Who gave us this debt? Well, both parties did, but the fault is more "R" than "D"

[Vast LWC]

How did we get all this debt? Let's look at the whole picture:

Let's start in the Johnson administration, when the debt rose from $305 Billion Dollars to $350 Billion Dollars. A total increase of $45 Billion Dollars over 5+ years

By the end of the Ford Administration the debt stood at $620 Billion Dollars. An Increase of $270 Billion Dollars over 8 Years.

The National Debt at the end of the Carter administration stood at $907 Billion Dollars. An Increase of $287 Billion dollars over 4 years.

During that entire period, Democrats held congress, so we'll halve the damage from the Nixon/Ford era.

So far the Democrats caused more debt, 467 Billion Dems to 135 Billion Reps, but here's where things start to change...

In January 1981, the House of Representatives went Republican on the wave of Reagan's popularity, and remained that way until 1987. This meant that Republicans were effectively in control of spending, having the House, the presidency and a good portion of the Senate.

During this period, the debt rose from 907 Billion to 2.2 Trillion Dollars, an increase of 1.3 Trillion Dollars.

For everyone keeping count, that is now 467 Billion Dems, 1.43 Trillion Reps.

(cont.)

 

[Vast LWC]

(cont.)

From Jan 1987 to Jan 1993, Republicans held the presidency and the Democrats held congress.

During that period, the debt rose from 2.2 Trillion to 4.1 Trillion. An increase of 1.9 Trillion Dollars.

Again, as the branches were split, we'll split the blame evenly. Bringing the totals up to:

Dems: 1.42 Trillion, Reps: 2.39 Trillion

Now we reach the Clinton Era.

From Jan 1993 to Jan 1995 the debt increased from 4.1 Trillion to 4.7 Trillion. For a total increase of 600 Billion dollars.

During this period Democrats were in control of both branches, so:

Dems: 2.02 Trillion, Reps: 2.39 Trillion

In January of 1995, Republicans took control of both houses of congress. From Jan 1995 to Jan 2001, The president was Democratic and Congress Republican, so again we split the difference. During this period, the Debt rose from 4.7 Trillion to 5.7 Trillion, an increase of 1 Trillion Dollars.

Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 2.89 Trillion

Now, in Jan 2001, President Bush took office. From Jan 2001 to Jan 2007, except for a brief tie in the senate (with a republican tie-breaker as VP), the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

During this period, the debt rose from 5.7 Trillion to 9 Trillion. An Increase of 3.3 Trillion Dollars.

Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 6.2 Trillion Dollars

From Jan 2007 to Jan 2009, the Democrats controlled Congress, and George W Bush was president, so, again, we split the difference. During that period, the debt rose from 9 Trillion to 11.2 Trillion. A difference of 2.2 Trillion dollars.

Dems: 3.6 Trillion, Reps: 7.3 Trillion

Which brings us to 2010, where congress and the presidency are both controlled by Democrats.

In the past year the debt has risen to 12.6 Trillion dollars, for an increase of 1.4 Trillion dollars.

Thus the totals are:


Dems: 5 Trillion Dollars, Reps: 7.3 Trillion dollars

Sources:
Composition of Congress, by Political Party
National Debt Clock - Defeat the Debt
Treasury Direct National Debt History

 

[Vast LWC]

It has been argued that the year 2001 should go to Clinton and 2009 to Bush, as per the acounuting of fiscal years.

If you count it like that:

The Dems gain 200 Billion from 2001, and the Reps gain 1.4 Trillion from 2009.

Leaving:

Dems: 3.8 Trillion, Reps: 8.5 Trillion

 

[Truthmatters]

Funny the so called fiscal party has a much worse fiscal record in fact.

 

[Vast LWC]

I think this is about as fair an assessment you can make too, without getting a bevy of economist to come in and assign blame to each individual expenditure.

 

[Truthmatters]

I have never understood how the Rs get away with the lies about being the fiscal party.

 

[tigerbob]

I'm sure the posters who spend all their time looking backward for someone to blame will find that fascinating.

Kudos on the research, though.

 

[Truthmatters]

looking behind?

See how they HATE facts and history because it proves how insane it is to believe in the republican false line.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm sure the posters who spend all their time looking backward for someone to blame will find that fascinating.

Kudos on the research, though.

Thanks for the Kudos.

I feel if we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

The new stock of politicians are making the same promises they made all along and didn't keep. So somebody has to keep tabs on what they've done (or barring that, what the party they're affiliated with has done) in the past.

 

[tigerbob]

I'm sure the posters who spend all their time looking backward for someone to blame will find that fascinating.

Kudos on the research, though.

Thanks for the Kudos.

I feel if we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

The new stock of politicians are making the same promises they made all along and didn't keep. So somebody has to keep tabs on what they've done (or barring that, what the party they're affiliated with has done) in the past.

Ah, if we're talking about learning from it, then I agree with you completely.

But so long as politicians are more preoccupied with gaining or holding onto power than they are about simply solving problems, I fear we are doomed to make the same mistakes in generation after generation.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I am more than happy to accept fact.

Now that we have uncovered the past does that make the record breaking deficits of today alright? Isn't it time we stopped the reckless spending?

 

[Dr Grump]

I am more than happy to accept fact.

Now that we have uncovered the past does that make the record breaking deficits of today alright? Isn't it time we stopped the reckless spending?

It will be interesting to see those figures at the end of Obama's term. That being said, there is a problem with the figures in that VLC hasn't taken into account what $200 billion in 1965 translates into real money these days...

 

[tigerbob]

looking behind?

See how they HATE facts and history because it proves how insane it is to believe in the republican false line.

"Ding!" Another stat for my excel spreadsheet (where I'm graphing the number of times I've been called either a Republican or a Democrat).

Actually, my point was that posters of both colors who like nothing better than to hurl accusations at each other will find those figures very stimulating.

You should try reading posts without that chip on your shoulder.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I am more than happy to accept fact.

Now that we have uncovered the past does that make the record breaking deficits of today alright? Isn't it time we stopped the reckless spending?

It will be interesting to see those figures at the end of Obama's term. That being said, there is a problem with the figures in that VLC hasn't taken into account what $200 billion in 1965 translates into real money these days...

True, I forgot about that too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Probably the biggest waste of electrons ever.

Look at how much the Statist programs proposed by LBJ cost us today! That's the real issue.

Also, for the billionth time: CONGESS CONTROLS SPENDING

 

[mudwhistle]

How did we get all this debt? Let's look at the whole picture:

Let's start in the Johnson administration, when the debt rose from $305 Billion Dollars to $350 Billion Dollars. A total increase of $45 Billion Dollars over 5+ years

By the end of the Ford Administration the debt stood at $620 Billion Dollars. An Increase of $270 Billion Dollars over 8 Years.

The National Debt at the end of the Carter administration stood at $907 Billion Dollars. An Increase of $287 Billion dollars over 4 years.

During that entire period, Democrats held congress, so we'll halve the damage from the Nixon/Ford era.

So far the Democrats caused more debt, 467 Billion Dems to 135 Billion Reps, but here's where things start to change...

In January 1981, the House of Representatives went Republican on the wave of Reagan's popularity, and remained that way until 1987. This meant that Republicans were effectively in control of spending, having the House, the presidency and a good portion of the Senate.

During this period, the debt rose from 907 Billion to 2.2 Trillion Dollars, an increase of 1.3 Trillion Dollars.

For everyone keeping count, that is now 467 Billion Dems, 1.43 Trillion Reps.

(cont.)

The Dems spent over 2 trillion last year.

So that pretty much erases the GOP spending completely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much is LBJ's "War on Poverty" still costing us today?

 

[Truthmatters]

looking behind?

See how they HATE facts and history because it proves how insane it is to believe in the republican false line.

"Ding!" Another stat for my excel spreadsheet (where I'm graphing the number of times I've been called either a Republican or a Democrat).

Actually, my point was that posters of both colors who like nothing better than to hurl accusations at each other will find those figures very stimulating.

You should try reading posts without that chip on your shoulder.

WAAAAAA

your a con and will vote for a republican before ANY person with a D after their name.

You know it and everyone who has seen you post knows it.

 

[boedicca]

The OP is completely missing the point. Focusing on the Dems vs. the GOP is a waste of time. The real contest is Big Government vs. Limited Government.

Throughout human history (and probably among alien civilizations as well), governments have always sought power accretion. This is one of the reasons why The Founders designed our system of government the way the did. Sadly, they did not have the predictive power to see how the legal profession in collusion with professional politicians would work to undo the checks and balances they defined.

 

[tigerbob]

looking behind?

See how they HATE facts and history because it proves how insane it is to believe in the republican false line.

"Ding!" Another stat for my excel spreadsheet (where I'm graphing the number of times I've been called either a Republican or a Democrat).

Actually, my point was that posters of both colors who like nothing better than to hurl accusations at each other will find those figures very stimulating.

You should try reading posts without that chip on your shoulder.

WAAAAAA

your a con and will vote for a republican before ANY person with a D after their name.

You know it and everyone who has seen you post knows it.

There's that chip again.

I've never voted Republican. Or Democrat.