Historically, who's better (lowers) for the US national debt--a Republican or Democrat President?

Democrats: http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

"On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher)."

Historically, Congress is in charge of all spending and revenue bills.

The last time Republicans held Congress - the 12 years from 1995 - 2006 - there were several years of surpluses, but an overall average budget of $104 billion per year.

That 12 year period, by the way, included a TOTAL deficit of less than what Obama & Co. has proposed for 2011 alone.

Before the Democrats took Congress at the start of 2007, the Office of Management and Budget expected a budget surplus again by 2012. I suspect we are SOL on that.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hi...

Historically the Republican party. But this was back when they really cared about limited government.

AS soon as Reagan took office the party shattered national deficit records. Hell even Nixon and Carter were bigger fiscal conservatives than Reagan was.

In fact, the last 3 Republican presidents all broke national deficit records, and increased spending significantly.

Neither really. Clinton is the only one in recent history that has.

Neither, they both generally spend like dunken sailors.

Except for Clinton, with his motto, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

I liked Slick Willie.

Historically, Obama has spent more than all the other presidents COMBINED.

scott b: with a republican congress.

Neither...congress controls the purse strings.

Well...Clinton came into office with huge budget deficits, and left with a large budget SURPLUS...

Republicans, by a hair.

Well, no one has lowered it in modern history.