[Piercey]

From 1900 to 2009, which part is responsible for the most debt in USA

[adthern]

It would depend, are we talking about actual dollars or value adjusted dollars. What I mean is that a dollar in 1900 is not worth the same as a dollar today. If we are talking actual dollars I think it would be Republicans, if it is value adjusted, I would say the Democrats (FDR and Wilson probably covered that alone with the 2 WW's and depression). The answer also depends on whether you are talking about the party who controls the presidency or congress or both.

[SocialPsiTina]

I disagree with the previous poster. It's clear that in the last 25+ years, the Republicans increased the national debt much more the Republicans. It was worst under Reagan, who tripled the national debt.

Check out this chart on the National Debt: http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x

[adthern]

Try reading the OP's post it was from 1900 to 2009, also my answer was the Republicans if we used actual dollars, but you would have to understand what value adjusted or inflation adjusted dollars are.

Your post is disjointed and confusing, which do you disagree with: that it depends on whether inflation/value adjusted dollars are used or actual dollars, or my statement that the republicans have spent more between 1900 and 2009?

[SocialPsiTina]

Yes, they already adjusted for inflation. Had they posted a table without such an adjustment, you are right, it would render their data invalid. I'm fully convinced that they did no such thing. Since Reagan in 1980, the GOP spent a LOT more.

[SocialPsiTina]

Correction, I meant to say in my original post (below) that the Republicans spent much more than the Democrats.

Here's the table to prove it: http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x

Thank you, Adhern, for pointing out the confusion.

[adthern]

Thank you, much more clear now. However, using the logic of simply the most dollars spent, it will always be the party in power or just out of power that has spent the most, because the value of money decreases over time. Compare cost of a house in 1900 and then again in 2000, the house in 2000 is worth far more right? Well, not really when you compare the average salary in 1900 and 2000.

The table you post is lovely, but really just slieght of hand with statistics and leaving out relevelnt information.

[SocialPsiTina]

OK, so how was the sleight of hand managed? What relevant information was left out? With all due respect, I do believe your claims are specious.

[adthern]

I thought I explained it quite well, but I will try again.

Here are some inflation adjusted examples (first price is actual dollars, second is in 2008 adjusted dollars):

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
• World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

The point here isn't political, which is what you are trying to make it, it is economic.

Did republicans spend like drunken sailors (no offense to drunken sailors) yes, obviously! Though, historically so have the democrats (I'm not saying that those expendatures weren't needed--just that they occurred.)


Reference: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/big-bailouts-bigger-bucks/

[SocialPsiTina]

Your numbers show no evidence that Dems spent more than the GOP. The table I cited was already adjusted for inflation-- standard for any longitudinal study. http://tinyurl.com/5mq65x It clearly shows GOP way outspent Dems. -- Tina Miller, M.A.