents.html

[Unelected]

It really doesn't matter because ideologies change even though party names don't. Calling Republicans hypocrites for caring about the national debt now doesn't make any sense.

The debt issue isn't a red vs blue issue. It's an issue that affects all Americans.

[Danke]

I thought Congress passed bills?

The president just signs them. And congress can override a veto.

[nobody's_hero]

The thing that troubles me most about this data is that *most* people who present it do so as justification for their own bad behaviors. If I had a dollar for everytime I saw a comment on a debt-related news article that said, "Well, the republicans weren't upset when Bush increased the debt limit," I could actually pay off the national debt.

This thinknig gets us no where. I'm NOT referring to you, YumYum, but there are people out there who point out such hypocrisy only to conceal their own hypocrisy.

We wonder why our debt has gone out of control.

Party B uses party A's fiscal irresponsibility to justify their own bloated spending.

Party B loses next election, and party A points to party B's fiscal irresponsibility to justify their own bloated spending.

Repeat.

It works for wars too:

Party B uses Party A's war in Kosovo as justification to make wars when it sees fit.

Party A uses Party B's war in Iraq and Afghanistan as justification for Libya interventionism.


All the while, they are relying on perpetuating the left-right paradigm so that no one actually sees that the wars and the debt are spiraling out of control.

[sailingaway]

Who had congress? Because Bush was shocking because he had all three of the House, Senate and executive office. I have a little more sympathy for Reagan. But maybe it's because I just LIKE Reagan....

[Zippyjuan]

Right- it is Congress who writes the spending and taxing bills. So who was in charge of them?
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

So let us look at the periods of big increases in the debt. Debt as a percent of GDP first started to soar under Ronald Reagan - 1981- 1985. Tha is when Republicans took control of the Presidency and the Senate. 1985- 1989 the Democrats took back the Senate. George HW Bush 1989- 1993- Democrats had both houses. Next huge increase was GW Bush which had Republicans in control of both houses for most of the time. Republicans still control the House (which writes the actual spending bills) today. Based on Congress- both are guilty. Based on President, Republicans are more culpable.

Clinton and Bush both faced mostly Republican houses- governement spending grew the lowest under Clinton and (until today) the most under Bush. Does the president matter? It seems he can have an impact.

[MJU1983]

Who had congress? Because Bush was shocking because he had all three of the House, Senate and executive office. I have a little more sympathy for Reagan. But maybe it's because I just LIKE Reagan....

Democrats... :)

Per the US Treasury Department's own website: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np)

George W. Bush took office in January 2001 with an outstanding National Debt of $5.7 Trillion and left office in January 2009 with an outstanding National Debt of $10.6 Trillion. Yes, he is responsible for a lot of new debt, approximately $4.9 Trillion in 8 years - averaging $612,500,000,000/year.

The Republican House Majority under George W. Bush, Jan 2001 - Jan 2007 added $2,953,976,815,749.48 to the national debt.

Okay, now I wonder how this all stacks up against the "good" guys?

Nancy Pelosi took over in Jan 2007 through January 2011 holding a House Majority under both GWB and Obama. She unfortunately watched over an increase to the national debt of $5,320,718,526,515.82.

Well, that's not so good but I bet Obama is more of a fiscal conservative than George W. Bush was...with all his reckless spending, debt, and deficits...

Under President Obama we have racked up $1,556,000,000,000 in debt per year for 2.5 years ($3.89T).

Hmmmmmm that can't be right, the TV told me it's the republicans fault, especially the Tea Party! :confused:

What about historically? There has got to be a way we can pin this all on "republicans" - maybe Reagan, or somebody over the past decades right??

Based on my arithmetic from 1949 - Current, Republicans are directly responsible via their House majorities for $3,879,097,309,980. Democrats unfortunately are responsible via their House majorities for $10,610,902,690,020. I'll throw in a +/- of $300B for each because the debt was roughly that in 1949.

Congress controls the purse, right?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/Control_of_the_US_House_of_Representatives.png

[sofia]

These stats are manipulated to make Obama look good.

Obama has added 5 trillion in just three years and he comes out looking OK with this????

Look at inflation adjusted dollars...forget that "debt-to-GDP" nonsense.

[Microsecessionist]

If you start with Wilson (the first progressive Democrat), and especially don't combine FDR and Truman, then the Democrats are quite a bit worse. Still, the Democrats aren't as bad if you don't include Harding and Coolidge.

I also think that if the next President is Romney or Bachmann, then the Federal debt will increase more than it would if we were to stay with Obama.

[Agorism]

Most congresses have been Democrat though so I blame them.

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

They are both big spenders, but don't forget to take into account the Congresses that they worked with.

[TheViper]

The figures are irrelevant to begin with.

This chart calculates the different in debt to GDP ratio for the start to end of each fiscal year. Well, the debt to GDP ratio is a very poor metric to even bother with when debating debt increase. For instance, government spending (which is calculated in the GPD) can go way up for a period but the interest rate can be set very low giving the perceived appearance that the debt was not as big of an increase that year. Conversely, you can take a year will modest government spending in the GDP but a very high interest rate and it will look horrible.

[oyarde]

Well , Wilson , United Nations , LBJ , Medicare / Medicaid , Obama , health bill , probably those alone , more than everything else together....

[acptulsa]

Viper's right--apples to oranges to grapes to tangerines.

Besides, does it matter? The lesser of evils is still evil enough.

[asurfaholic]

So.... who's going to cut spending?

[showpan]

Well , Wilson , United Nations , LBJ , Medicare / Medicaid , Obama , health bill , probably those alone , more than everything else together....


You fail to understand that medicare (and SS) is not actually funded by the government and Obamacare has not yet started and probably never will. So the main expanse has always been the huge military complex.

[Zippyjuan]

The figures are irrelevant to begin with.

This chart calculates the different in debt to GDP ratio for the start to end of each fiscal year. Well, the debt to GDP ratio is a very poor metric to even bother with when debating debt increase. For instance, government spending (which is calculated in the GPD) can go way up for a period but the interest rate can be set very low giving the perceived appearance that the debt was not as big of an increase that year. Conversely, you can take a year will modest government spending in the GDP but a very high interest rate and it will look horrible.

Changing interest rates have really no impact on the size of the debt. It does effect how much you pay in interest on the debt but that does not add much to the total debt. Consider the current levels. Debt is $14 trillion. Interest on the debt for this year is estimated to be $164 billion. Double the interest rate on the total debt and the total debt only increases by $165 billion- out of over $14 trillion. Rising or falling interest rates will not cause the debt to baloon or drop significantly.

[Acala]

So.... who's going to cut spending?

Mr. Market.