Love this CHART, but I'd like to see how they got their numbers.

[Dawgs]

Says the source is treasury department, but not sure where to find the actual data.

Can anyone help?

*** Updated with "partial" source (Thanks to RobertSeattle) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway (only goes back to 1993)

*** Updated again with another link (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm). This one gives me very similar results for Reagen (187%), Bush I (56%), and Clinton (39%), but Bush II (76%) and Obama are way off (35%). This one was not as detailed as the first link as it only gives me one amount for each year.



Found at Dailykos.com

[RobertSeattle]

1. Try - here

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Just go from inaugration date to inaugration date to do the cals. Clinton's 37% is correct.

[Dawgs]

2. I'm getting 37% for Clinton, but only 85.5% for Bush II...

Still a big jump.

Thanks. :hi:

[RobertSeattle]

3. I would agree with your calc

Always beware of any percentage increase/decrease chart that doesn't show the absolute figures... :-)

[Dawgs]

4. Agree, but I thought since I found this on DK that it might be accurate.

Oh well.

[progressoid]

7. And Pres Obama comes to more like 34%

[Zynx]

12. How are you counting FY09?

[donheld]

18. Maybe Bushies is low because

These figures my not include the Iraqi war + the Prescription Drug debacle both done off budget. Just a thought.

[Vicar In A Tutu]

5. Funny how the small government...

..tax cuttin' party of "Yee-Hawww!" manage to increase debt so much more than the big spending, welfare state creating Democrats. Surely the GOP doesn't funnel far much more money to the elite than would be spent by "those darn commies" on unemployment benefits and a better standard of health care.

[mopinko]

6. and which ones ran up a deficit that mostly

stuff their cronies pockets?

[Gunny1]

8. Got the same thrill looking at the chart but looking deeper into the numbers...

it turned more into a sinking feeling. By my calculation the numbers are actually Bush II 86% over 8 years and Obama 35% in two years! Makes me miss Bill.

[Wait Wut]

10. "Makes me miss Bill"

Don't. He's much better now than he was then. Although, he wasn't as bad then as I thought he was when it was now.

Also, Pres. Obama has been playing catch-up for the past two years. Attempts to stimulate the economy, create jobs and ending wars is costing us and him. I would also discount the first 4 to 6 months of ANY president's term and tack it onto the previous president's record, instead.

Every job I've had, it's taken at least a month (usually much more) to reorganize and fix everything the previous employee did wrong. What? Yes...I am that good. :toast:

[mikekohr]

9. Here are more charts on the debt, similar results

THE LAST 3 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR NEARLY 100% OF OUR INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT SINCE 1981


Every President, from Truman to Carter, steadily paid down the staggering debt that was run up in our fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. That pattern came to a screeching halt with Reagan/Bush and Bush. Clinton’s fiscal policy was a brief respite during this orgy of deficit spending.

Clinton's economic policies balanced 5 budgets, which is 5 more balanced budgets than the last 5 Republican presidents combined.


President Obama, like President Clinton, inherited a sea of red ink and a recession from his predecessor. He, like President Clinton, recognizes the importance of getting America back to work and then getting our fiscal house in order.



?

See National Debt Graph @: http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html
See Yearly Deficits: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf


WHY DO REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES EXPAND THE NATIONAL DEBT?
-The answer is simple mathematics. Reduced revenue + increased spending ='s increased debt-



? (click to enlarge)
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

The two biggest promises of "Trickle Down Economics" are it's greatest failings. Proponents of "Trickle Down Economics” claim that tax cuts, skewed to the rich, will create jobs and increase tax revenues. The graph above disproves the latter claim. Job creation plummets under "Trickle Down Economics (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html )and nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican leadership (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html ).

Two things are certain to grow when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment and the National Debt.


By contrast, "Bubble Up" economnic priciples practiced by Democratic Administrations put people to work, rev up the economy, and balance the Nation's ledger books. Every time. No exceptions.



There Is Perhaps No Better Source Than The Following Video To Understand How Credit Card Republicanism Has EXPLODED the National Debt. Watch it. Forward it. Spread the word.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA


?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a chart that tracks cumulative debt by president. It should be noted that the most accurate method is the debt to GDP ratio (See chart at top of this page) as that accounts for inflation and the growing size of the economy. That stated this is an eye opening, interesting and informative piece of information.

?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5145120-chart-national-debt-by-president

[Thrill]

11. Tax cuts for the rich raise the defecit. SHOCKER

[Tennessee Gal]

13. Hate to ask this question .....

and I don't have time at the moment to do the research, but here goes. Does anyone have a chart relating to the national debt showing which party controlled Congress during these years? I ask because that is the argument from the right wing. They don't blame or credit the president. They blame and credit Congress.

[mikekohr]

15. Every President, Democrat and Republican from Truman to Carter

and regardless of which party controlled Congress, steadily paid down the staggering debt from WWII. That pattern of fiscal responsibility came to a screaching halt with Rapmaster Ronnie and Tinkle Down Economics.
see: http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/national-debt.html

From: http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Contrary to Republican claims, "The Democratic Congress" did not bust Reagan's budgets. In fact, for the first six years, Congress was not Democratic, it was half and half, and the Republican Senate had just as much say, even though the budget bill starts in the House. On top of that, Reagan got the Southern Democrats to vote with him and so he controlled the House too.
But none of this matters because over Reagan's 8 years, Congress approved smaller budgets than he requested on average, and the deviation from what he requested averaged less than half a percent. He raised the debt by $1,860 billion and Congress reduced his budgets by $16 billion. Otherwise he would have raised the debt by $1,876 billion.


see graph:
?

[Tennessee Gal]

16. Useful Information!

Thank you.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. 'they' blame whomever it is in their interest to blame.

Thus they blame the nominally democratic congress that passed reagan's economic policies, but not reagan. They have to just put clinton on ignore. For Bush, 'deficits don't matter' because NINELEMEN. Then the tail end of Bush (2007,2008) when the economy recollapsed after the partial recovery from the dot-net-9-11 crash is somehow Obama's fault or the Democratic congress. 2009-2010 is of course entirely the fault of every democratic elected official in the country, while the ongoing mess is certainly not in any way the fault of the republican house.

[Zynx]

14. The best comparison is fiscal years.

Compare September to September rather than January to January. It isn't until the new fiscal year that the president can really control the budget.