US Debt And The Presidents Responsible

Tyler Durden's picture

Presented without commentary

courtesy of

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Nolsgrad's picture

seems to me the correlation between Rep/Dem is slowly moving to 1

pan-the-ist's picture

Just look at the 2nd derivative, that's where the story is.

Nolsgrad's picture

I'd like to see this data as a percent change per president. Might give you a better idea, as well as a beginning %GDP and Ending %GPD. would put things in perspective as to how much the return on that debt expansion was.

ie, was the debt expansion worth it under a given pres.

flacon's picture

This chart us useless if it is not on a log scale, or adjusted for inflation (log scale). Totally useless chart other than the fact that it does prove that government actually DO spend money. 

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Can anyone provide this same data with debt valued in gold rather than dollars?


rich_wicks's picture

Sure, I can.

Look here:

It's a little more than 1/2 way down the page but I think you will find all the information useful.

Lieutenant Dan's picture

The real story is told when you look at who controls the house and senate during each presidency.

rich_wicks's picture

The real story is told when you look at who controls the house and senate during each presidency.

It doesn't matter who controls the house or the senate or the presidency.

The national debt has grown 9.4% a year on average for 41 years.  In some years it's done marginally better and some years marginally worse.

The only story is, is there isn't any functional difference between Republicans and Democrats today.  There's your story.  The left right paradigm is a myth.  They just tell you different lies and give you different excuses for what they do.  What are we doing in Libya?  Oh, it's the help the poor people of Libya escape that evil dictator.  If McCain won, who knows - it could have been about weapons of mass destruction again, or more likely, terrorism.

Stop being a stupid tool, please - or at least don't vote if you can't stop being a moron.

How many goddamned years does this have to go on before you stupid morons realize what is going on? 

Dejean Splicer's picture

You are both a couple of fools. AIPAC is your master. You are servile subjects of your lizard overlords, do not forget it.

rich_wicks's picture

You are both a couple of fools. AIPAC is your master.

AIPAC is just an example of the corruption of the system.  It's 5 million Jewish bigot dumbasses in Israel, our government don't really care about them.  What do you think will happen to Israel when the US goes insolvent?

How has the US helped Israel by allowing it to wage a 60+ year war against it's indigenous population?  You think that's going to end well?

AIPAC is just a bunch of stupid moron bigot assholes that don't realize that what they are doing, is absolutely guaranteeing the eventual destruction of the Jewish state.  It's just another distraction for the boneheaded American populace.  Yes, it has real consequences, but the US is going bankrupt and that's really the only issue to an actual American.

dracos_ghost's picture

Nice. Thanks for the link.

This is an interesting thought from the Debt/Silver ratio:

The minimum was about 40,000,000,000 ounces in 1979 even though the value of silver peaked in 1980. If 40 billion ounces of silver = the national debt, silver would cost about $350 an ounce.


scratch_and_sniff's picture

But since the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power since 1933, you only really owe 10% of the debt. Nothing to worry about then.

Libertarian777's picture

but the national debt has gone up 34,900% ($40.6billion in 1933 to $14.2 trillion in 2011) in that time.


so reducing it for purchasing power 34,900 x 10% = 3,490% increase in 1933 denominated debt.

Or 14.2 trillion (in 2011$) x 10% (purchasing power back in 1933) = $1.42 trillion in 1933 dollars.

scratch_and_sniff's picture

That comment was tongue and cheek, since you took the time to post - If you are using CPI for a purchasing power measure and extrapolating from way back in 1933, the results are so flawed that no one would take them seriously, maybe you didn’t mean them to be taken seriously but that’s another matter. There are many different ways of trying to gauge "real worth" from so distant in the past, as you probably know - as i have said before, i am no economist - but which measure do you pick, why pick it, what methodology do you use to limit it's flaws, what is the essential context, and ultimately, how has life changed - and are we confident enough to say we have tracked those changes correctly?(fuck no man, fuck no!)

You need to be clear on why you are looking, and what you want to find, and considering you are talking about 14trln in debt that has been used for many, perhaps uncountable reasons, just bandying a CPI number around says little about the real value of the amount, the value gained from it, or indeed the real consequences of the debt. Its safe to say, the mind-bending complications of trying, are sufficient enough, that any old argument proposed could probably be backed up with some measure or another, given the right context and motives.

For example,.(dont be too shy to correct me here) In 1933, for the relative worth of $14,200,000,000,000, we get (using CPI) $844,000,000,000. The national debt then was actually $56,400,000,000(as of june 1933), and if you had of been in the same amount of debt then as you are now on that relative basis, it would have been ~1500% of GDP using the CPI, but yet its under 100% GDP presently (which paradoxically would imply rather strange growth if you tried to extrapolate from then until now).

On the other hand if you use Relative share of GDP(or how much was the debt worth then compared to the economy now), the $56,400,000,000 debt your government really held in 1933 would have been $14,700,000,000,000! today, $5,940,000,000,000 using nominal GDP per capita, and when adjusted for inflation(unrequired!) $942,000,000,000 - even still you would owe around fifteen times more today than you did in 1933....big deal. If you want it shrink stop voting for republicans!

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Log scale would clearly be better.  The chart is ugly enough as it is however.

The 22nd Prime's picture

Parden the thread jack---


Do The Fucking Math

Did you think it wouldn't happen? Bwah ha ha...

FEDbuster's picture

Looks like the 10 year gold chart.

MarketTruth's picture


The situation is that WHEN THE USA WENT OFF THE GOLD REDEMPTION IN THE EARLY 1970's that, since now the US dollar was essentiall worthless with no backing, it gave the GOV the oppertunity to inflate to infinity.

Anonymouse's picture

I would do a few things:

- Log Scale

- Shift data by one year to the right since budget is set in prior year (usually)

- Color-code the background by proportion of GOP or Dem in House

- Not just Red vs Blue, but more Red if more more GOP in control (slightly if slim majority), and likewise with Blue

- Perhaps a second shading for control of Senate

- Add bar indicating recessions

- 2 versions

- One with $ of debt

- One with % Debt to GDP

- 2 more master versions

- One with Straight Debt, and I would say include debt owed to social security and other intra-governmental

- One with All Debt, including Unfunded Liabilities

Can get more and more complex, but I think these would be even more enlightening

NB:  The indent feature is not working

EscapeKey's picture

Log scale, absolutely, and a potential 3rd graph; debt/receipts. I never understood this debt/GDP, it's not as if the government can claim all of GDP in taxes one year. The potential for increased receipts is connected to existing receipts.

Which leads me to "Monetary Regimes and Inflation" - according to the bible on hyperinflation, once 40% of all spending is raised through new debts, we're in hyperinflation territory. The US is there.

Anonymouse's picture

Apparently I have reached auto-junk status from some posters.  I can't imagine what is controversial here unless you are against information.

Sudden Debt's picture

Inflation adjusted, the current debt would be 560 billion in 1938.

The US would never have entered WOII with a debt like that.

But the chart sucks because it only shows the names of the puppets, and not the events that caused the rises.

For example: During the Kennedy era, the US went to the moon and spend hughe amounts of money. But yet, the debt ceiling hardly moved in that decade, and yet after 64, it was the end of 90% silver coins.


Rodent Freikorps's picture

Coincidentally, 1964 was the year Johnson began the War on Poverty.

DosZap's picture



Junked for the truth.........that's fresh!.

oogs66's picture

if this was a chart of silver going parabolic, everyone would be nervous that we would get a parabolic crash. 

akak's picture

Ha ha, good point!

Also, what in God's name is that chart all about anyway, showing the rate of growth in the national debt DECREASING under Obama?  WTF?!

pan-the-ist's picture

Is that you John Maynard?

Caviar Emptor's picture

Or...just needed to graph it in Log-scale, or else it's misleading. For instance, it doesn't show that the Vietnam war is what started the whole necessity for money printing. Also, it fails to show that during Reagan, the Federal deficit expanded by the greatest % GDP of any President. 

in4mayshun's picture

$1,500,000,000,000.00+ per year and growing................Ya, Im pretty sure Obama takes this one inflation adjusted or not.

duncecap rack's picture

I think W is the winner. Obama has surprisingly taken the slope down a bit.

rich_wicks's picture

I think W is the winner. Obama has surprisingly taken the slope down a bit.

If you look closely at the graph, you'll see 2011 and 2012 are in there.

Those are PROJECTIONS not actual data.  Bush was a stupid fuckhead of an asshole of a president - that being said, whoever made that graph is skewing to make Obama look better than he is - and he's a stupid fucked of an asshole of a president whose just like Bush.

rich_wicks's picture

I like how I get junked for pointing out a deception in the chart, and openly stating what kind of shitheads we have in power, but the junker doesn't have the balls to rebutt what he knows to be true.

snowball777's picture

balls shit fuck asshole morons shitheads morons fuck!

in4mayshun's picture

"I think W is the winner. Obama has surprisingly taken the slope down a bit."


Obama's reign of destruction isn't over yet. We'll see when his 4 years are done. God help us if he gets re-elected. (Then again, the next republican stooge will do the same thing.)

JGambolputty's picture

Here you go (at least part of it).  Makes the correlation pretty clear.

jaffi's picture


As a percentage of GDP, here are the numbers for each president:

Reagan: 14.9%

GHWB: 7.1%

Clinton:  -13.4% (he did increase the debt a little, but GDP growth outstripped)

GWB: 5.6%

Obama: 21.9% (up to Dec. 2010)

(source: politifact)

Keri at Bankster Report's picture

This chart proves that we have had the same president since late 1963.

rocker's picture

Chart does miss the fact that about a trillion of Bambi's part was carried over to him.

Bush II kept the cost of the war off the debt books. The left call it the charge card. 

My only question is, if the war wasn't on it. Where did all that money go during Bush II.

Ahmeexnal's picture

dotcom bubble

realestate bubble

bond bubble

sun tzu's picture

I have no idea where you got the $1 trillion cost from. Even the Obama administration put the cost at $100 billion per year. So out of Obama's $5 trillion in debt, take out $300 billion. Obama ran up $4.7 trillion in debt in less than three years. Bush kept it off the books when presenting the budget, but CBO didn't. The cost is included in the national debt. 

rocker's picture

You honestly believe the war only cost 100 billion a year. Think about that. All those years of war only cost 100 billion a year. All that concrete we layed down. All the payoff's to Blackrock, Halliburton and all those private contractors that we have no idea where the money went. I'll help, much money went to entities the are not U.S. citizens. Just to start the campaign most likely cost us 500 billion. I've just started, but I quit. Your right, 100 billion a year. LOL

The Media has destroyed another mind, and it is not mine. Oh yeah, Bambi sucks too. We are still there. 

realitybiter's picture

My back of the napkin calcs have simple feeding of 200,000 troops 3 times a day at $40 a wwhack (KBR rate) at $9 billion a year.  Fuel?  fugettabout it.  $100b?  you can't say "should we go to war?" for a $100b

realitybiter's picture

And you can't give medical treatment for the 50,000 wounded american soldiers for less than 50k each...ooops, another 2.5b.....for LIFE!

StychoKiller's picture

Plus, ya gotta factor in pallets of Benjis disappearing off air base tarmacs...

Husk-Erzulie's picture

Cost of ordnance of all kinds from the daily burn rate of 7.62 all the way up to daisy cutters, DU sabot rounds, and the occasional cruise missile.  The stuff is not bein bought on the cheap either.  Giaps men collected their brass for chrissakes, hell, they even collected ours.  There has probably been no army in history which can match Empire America's for sheer, orgyistic profligacy of materiel.

Cathartes Aura's picture

to say nothing of the "humans wasted" - which is rarely factored in. . .

Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are at risk of a new disease researchers say they have named Iraq-Afghanistan War lung injury.

Iraq and Afghanistan veterans face numerous respiratory threats including: dust from the sand; smoke from burn pits; aerosolized metals and chemicals from bombs; blast overpressure or shock waves to the lung; outdoor aeroallergens such as date pollen, indoor aeroallergens such as mold aspergillus, vehicle exhaust and tobacco smoke, Rose says.


and it goes without saying, those inhabitants of the nationstate  being invaded, and poisoned, are even more rarely mentioned, or taken into "account."

Dejean Splicer's picture

Goldman using currency swaps to hide the true national debt? Plausible.

"New Disclosures on Currency Swaps with Goldman to Hide Greek Debt; Tip of the Iceberg says Former Bond Trader "Dr. Evil""

DosZap's picture

Air Amerika, still  on the job!