Shot in the Dark

Debt History

Jeff writing at National Debt Busters writes about the history of the national debt:

How do the Presidential Administrations compare?

President George Washington through President Gerald Ford, Presidents 1-38, 1791-1976

Debt Increase: $707,142,528,417.78

President James Earl Carter, 39th President, 1977-1980

Debt Increase: $276,666,000,000.00

President Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President, 1981-1988

Debt Increase: $1,672,127,712,041.16

President George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President, 1989-1992

Debt Increase: $1,462,282,943,480.50

President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, 42nd Presidnet, 1993-2000

Debt Increase: $1,609,557,554,365.20

President George Walker Bush, 43rd President, 2001-2008

Debt Increase: $4,899,100,310,608.44

President Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President, 2009-present

Debt Increase: $3,031,935,408,476.43 (as of 10/28/2010 report on TreasuryDirect.gov)

Obama is on track to triple Bush’s already-criminal debt load – and that’s if Obamacare’s bill comes in where they project it will, which it will not.

The new GOP House has its work cut out for it.

Let’s all make sure they get to it.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Debt History”

  1. Tony Petroski Avatar
    Tony Petroski

    It’s fascinating that even though the Constitution specifies all spending bills must originate in the House, and the founders obviously thought that budgeting and debt would be primarily a matter for the people’s legislative body, all ’round the political spectrum write about “Reagan’s budget,” (all DOA) or “Bush’s budget” (the ’94’ers budget with no threat of veto).

    Shouldn’t we give the Pelosi budgets some credit? The Tip O’Neil budgets?

  2. mnbubba Avatar
    mnbubba

    What Tony said.

    And probably a further argument for term limits and/or TABOR-style constitutional clauses. We do not elect angels, but men and women. Unless they are ascetic ideologues a la Wellstone (and that type, frankly is even more dangerous, albeit for quite different reasons) they will inevitably be seduced and corrupted by power and flattery and the exigencies of campaign financing, and accordingly will tax and spend in order to secure or improve their position.

    And it is certainly not coincidental that as government has grown larger, more pervasive, and more powerful, that the opportunities and temptations for corruption have scaled in proportion.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.