Republicans love to spread the lie that Democrats are big spenders who don't care about the deficit. But the truth is that Democrats have been much more fiscally responsible than Republicans. This chart reminds us that it's Republican presidents who love to spend and run up huge deficits. Of course some of you will want to point out the huge debt currently faced by the nation, but when you do please be honest enough to admit that most of it is due to policies initiated by George Bush -- policies that current Republicans will not let the president do away with.
Where's President Obama on that chart?
ReplyDeleteIf you'll notice, all of these presidents are judged by their COMPLETED terms. Obama has only done half a single term and is still trying to recover from the mess left him by the last Republican. I'm sure he'll be on future charts after completing his tenure (and I'll bet that he does better that Bush or Reagan).
ReplyDeleteHere's a chart of the projected deficits for the Obama Administration (and beyond). Even using the more optimistic White House estimates, none of the Obama years will be any better than the worst year under G.W. Bush.
ReplyDeleteBut don't get me wrong: Deficits can be acceptable if we have something to show for them. The largest deficits in our nation's history were during World War II, and the end result was the defeat Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. The deficits during the Reagan years resulted in the dismantling of the Soviet Empire and ultimately led to the "peace dividend" that paved the way for the budget surpluses under Clinton.
When we look back on the Obama deficits, what do you suppose we'll have to show for them, other than more dependency on government - which ultimately leads to even more deficits?
it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
ReplyDeleteCT,
ReplyDeleteI deleted your last comment and felt I should explain why I did it. It was not your comment. It was the link you attached, which led to a site that sells products. It just seemed a little too much like a product advertisement to me, and I don't do ads on this site. Hope you understand.
Fair enough - I understand completely. I tried linking to just the product, but I couldn't make it work.
ReplyDeleteAs I read over the other comments, I realized I posted it on the wrong thread anyway. My bad!
Thanks for understanding, CT.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure he'll be on future charts after completing his tenure (and I'll bet that he does better that Bush or Reagan).
ReplyDeleteROFLMAO
Here's a link to a great video, entitled "Who's More Responsible, Charlie Sheen or Washington?" It lays out the crisis better than anything I've seen so far.
ReplyDeleteWe can point fingers and try to accuse each others' parties for the mess we're in, but until both parties get spending under control, we're headed for a financial meltdown that will make Fukushima look like a picnic.
We can point fingers and try to accuse each others' parties for the mess we're in, but until both parties get spending under control, we're headed for a financial meltdown that will make Fukushima look like a picnic.
ReplyDeleteUntil we get socialism under control. It really has nothing to do with spending.
Socialism certainly is a big part of it.
ReplyDeleteUnlike defense spending, which can sometimes lead to a peace dividend (like after the end of World War II and the Cold War), entitlement programs only beget a greater sense of entitlement and more dependency, which leads to either more spending or, as we've seen in Greece and most recently the UK, riots when those programs are cut back.
But ultimately, the problem is still spending. Overly generous social programs are merely the fast track to get there.
Socialism is not nearly as much at fault as naked capitalism. While I'll agree that spending is at least partially the problem (the other part being massive tax cuts for the rich), it's not the spending you're talking about. The spending that needs to be cut back on is the two unnecessary wars, defense spending on weapons and programs that either don't work or aren't needed, and huge subsidies to the giant corporations.
ReplyDelete