The chart isn't false, but it is somewhat misleading. It deals with nominal dollars, not real dollars, real per-capita dollars, or best yet % of GDP. Debt as a % of GDP would be much higher under the early Democrats, and much lower under the later Republicans (and Clinton too) if you put the figures in to a similar chart.
Also its label isn't really accurate. "And the presidents responsible for it". The current president is partially responsible for the debt during his term, but so is the current congress, previous presidents, previous congresses, and events outside of any of there control.
Congress controls the budget as much as the president, in some ways more. Part of the spending side(and thus new debt) is the interest on old spending. Part of the spending side is the continued spending on old programs, that were started by previous governments. Roosevelt and Johnson where the biggest factors in starting the entitlement programs that are consuming an increasing portion of our budget. Part of how well the economy does (and thus the base for taxation to cover the spending) is dependent on the economic policies and actions of previous presidents.
Clinton benefited from the fact that the cold war ended under the previous presidents. Reagan might be considered an important factor in the end of the cold war, and this would justify a lot of his military spending, and indirectly a fair amount of the debt. Even if you don't consider him more than a very minor factor, you still have to deal with the fact that the cold war did indeed end and this did indeed make things easier for Clinton. Bush II had to deal the bursting of the tech bubble (and associated recession), with 9/11, Katrina (and Rita), the war in Afghanistan, and of course the war in Iraq (but many might give him no slack for that figuring that it was his choice).
This doesn't mean that Bush II has been fiscally responsible (I don't think he has been, even if you look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP and take the conditions in to account), but this chart distorts things to show him in a much worse light and Clinton in a much better one. Its not inaccurate, the specific claimed facts are true, but the facts seem to be presented in such a way as to paint recent Republicans in the worst possible light, and they also don't consider the context and circumstances each president faced. |
