Interesting Stats Regarding Debt

Some interesting stats regarding debt:

In 1956, our debt was $272.8 billion.

Republican Eisenhower increased the debt from $266.1 billion to $286.3 billion, a 7.6% increase. During his presidency, GDP grew 38.8%. Eisenhower served from '53 to '61.

Democrat Johnson increased the debt from $286.3 billion to $347.6 billion, a 21.4% increase. During his presidency, GDP grew 72.8%. Johnson served from '63 to '69.

Republican Nixon increased the debt from $347.6 billion to $475.1 billion, a 36.7% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 64.8%. Nixon served from '69 to '74.

Republican Ford increased the debt from $475.1 billion to $620.4 billion, a 30.6% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 21.7%. Ford served from '74 to '77.

Democrat Carter increased the debt from $620.4 billion to $907.7 billion, a 46.3% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 52.8%. Carter served from '77 to '81.

Republican Reagan increased the debt from $907.7 billion to $2.6 trillion, a 186.7% increase. He was the first president to pass the trillion dollar mark in debt levels and is also the president that increased the debt more than all previous presidents combined. During his presidency GDP grew 82.9%. Reagan served from '81 to '89.

Republican Bush increased the debt from $2.6 trillion to $4.1 trillion, a 56.2% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 24.3%. Bush served from '89 to '93.

Democrat Clinton increased the debt from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion, a 39.6% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 56.9%. Clinton served from '93 to '01.

Republican Bush increased the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion, a 76.7% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 44.4%. Bush served from '01 to '09.

Democrat Obama increased the debt from $10 trillion to $15.9 trillion (and counting), a 58.4% increase. During his presidency GDP grew 8.5% (so far). Obama is serving since '09.

In general, since 1953, Democrats have added $7.8 trillion to the national debt, while Republicans have added $7.8 trillion to the debt.

That's close to 60 years of history, so now you tell me, which is the party that adds the most to the national debt? I can e-mail you the calculations if you wish as the data comes from:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history

What makes you think Romney will be any different from the previous 10 administrations that have served over the last 60 years?

Crickets...I guess people don't really like facts.

The debt has increased beyond any sense of reasonable. Both parties are to blame. This is news?

It's not news COG. It's to prove my point, that's all. I was curious to see the excuses from both party supporters as to why the debt increased under their watch.

If you want to provide such a wide range of data, you need better presentation.

If you really want to get your point across, you should present your data in a chart format.

. . . Distillation and condensation always make a better presentation!

Thank you, FastGoon. We can now plainly see that spending is out of control. We can also see that Obama will do nothing to reverse that trend. To be fair, Romney won't either. But so far, the only promise made by a candidate that proved to be a lie is Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half. He lied. He should be voted out. If Romney promises to cut spending, and doesn't, he's a liar, too, and should be voted out in 2016. Someday, these politicians will need to learn they can't lie to us.

Actually, they have learned that they can lie to us, and we won't care. That's why things are the way they are.

What jumps out at me is the change in GDP. W's 76.7% increase in debt got a 44% increase in production. Obie's 58.4% increase grew output by 8.5%.
Not effective debt management in either case really, but clearly one is better than the other. No?

And Regans's 186.7% only got us 82.9% increase in GDP. Not effective either.

Imagine how much money we would save if we beefed up the border patrol and.sent the apes back home.

And Regans's 186.7% only got us 82.9% increase in GDP. Not effective either. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Kind of a mistake on my part using only percentages in the example. If you look at it in raw $s, Reagan didn't do badly at all. However, I don't look at Reagan as some kind of god.

Imagine how much money we would save if we beefed up the border patrol and.sent the apes back home. Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

Spending more on Border Patrol will save money? Hmmmm...

The cost of increased border patrol is minuscule compared to the money spent on food stamps, medical care, housing, prison costs, "education", and whatever else for illegal scum. Sometimes you need to spend money to save money.

The cost of increased border patrol is minuscule compared to the money spent on food stamps, medical care, housing, prison costs, "education", and whatever else for illegal scum. . Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

Have you ever considered the revenue they bring in in SS payments that they will never take out of the system? Cato did a study and found them revenue neutral.

. Sometimes you need to spend money to save money. Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

Like on Healthcare Reform?

The cost of increased border patrol is minuscule compared to the money spent on food stamps Originally Posted by Bukkake in Outer Space

Do you know what group is the largest user of food stamps? US military families. How many do you think are illegal.

You have got to be kidding, old gizzard!

You want to build a case against lying?

We have all seen your endless bullshit posts, half-truths and misrepresentations on this board.

. . . You could be the poster child for mendacity if you weren't so damned old!

Thank you, Fast Gunn. We can now plainly see that spending is out of control. We can also see that Obama will do nothing to reverse that trend. To be fair, Romney won't either. But so far, the only promise made by a candidate that proved to be a lie is Obama's promise to cut the deficit in half. He lied. He should be voted out. If Romney promises to cut spending, and doesn't, he's a liar, too, and should be voted out in 2016. Someday, these politicians will need to learn they can't lie to us.

Actually, they have learned that they can lie to us, and we won't care. That's why things are the way they are. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy