Which party is the most to blame for the national debt?

Capitol Grilling ^ | 11/4/2007 | "Groucho Marx"

[Philo1962]

When one party controls both houses of Congress, there is an "R" or a "D" in the right-hand column. Where each party controls one house of Congress, there is a "N*" in the right-hand column. "Note that for each year of the budget, control of Congress was listed from the previous year -- because, for example, it was the 1994 Congress that passed the laws for both taxation and spending that created the 1995 budget, and the 1995 deficit."

Sources:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl (Inflation calculator, adjusting to 2007 dollars)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96g.pdf (pgs. 18-19 for budget deficits, 1930-94)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html (link for Excel spreadsheet of deficits, 1995-2006)

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/10/11/afx4210999.html (final budget deficit, FY 2007)

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm (History of the party controlling Congress, 1930-2000)

............. Unadjusted .... Adjusted for
............. (Billions) ......... Inflation ....... Party
----------------------------------------------------
1930 ............ 0.7 ............. 8.74 ......... R
1931 ........... -0.5 ........... -6.86 ......... R
1932 ........... -2.7 ......... -41.09 ......... R
1933 ........... -2.6 ......... -41.70 ......... R
1934 ........... -3.6 ......... -56.01 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1935 ........... -2.8 ......... -42.61 ......... D
1936 ........... -4.3 ......... -64.50 ......... D
1937 ........... -2.2 ......... -31.85 ......... D
1938 ........... -0.1 ........... -1.48 ......... D
1939 ........... -2.8 ......... -42.00 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1940 ........... -2.9 ......... -43.19 ......... D
1941 ........... -4.9 ......... -69.50 ......... D
1942 .......... -20.5 ........ -262.21 ......... D
1943 .......... -54.6 ........ -658.01 ......... D
1944 .......... -47.6 ........ -563.87 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1945 .......... -47.6 ........ -551.34 ......... D
1946 .......... -15.9 ........ -170.00 ......... D
1947 .............. 4.0 .......... 37.40 ......... D
1948 ............ 11.8 ......... 102.08 ......... R
1949 ............ 0.6 ............. 5.26 ......... R
----------------------------------------------------
1950 ........... -3.1 ......... -26.82 ......... D
1951 ............ 6.1 .......... 48.91 ......... D
1952 ........... -1.5 ......... -11.80 ......... D
1953 ........... -6.5 ......... -50.76 ......... D
1954 ........... -1.2 .......... -9.30 ......... R
----------------------------------------------------
1955 ........... -3.0 ......... -23.34 ......... R
1956 ............ 3.9 .......... 29.89 ......... D
1957 ............ 3.4 .......... 25.23 ......... D
1958 ........... -2.8 ......... -20.20 ......... D
1959 .......... -12.8 ......... -91.71 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1960 .............. 0.3 ........... 2.11 ......... D
1961 ........... -3.3 ......... -23.01 ......... D
1962 ........... -7.1 ......... -49.02 ......... D
1963 ........... -4.8 ......... -32.70 ......... D
1964 ........... -5.9 ......... -39.68 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1965 ........... -1.4 ............ -9.27 ......... D
1966 ........... -3.7 .......... -23.81 ......... D
1967 ........... -8.6 .......... -53.68 ......... D
1968 .......... -25.2 ........ -150.98 ......... D
1969 ............ 3.2 ........... 18.18 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1970 ........... -2.8 .......... -15.05 ......... D
1971 .......... -23.0 ........ -118.40 ......... D
1972 .......... -23.4 ........ -116.71 ......... D
1973 .......... -14.9 ......... -69.97 ......... D
1974 ........... -6.1 ......... -25.80 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1975 .......... -53.2 ........ -206.16 ......... D
1976 .......... -73.7 ........ -270.05 ......... D
1977 .......... -53.7 ........ -184.75 ......... D
1978 .......... -59.2 ........ -189.30 ......... D
1979 .......... -40.7 ........ -116.88 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1980 .......... -73.8 ........ -186.73 ......... D
1981 .......... -79.0 ........ -181.20 ......... D
1982 ......... -128.0 ........ -276.55 ......... N*
1983 ......... -207.8 ........ -434.98 ......... N*
1984 ......... -185.4 ........ -372.03 ......... N*
----------------------------------------------------
1985 ......... -212.3 ........ -411.36 ......... N*
1986 ......... -221.2 ........ -420.78 ......... N*
1987 ......... -149.8 ........ -274.93 ......... N*
1988 ......... -155.2 ........ -273.52 ......... D
1989 ......... -152.5 ........ -256.41 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1990 ......... -221.4 ........ -353.17 ......... D
1991 ......... -269.2 ........ -412.08 ......... D
1992 ......... -290.4 ........ -431.54 ......... D
1993 ......... -255.1 ........ -368.07 ......... D
1994 ......... -203.2 ........ -285.86 ......... D
----------------------------------------------------
1995 ......... -164.0 ........ -224.36 ......... D
1996 ......... -107.4 ........ -142.71 ......... R
1997 ........... -21.9 ......... -28.45 ......... R
1998 ............. 69.3 .......... 88.64 ......... R
1999 .......... 125.6 ......... 157.18 ......... R
----------------------------------------------------
2000 .......... 236.2 ......... 285.98 ......... R
2001 .......... 128.2 ......... 150.92 ......... R
2002 ......... -157.8 ........ -182.88 ......... N*
2003 ......... -377.6 ........ -427.86 ......... N*
2004 ......... -412.7 ........ -455.50 ......... R
----------------------------------------------------
2005 ......... -318.3 ........ -339.80 ......... R
2006 ......... -248.2 ........ -256.68 ......... R
2007 ......... -163.0 ........ -163.00 ......... R

[Philo1962]

A guy named "Groucho Marx" at Capitol Grilling has produced the preceding study of budget deficits and surpluses, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, going back to 1930. I thought that some Freepers might be interested in seeing it. More from "Groucho":

"That's a 78-year period. Control of Congress was divided for eight years. The Republicans controlled Congress for 18 years and ran up a deficit of $709.63 billion in 2007 dollars, for an average of $39.42 billion. In seven of the 18 years (39%), the Republicans in Congress had a budget surplus.

"The Defeatocrats controlled Congress for 52 years and ran up a deficit of $7,263.68 billion in 2007 dollars, for an average of $139.69 billion -- nearly four times as large. In only four of those 52 years (7.7%), the Defeatocrats in Congress had a budget surplus. By the way, after adjusting for inflation, the recent budget deficits are not the largest in history. The deficits of 1943, 1944 and 1945, with Defeatocrats in control, were all larger. And while the 2004 deficit was fourth largest, the fifth largest and sixth largest were in 1983 (with split control of Congress) and 1992 (with Defeatocrat control of Congress).

"Starting with Fiscal Year 2008 (which started on October 1, 2007), the Defeatocrats have control of Congress (and the tax code, and the budget) once again. Let's see how they do with the budget. Can they produce a surplus?

"Hell no. They are genetically incapable of it. They haven't produced a budget surplus since 1969."

[Philo1962]

Ping.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Neither party has anything to be proud of. Vote them ALL out!

[Darkwolf377]

Which party?

I hate sounding so glib, but if you look at my tagline you have my answer. We really do have one party with two slightly-different wings, because neither side has the balls to be what they truly want to be, as opposed to what they want us to believe they are.

[Caipirabob]

The party that most inhibits growth.

We cannot drill for new fuel sources within the USA without prohibitive and punitive restrictions. Tyrannical taxation creates a tremendous barrier to new start-up businesses making it a game of a few instead of the many. Ridiculous environmental restrictions prohibit new construction where needed.

And the democrat elite laugh and then cast the blame on everyone else.

But the truth is obvious...

[Recovering_Democrat]

IOW, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES historically speaking. I tire of hearing "there is no difference" rhetoric of some of our friends here on FR.

The only quibble I would have with the article is the emphasis on the largest deficits:

The deficits of 1943, 1944 and 1945, with Defeatocrats in control, were all larger.

While true, within context, these deficits are ENTIRELY justifiable and understandable, as the nation was trying to defeat totalitarians on a world wide scale.

I also want to emphasize the minority Republican party was not constantly denigrating our troops and the President's efforts in the war, either, during those years.

[N2Gems]

ping

[bmwcyle]

ping — important info

[Son House]

Low tax rates are the only way to protect what we earn from getting into their spending spree.

[Philo1962]

I also want to emphasize the minority Republican party was not constantly denigrating our troops and the President's efforts in the war, either, during those years.

Can you imagine what the war would have been like if today's leftie loonies had been the opposition party? "Mr. Roosevelt, our casualties in this Normandy invasion of yours are just too high. Hitler did not attack America. We demand that you withdraw all US forces from Europe immediately, and concentrate on defeating the Japanese."

[Huck]

Low tax rates are the only way to protect what we earn from getting into their spending spree.

I like low taxes too. But if it's true that they generate MORE revenue than high taxes, then they actually feed the beast, don't they? And that's assuming the gubmint cares if it actually has the revenue to pay for its expenses, which clearly it doesn't.

[mad_as_he$$]

There is no difference between the parties. there are just opposite ends of the same yardstick. Only so much room to move on a yardstick and that is the problem.

[jmaroneps37]

“Which party is the most to blame for the national debt?”
Definition of a rhetorical question. :-)

[expat_panama]

Compared to the freerepublic, the forum this tract comes from seems almost childlike. 

They start with one pottymouth that posts this plot of the national debt in current dollars with a title that holds the president responsible --giving congress a free pass.  This is met with a reply post of bar graph in constant dollars, as if adjusting for inflation was all that was necessary.  Yeah right.  The decades go by with no change in population, wealth, technology, economic power.

When we get into this on a freeper thread, we've at least got the sense to use %gdp stats from the GPO's numbers (from Table 7.1).  OK, not nearly as dramatic, but those of us who work for a living prefer reality during the day and drama with our evening's entertainment.  

Here's the bottom line: debts are useful tools, be they national, credit card, or mortgages.   Sure it's bad when idiots let things get out of control, but most adults are responsible.  Let's get a grip.  Our grandparents weren't bad people when they went into debt to defeat Hitler; they immediately paid it back to prewar levels.  Same for our parents with finishing of the cold war.   I know all the global-warmer types need their morning crisis to start their day, but reality is that the debt/%gdp is going down.

[Realism]

%gdp is smoke to hide the debt.

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)

[anonsquared]

A bit of clarification is needed...

1930-2007 N=Neither
1930-2007 D=Democrat
1930-2001 R=Republican
2002-2007 R=Rino

[IncPen]

ping

[kabar]

About half of the $9 trillon national debt is connected to the entitlement programs. e.g., the SS Trust Fund. So by that measure, I would blame the Dems for the most part for originating these unsustainable programs and dominating Congress for close to half a century, including a stretch of 40 straight years controlling the House.

[1rudeboy]

Neither party has anything to be proud of. Vote them ALL out!

That's an interesting proposition. Even if a deficit-hawk exists in Congress, he (or she) should be voted out with the rest. That doesn't sound like a very good plan.

[LS]

The fact is, if you go back to JEFFERSON'S time, you find that NO administration---save two brief periods during national recessions---cut spending. NONE. Not the "small-government" Jeffersonians or the much heralded Martin Van Buren or the "good" Democrat Cleveland. Spending fell slightly in the Coolidge years, but that was BAD news because he accomplished this largely by reducing military preparedness, which we paid for later. I like Coolidge, but he was weak on defense.

If you want the real answer, it lies in the nature of the two-party system, in which parties must promise jobs (either directly, or indirectly through government favors/support/programs/spending) to get elected. That simply isn't going to change.

The only option is to lower taxes and create an economy that can outgrow government and RELATIVELY reduce the rate of growth.