Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on January 13, 2008, 02:58:39 PM
-
Found an interesting chart today. It doesn't show the size of the national debt itself, it shows the increases to the national debt:
(http://hallert.net/images/2189841693_5312efce1c_o.gif)
It seems to show a pretty consistent trend over the past 30 years of bigger spending from Republican administrations than Democrats. Both parties seem pretty free with spending my money, but this really suggests that the old "tax & spend democrats" generalization is out of date. I guess stripping us of our constitutional gun rights is cheaper than whatever the Republicans are doing.
-
Funny... chart stops at 2004......
-
Was this adjusted for with inflation?
And, guns are expensive :p
-
I would be interested in knowing if it's adjusted for inflation.
Anyway, we might drop the Spend off of the democrats, but we won't drop the tax Democrats.
-
Off topic but still not..
Im suprised that it wasnt higher during Reagan with the cold war and all. Less "trade" with China perhaps?
-
why would it be adjusted for inflation, the whole point is to show republicans spend more than democrats.
presidents don't make the budget, they can only ask congress for the money, the house of representatives appropriates the money.
And congress has to pad the budget with pork if they want to be reelected. Everyone says congress is corrupt, except for their congressmen, their congressmen bring federal money to their district to build roads, bridges, create jobs, etc.
-
Nilson China wasn't a huge player in the cold war. They were still waking up economically.
What the graph doesn't show is the increases in spending in direct corelation with world events. It also doesn't show times of recesion and what not. It just shows debt and who was president when it happened.
Didn't the dems control the congress for a few years during Reagan's terms?
Reagan used that money to outspend and help defeat the soviet empire.
Bush Sr had to fight a war in the gulf.
Clinton cut military spending in half yet increased deployments 300% (I know I SERVED DURING THAT TIME....we were bringing our own pens to work)
W. Bush has the war on terror and the liberation of Iraq. Not to mention that whole 911 thing wich sent our allready weak economy into the crapper.
-
Thats what im saying... the chinese were not a big trading partner for you back then so they didnt contribute to the defeceit. If you have had that and the cold war at the same time im thinking the defeceit under Reagan would be greater.
-
Originally posted by john9001
why would it be adjusted for inflation, the whole point is to show republicans spend more than democrats.
presidents don't make the budget, they can only ask congress for the money, the house of representatives appropriates the money.
And congress has to pad the budget with pork if they want to be reelected. Everyone says congress is corrupt, except for their congressmen, their congressmen bring federal money to their district to build roads, bridges, create jobs, etc.
You adjust for inflation because a dollar today is not worth what it was worth last year.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You adjust for inflation because a dollar today is not worth what it was worth last year.
Exactly. If that graph isn't adjusted, I can see the Reagan years outweighing us now.
-
It would be interesting to see the previous administrations as well.
-
even by a glance you can see the debt go up under jimmy car not up. Yet the arrow above it is going down. That's definately not a biased chart if i've ever seen one.:D
-
Somebody once said The President Proposes, Congress Disposes and the Supreme Court rules.
Add these facts about control of the House and Senate to that spending chart:
Years House / Years Senate was held by opposition party:
Gerald Ford 2/2...his entire term, the opposition party controlled both House and Senate
Jimmy Carter 0/0... his party ALWAYS controlled both the House and Senate
Ronald Reagan 8/2.. his party always had the House but the Senate only 2/8
Bush 1 4/4.. his entire term, the opposition party controlled both House and Senate
Clinton 6/6... for 3/4th's of his two terms, the Republicans controlled both House and Senate
Bush 2... 1/3... out of 7 years; he's had mostly Republican control in Congress
Now...
Gerald Ford, slight downward trend, mostly level with Congress under Democratic control.
Jimmy Carter, Ford's slight downward trend continues with Republicans totally controlling Congress but trend reverses to slightly up in last year.
Ronald Reagan, overall snapshot is that spending rises sharply with Republicans holding the House and the Democrats holding the Senate. So the Reagan spending was essentially approved by both parties.
Bush 1, spending skyrockets past the Reagan totals with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress for Bush 1's entire term.
Bill Clinton, overall steady downward trend in spending for both terms considering Bush 1's spending. Democrats control both houses of Congress for the first 2 years of Clinton's first term. Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency. So 75% of those declining years the Congress was totally under Republican control.
Bush 2, spending again skyrockets with both Houses of Congress mostly under Republican control. However, a large part of this can be linked to the Iraq war which intially had the support of both parties. Even now, both parties generally are supporting the funding the war.
Just some things to consider that might not be apparent if one does not delve too deeply into the how and why of that chart.
-
Adjusted for inflation, WW2 and the Vietnam War would dwarf anything you've seen on this chart.
-
Nine trillion Dollars. Congratulations America,
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Jan 2008 at 01:41:09 AM GMT is:
$ 9 , 2 0 3 , 0 3 6 , 7 6 8 , 2 8 4 . 9 0
The estimated population of the United States is 304,073,868
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,265.79.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.48 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif)
(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif)
-
So the Dems spend but pay cash(taxes) the Repubs spend and put it on credit(debt)
they both spend
-
You are correct, Nilsen. Debt/GDP would show that.
All spending is not debt.
Those graphs by Viking are not valid. Debt/GDP is the indicator.
-
(http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtAsPercentofGDP1940-2009.gif)
-
2004 - 2009 projected....
wow, the Amerihater can not even find real data.
-
I think the Ameriwhiner above will find that there is nothing projected about 9 trillion Dollars.
-
The President, whoever that is, signs the budget into law. It is congress that appropriates the funds for any fiscal budget.
Or am I mistaken?
-
debt goes up during a war but gets paid off. debt that is made for socialism does not show for a few years... sometimes decades but it always grows and grows and grows no matter who is in power after that.
Democrats cut debt by cutting defense but they increase the overall debt for all time with socialist programs.
What you need to do is look at what our tax dollars are spent on. You will see that the majority is the social programs that were started by democrats..
there is very little left over for discretionary spending. I agree that republicans spend far too much too tho.
Democrats could cut the spending over nite again.. just like Klinton did.. you simply close all the bases after sending the troops home.. a huge cut in spending... spending that would have stopped and been paid for anyway but.. looks good on such a chart.. then you start another medical or education or carbon credits type program that really doesn't start to get tooooooo expensive for a few years and.. then.. more every year forever.
the democrats are all saying that none of us are paying enough taxes.
lazs
-
Well duh by golly geewhiz heckfire, ah'm shore gonna vote Demykrat ta keep thuh nashinul dett daown! :rolleyes:
-
Trillion here....trillion there....pretty SOON....
-
halo... depends on if you think in short term or long term.. democrats increase debt forever with social programs and reduce debt for the short term by gutting the military.
more than all of our tax dollars are already spoken for with social programs and defense.. there is little or no money left to play with... you can increase social programs by gutting defense but.. the social programs grow and grow no matter who is in power once they are put into place.
You are better off putting the money in a big pile and burning it than to vote democrat.. if you burn it then it is just gone... if you "invest" it in social programs then the amount needed grows at horrific rates.. it is like trying to keep a boiler working by shoveling money into it.
Look at any pie chart for spending.
lazs
-
The republicans have shamed the democrats lately in their ability to outspend even the most decadent liberal politician. The enthusiastic way the current administration spends my tax money hand over fist is proof that the party needs a reboot. That's why I'm voting Paul.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think the Ameriwhiner above will find that there is nothing projected about 9 trillion Dollars.
It isn't me trying to point out how bad the Norwegian Gov't is. Instead it is your jealous arse that is.
Admit it, you're just pissed your not an American and that no matter what you say or do, it will never matter.