US Debt History by President and Congress

[Jabberwock]

So first there is WWI under Wilson.

We then have FDR with the New Deal.

Next is WWII.

There is the postwar decline and economic expansion.

The next incline is under Reagan. Military spending increases, tax cuts, etc. Even though this was a Democratic/Mixed Congress, they did everything that Reagan wanted. Reagan and Congress are to blame for this incline.

There is Clinton and his budget surplus. This GOP Congress was led by moderates.

Next up is Bush's war spending, tax cuts, and TARP.

Then finally we have Obama with the stimulus. Which also introduced tax cuts.

IMO, judging just by this graph, it seems best to have a moderate president with a moderate led Congress. It doesn't matter if they're GOP or Dem. Moderates are more fiscally conservative than conservatives

[jankren]

US History shows, everytime the economy went bad, Democratic presidents always ended up fixing the mess. Ironically once the economy went up again people voted for Republicans.

[lordoftheT]

Only if you mean history starting with Reagan.

[icydawgfish]

Only if you mean history starting with Reagan.

And with the Great Depression, afterall, Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover were Republicans and Rosevelt was a Democrat. There was also Carter, a democrat, following Ford and the "stagflation" that came along with the OPEC oil crisis in the 70's and the Vietnam recession. It isn't always the case though, there have been Republican presidents in the aftermath of many of the 19th century and early 20th century "panics" who fixed things up.

[Admiral Piett]

No party is more significantly fiscally responsible than the other.

[Jabberwock]

No party is more significantly fiscally responsible than the other.

Couldn't agree more. It's all based on the individual(s) in the party. Not the party itself. Sometimes it's a Democrat, sometimes it's a Republican.

[Amagi]

Democrats or republicans... as if there was a difference.

The system is the problem, not the puppets on the stage.

[Knight_of_Ni]

Democrats or republicans... as if there was a difference.

The system is the problem, not the puppets on the stage.

Of course, how could we forget the Jewish masterminds controlling everything.

[Sanguis]

Democrats or republicans... as if there was a difference.

The system is the problem, not the puppets on the stage.

The baby eating jews control everything!
You are so smart, you just see everything!

[antaeus]

to be fair.. most of the spikes in spending came about through major emergencies such as the depression, war, recession...

the thing that stand out more than any individual party trend...

presidents from kennedy through nixon managed to bring % debt down while being involved in expensive enterprises such as the vietnam war.

while reagan and his ramped up confrontation with the soviets really did try to prove you could win a war without fighting it by 'out-prestiging' them through mass expenditure.

but damn... saving the world from economic meltdown is costing obama a lot... was bush's last minute spendup a time bomb? or is it simply an illusion brought on by loss of value of government assets during the initial stages of the metldown?

[War&Politics]

The first spike is WW1. The second spike is the depression. The third spike is WW2. So far these all simply reactions to the circumstances. Then the level of debt starts to drop sharply for a long time. This is of course because of the great post-war economic boom. During this period government could increase it's revenues each year, but debt still dropped, since the economy was growing at a faster pace than debt could increase. But then it starts to spike under Nixon, which exactly the same time when the post-war boom came to an end.

I don't have good answers for the more recent years, but I can tell you with certainty that everything before 1980 on this graph is simply a result of international circumstances and economic changes, therefore the majority of this graph says absolutely nothing about the actual policies of the various presidents and congresses.

[antaeus]

the graph isn't actual debt levels so it's slightly misleading.. it's debt relative to GDP. so theoretically all it would take for a spike is for GDP to drop rather than debt to grow.