In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.
Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.
Who reduced debt as a percentage of GDP the most?
When comparing by presidential term as in the chart to the side (click image to make larger), the big winner is Harry Truman, followed by Bill Clinton. Eisenhower is next, followed by Johnson and Nixon, the Kennedy, and finally Jimmy Carter. All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP.
While absolute levels of debt may have been growing through much of this period (though not all), what really matters is what percentage of GDP that debt represents. Most U.S. presidents have been able to keep the debt to GDP ratio declining -- but in the very modern era, since 1980, only Bill Clinton has succeeded in massively decreasing America's federal debt to GDP levels.
When considering it on a per annum basis, the chart of presidential debt-reducers and debt-increasers remains mostly the same, though Barack Obama wins among those adding to the debt load with a per annum increase in debt to GDP of 12 percent. Ronald Reagan is next at 7 percent. As shown in the chart to the left, Truman and Clinton still clobber other presidents in terms of a per annum decrease in federal debt to GDP.
When looking at the charts this way, it is fascinating to see what a stand-out the Bill Clinton presidency was in balancing the budget and achieving revenue surpluses.
These data sets were assembled by a close collaborator and credit expert Richard Vague as part of a larger history of debt project that he and I are working on.
As the debates on who is responsible for the levels of federal debt continue to play out in the next 10 days before the election and the 66 days before the US hits a fiscal cliff, remember that the worst contributors to America's debt load were mostly GOP presidents -- with the single exception of Obama, who had a global economic tsunami crashing in on the White House and nation when he took the helm.
Wow, surprised kudos for Bush sr. Hacking down Ray-gun's massive debt. He has been derided as the most moderate GOP prez in recent history in the past, so brownie points there.
Stuart_Maguire_Colman: Wow, surprised kudos for Bush sr. Hacking down Ray-gun's massive
GOP worst contributors to the economy, but the best contributers of mind numbing BS, denial and projection. I guess if you can't dazzle with brilliance ...
DanBest: GOP worst contributors to the economy, but the best contributers
Saw an amusing comment down there about 'inflation removes debt' or some such nonsense... Once you research how the Federal Reserve creates money, you'll realize that all there is is debt. That's it, the whole shell game. If the US government reduces its debt to zero, and decides to maintain it, the fiscal system collapses. But, don't trust me, do a little reading.
filmcan: Saw an amusing comment down there about 'inflation removes debt'
Math is not big with you. Do you know what tripled means. it means, if the debt was about 15 trillion now, then it would have had to be 5 trillion when Obama took office. The debt was over 10 trillion when Obama took office.
The house has been controlled by dems for 65 of the last 91 years. The dems ran deficits 59 of those 65 years. Why is this important? It's the house that is responsible for federal spending. So 91% of the time, dems run deficits.
Now that the national debt has reared its head like a awakening dragon, the dems seem to be running for the hills, trying to blame anyone and everyone but themselves for the national debt.
garyt45: The house has been controlled by dems for 65 of
The GOP runs the House now, and also did at the beginning of (and most of) the Bush administration, so by that logic they are responsible for our current debt. They refuse to allow any increases in revenue and want to make cutbacks that actually hurt the economy, so you may have something there. Although Reagan wanted to spend and cut even more, and wanted Clinton to lower taxes like W did, which didn't seem to help anything, so there's that. Local austerity at the local level is causing a full percentage point higher unemployment too, while not actually saving much money, which the GOP is also pushing, so... yeah.
solvseus: The GOP runs the House now, and also did at
"It's the house [sic] that is responsible for federal spending."
Nice try. However, it's complete folly to argue that a Democratic President (not the House) is responsible for deficits now but that the House (not Republican Presidents) was responsible for deficits before now. Democrats have paid for government spending primarily through progressive taxation; Republicans (since Reagan), primarily through extreme borrowing. Bush43 launched two unpaid wars, didn't adequately regulate banks, and borrowed ruinously from Red China, almost cratering the world economy. Bailout spending started in earnest under him. Obama, by contrast, has presided over a slow--but unmistakable--economic upturn.
Republican policies brought us breadlines in the 1930's and near-ruin in the last decade--except for the billionaires who've shipped American jobs overseas and paid taxes at no more than half the rate average working Americans do.
Deficits didn't matter to Republicans until a Black Democrat was inaugurated. Now, Romney accepts no responsibility for that, doesn't pay his fair share of taxes (or fully disclose how little he does pay), and is promoting the very policies that led the world to the brink of economic disaster in the first place: the mess that Obama is now--very effectively--cleaning up.
standard: "It's the house [sic] that is responsible for federal spending."
Of course, both parties have done a terrible job at reducing the deficit. That is obvious when you consider that since the 1950s that there has been a deficit 80% of the time. This was in contrast to only 25% of the time from all the years from the beginning until the 1950s. Now, what this article leaves out is that one of the main reasons GOP Presidents raise the deficit is to fund wars which is marked difference from other types of spending. However, there is no question that there is too much government and too much spending and that we are going to have another recession/depression no matter who is in power.
JDSalinger12: Of course, both parties have done a terrible job at
Out of curiosity which party would you say has increased the size of government? I know what your answer is going to be because you believe what you're told but I'd try looking it up for yourself and not on Fixed News! You clowns railing against the size of the government are hilarious and yet when things like Hurricane Sandy happen you're the first ones screaming for government and looking for disaster relief funds! You people are hypocrites, its ok to tell a women what she can and can't do with her body or what a same sex couple can do in their bedroom but it is not ok to have our financial system protected and regulated to prevent the greedy S.O.B.s who got us in this mess from doing it again and even worse! Your musings eerily remind me of Holden Caulfield's, get yourself checked out!
Pfizerman11: Out of curiosity which party would you say has increased
Gee..Your saying that Bush's Wars that he paid for with debt-created currency...was added to the debt..But.!. Cheney told us not to even think about the Deficit..it was really just a myth...
Gestas: Gee..Your saying that Bush's Wars that he paid for with
The presented data & charts are questionable. If you truly worry about the deficit & fiscal cliff, look at "U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress" (http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html/). You'll notice that the only Republican presidents to decrease the deficit were Calvin Coolidge and Eisenhower (during post WW-II reconstruction, with the interstate highway system and the top tax rate at 91%).
Wayne_Caswell: The presented data & charts are questionable. If you truly
All of a sudden things became clear to me. It's been part of the Republican strategy since Reagan to run budget deficits and increase national debt. Here's an extract:
Immediately after taking office in 2001, George W. Bush resumed a strategy for
downsizing government and starving social programs that was initiated by Ronald Reagan. This
is the deliberate amassing of huge budgetary deficits through tax cuts and increased military
spending that, in turn, becomes a deterrent to domestic—but not military--spending. As early as
the mid-1980s, several observers recognized the deficit was a means of cutting back government.
For example, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote:
The Reagan attack on affirmative government was the sharpest and shrewdest mounted
in the twentieth century. Like his conservative predecessors, Reagan aimed to shrink the
role of government. Unlike the others, he discovered a way to do it. His innovation was
to use tax reduction and defense spending to create a vast budgetary deficit and then to
use the deficit as a pretext for a permanent reduction in the functions of the national
government (1986, 241).
ImWondering: The link didn't work. But thanks anyway, because I did
Thanks for your research and finding an alternative URL. I wish more voters would take the time that you did to discover the real truth themselves instead of just relying on Fox, political spin, or what the candidates say today. The GOP wants smaller government in order to get less regulatory oversight to benefit their large corporate benefactors. And the use the promise of Lower Taxes to entice voters, knowing that most of us are selfish and short-sighted, just like them.
Wayne_Caswell: Thanks for your research and finding an alternative URL. I
Math. Republicans hate math, don't they? It is so.....factual and accurate. How do you convince a Republican that 2+2=4? The truth is that you can't. Republicans don't care about the truth. They only care about what is best for them. Here is my version of most Republican arguments "Hey, look only at a part of the truth and 2=4, we can ignore the other part because we don't like it".
Helen_Vayntrub: Math. Republicans hate math, don't they? It is so.....factual and
What is the difference between the Dodo Bird and a Lib/Prog that has read and comprehended Engle/Granger? The prior once existed but is now extinct. The latter never has, does not, and never will exist.
Durrrrrr: What is the difference between the Dodo Bird and a
Republican, Democrat, whatever, it's all 'government'. I think if we want to see any real movement on the debt, downward, it's going to have to be 3rd-party.
realitytrumpsbull: Republican, Democrat, whatever, it's all 'government'. I think if we
Teagop have always claimed to be fiscally responsible but have not been since Eisenhower who was not in thrall to the I.itary industrial complex and was in office long before the trickle down hoax was shoved on us.
Jay_Daterman: Teagop have always claimed to be fiscally responsible but have
"All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP."
Let's phrase it more honestly: debt as a percent of GDP went down during the terms of these presidents. Under Clinton, this was accomplished by the Greenspan bubble economy, which we are NOW paying for. Other than for partisan sniping, there is little point in breaking down the boom-bust business cycles by presidential term.
"While absolute levels of debt may have been growing through much of this period (though not all)"
Yes, all. TOTAL national debt has increased every year since Ike, 55 years ago. This was predicted by Triffin around that time, who noted that the dollar as global reserve currency meant ever-growing trade deficits, which could only be funded by debt (both public and private). We had better start concentrating on the fact that neither party is addressing this problem, made worse after de-linking from gold in 1971, even as other major economies are increasingly aware it is at the root of global trade imbalances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma
MassWG: "All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of
Let's look at President Reagan. Unlike President Carter who basically capitulated during the Cold War President Reagan & President GHW Bush decided to fight it!
And after 911 does anyone think a Democrat President would not have gone into Afghanistan? The wild card is of course Iraq. I don't know whether a President Clinton would have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan??
War is costly in more than lives!
Roosevelt_Democrat: All valid points! Let's look at President Reagan. Unlike President
Of course the two most glaring point the author tries to make that gives him away as nothing but a partisan hack is that he uses the "debt to GDP ratio" and gives no blame to what party actually controlled the purse-strings during this screed.
intolleft: Of course the two most glaring point the author tries
no president other than Bush would have gone into Iraq. Remember the situation. They cherry picked intelligence info that they thought would convince people that going into iraq would make sense. The problem was that most of the intelligence that they used had already been discredited.
pbr56: no president other than Bush would have gone into Iraq.
Phil McCarten/Reuters
When comparing by presidential term as in the chart to the side (click image to make larger), the big winner is Harry Truman, followed by Bill Clinton. Eisenhower is next, followed by Johnson and Nixon, the Kennedy, and finally Jimmy Carter. All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP.
When considering it on a per annum basis, the chart of presidential debt-reducers and debt-increasers remains mostly the same, though Barack Obama wins among those adding to the debt load with a per annum increase in debt to GDP of 12 percent. Ronald Reagan is next at 7 percent. As shown in the chart to the left, Truman and Clinton still clobber other presidents in terms of a per annum decrease in federal debt to GDP. 
Now that the national debt has reared its head like a awakening dragon, the dems seem to be running for the hills, trying to blame anyone and everyone but themselves for the national debt.
Nice try. However, it's complete folly to argue that a Democratic President (not the House) is responsible for deficits now but that the House (not Republican Presidents) was responsible for deficits before now. Democrats have paid for government spending primarily through progressive taxation; Republicans (since Reagan), primarily through extreme borrowing. Bush43 launched two unpaid wars, didn't adequately regulate banks, and borrowed ruinously from Red China, almost cratering the world economy. Bailout spending started in earnest under him. Obama, by contrast, has presided over a slow--but unmistakable--economic upturn.
Republican policies brought us breadlines in the 1930's and near-ruin in the last decade--except for the billionaires who've shipped American jobs overseas and paid taxes at no more than half the rate average working Americans do.
Deficits didn't matter to Republicans until a Black Democrat was inaugurated. Now, Romney accepts no responsibility for that, doesn't pay his fair share of taxes (or fully disclose how little he does pay), and is promoting the very policies that led the world to the brink of economic disaster in the first place: the mess that Obama is now--very effectively--cleaning up.
All of a sudden things became clear to me. It's been part of the Republican strategy since Reagan to run budget deficits and increase national debt. Here's an extract:
Immediately after taking office in 2001, George W. Bush resumed a strategy for
downsizing government and starving social programs that was initiated by Ronald Reagan. This
is the deliberate amassing of huge budgetary deficits through tax cuts and increased military
spending that, in turn, becomes a deterrent to domestic—but not military--spending. As early as
the mid-1980s, several observers recognized the deficit was a means of cutting back government.
For example, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. wrote:
The Reagan attack on affirmative government was the sharpest and shrewdest mounted
in the twentieth century. Like his conservative predecessors, Reagan aimed to shrink the
role of government. Unlike the others, he discovered a way to do it. His innovation was
to use tax reduction and defense spending to create a vast budgetary deficit and then to
use the deficit as a pretext for a permanent reduction in the functions of the national
government (1986, 241).
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
Check it out.
Let's phrase it more honestly: debt as a percent of GDP went down during the terms of these presidents. Under Clinton, this was accomplished by the Greenspan bubble economy, which we are NOW paying for. Other than for partisan sniping, there is little point in breaking down the boom-bust business cycles by presidential term.
"While absolute levels of debt may have been growing through much of this period (though not all)"
Yes, all. TOTAL national debt has increased every year since Ike, 55 years ago. This was predicted by Triffin around that time, who noted that the dollar as global reserve currency meant ever-growing trade deficits, which could only be funded by debt (both public and private). We had better start concentrating on the fact that neither party is addressing this problem, made worse after de-linking from gold in 1971, even as other major economies are increasingly aware it is at the root of global trade imbalances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma
Let's look at President Reagan. Unlike President Carter who basically capitulated during the Cold War President Reagan & President GHW Bush decided to fight it!
And after 911 does anyone think a Democrat President would not have gone into Afghanistan? The wild card is of course Iraq. I don't know whether a President Clinton would have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan??
War is costly in more than lives!