Democratic presidents create less debt than Republicans

[cybercoma]

Contrary to the myth that Democrats have been spendthrifts, racking up debt for future generations in the US, The Economist today posted a chart that shows the debt created by presidency.

While Barack Obama has the single highest debt as a % of GDP, he also looked after the worst economic conditions since the 1930s. The worst debt creation has been Bush Jr., Bush Sr., and Reagan. When considered together, the Republicans have a net debt, while Democrats have a net surplus.

It's pretty clear that it's a myth that liberals are poor fiscal managers. Seems that conservatives have been the ones who haven't been able to manage the public purse effectively.

[Mr.Canada]

What the hell is this? A full on assault of conservatives today, led by Punked and CC?

[punked]

What the hell is this? A full on assault of conservatives today, led by Punked and CC?

Just the facts man. Just the facts. Never mind the Report from Congress that says Tax cuts do nothing for economic growth.

[Mr.Canada]

Just the facts man. Just the facts. Never mind the Report from Congress that says Tax cuts do nothing for economic growth.

Lol, yeah just the facts, as seen by punked. Not biased at all.

[punked]

Lol, yeah just the facts, as seen by punked. Not biased at all.

Facts don't have bias.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Facts don't have bias.

Which is strange because it consistently seems that reality has a liberal bias.

Today a conservative argued that it's not up to the government to understand the practical applications of a policy, just the end goal of said policy. So, if cheap interest rates only encourage consumers to take on debt to drive the economy and businesses sit on their hands. That is not the concern of government. Odd viewpoint.

[punked]

Which is strange because it consistently seems that reality has a liberal bias.

Today a conservative argued that it's not up to the government to understand the practical applications of a policy, just the end goal of said policy. So, if cheap interest rates only encourage consumers to take on debt to drive the economy and businesses sit on their hands. That is not the concern of government. Odd viewpoint.

None of the facts line up with what they have done so they have moved to argument of "Well that isn't the governments job". It has become such a lame argument.

[Shady]

What the hell is this? A full on assault of conservatives today, led by Punked and CC?

Yes. He's decided to trot out a re-run of threads that have been started in the not so distant past. His next thread will be about Romney working at Bain.

[Moonlight Graham]

I thought this fact was fairly well-known by now.

To be fair though, many of the big spenders of US debt had to deal with the history of their times: ie: FDR and WWII, Bush Sr. and Gulf War + recession, Bush Jr and 9/11 (Afghanistan war) and recession from tech-bubble, Obama and recession. Reagan's spending also had a part (though certainly not wholly responsible) in ending the Cold War.

moral: both parties spend lots of money the US doesn't have, and both parties are too selfish to want to pay it back during the good times (hello Clinton and others!).

Edited November 1, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

U.S. presidents submit budgets that are approved by Congress with subsequent spending appropriations, both discretionary and non-discretionary. The continuing and growing non-discretionary budget items for social programs were mostly championed by Democrats, starting with FDR. It is very misleading to associate debt levels with only the sitting president. Canadians play this same game when fighting over Trudeau vs. Mulroney contribution to their debt.

Edited November 2, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Oh cool. So Obama's debt can be attributed to the Republican controlled House.

Did you read that Shady?

[Pliny]

U.S. presidents submit budgets that are approved by Congress with subsequent spending appropriations, both discretionary and non-discretionary. The continuing and growing non-discretionary budget items for social programs were mostly championed by Democrats, starting with FDR. It is very misleading to associate debt levels with only the sitting president. Canadians play this same game when fighting over Trudeau vs. Mulroney contribution to their debt.

It's a bit different in Canada. If the Prime Minister has a majority he can basically get whatever spending bill he wants approved. Governments in Canada with a minority in the legislature don't usually last long and fall on the basis of a lack of confidence when they submit budgets or spending bills.

Our Senate basically rubber stamps just about everything. I think in my lifetime I have seen them stop a bill twice.

In order to have the same majority in the US one party would have to be elected in all elective branches of government the Executive, House of Representatives and the Senate. The President operating in opposition to Congress still sits out his 4 year term and they get done only what they can agree to get done.

But this thread is an old one. Basically, the conclusion is just what you said that, " It is very misleading to associate debt levels with only the sitting president."

Another myth is that Obama increased spending the least compared to any other President. It may be true but spending in the last year of the Bush term, which included the $860B TARP bill drove the last year of his spending to the highest ever. Obama never managed to bring it down an iota from that and Democrats trumpet his restraint on increasing spending. What a joke!

[Pliny]

I thought this fact was fairly well-known by now.

It is not a fact.

Your avatar is really about choking the Bishop and not whipping your caucus, isn't it?

[sharkman]

All stats can be played with. Why did this study use GDP? Why not just dollars at current value? There's probably a dozen or more different methods to calculate presidential spending, and using it as a percentage of GDP is skewed. How does this prove Dems are better stewards of the public purse again?

Edited November 2, 2012 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

They use GDP because carrying $1000 of debt when your annual income is $5000 is a lot more of a problem than carrying $1000 of debt when your annual income is $500000.

[sharkman]

Hmm, I'd like to disagree with you on that, but I'm pretty sure that I don't know enough about economics to flesh out these serious doubts I'm having! *Sigh* Where's mj?

Edited November 3, 2012 by sharkman

[bud]

Hmm, I'd like to disagree with you on that, but I'm pretty sure that I don't know enough about economics to flesh out these serious doubts I'm having! *Sigh* Where's mj?

denial.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Another myth is that Obama increased spending the least compared to any other President. It may be true but spending in the last year of the Bush term, which included the $860B TARP bill drove the last year of his spending to the highest ever. Obama never managed to bring it down an iota from that and Democrats trumpet his restraint on increasing spending. What a joke!

True, and moreover, most of the TARP funds will be repaid to the government. Projected losses are estimated at $60 billion, less than 10% of the program credited by most economists with stopping the bleeding in 2008 (before Obama ever took office).

[sharkman]

denial.

There's no denial there, why are you always so serious?