Republicans are quick to call Democrats "big spenders" and try to pose themselves as fiscally conservative. As this chart shows, that just ain't true. When they get in power no one spends more freely than a modern Republican -- no matter how loudly they proclaim they are "conservative". Found this on a friend's FaceBook page.
"What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation’s ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time."
ReplyDelete"If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush."
"Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points
GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points
GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points
Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points"
(Source: The Fact Checker: The Truth Behind the Rhetoric by Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post.)
Kessler personally scored this chart "Four Pinocchios" on his Pinocchio Test, noting that "PolitiFact gave it a 'pants on fire' rating four months ago."
I have seen that chart all over the web. I support Obama and I am a liberal. I do not support that chart.
ReplyDeleteIt has the "source" at the bottom:
The Treasure Department (no link).
I visited the treasury department. It has a quick summary and more detailed one.
I think the historical table is enough, though. The chart is not supported by the Treasury Department’s Data.
Depending on how you analyze it, you could say that Bush increased the debt by almost 100%. However, that does not take into account the fact that Obama just got there, so it is an unfair comparison. If you use an annual comparison, the debt increased by just over half a billion per year under Bush and is increasing at a much higher rate under Obama, a much higher rate.
The chart is deceptive. Making patently absurd charts like this makes the overall liberal position weaker, much weaker. It provides legitimate targets for the republicans to use against us, and anyone analyzing the data we presented is going to agree with the Republicans’ argument. A good republican debater will not try to judge who is to blame for our current economic situation any longer, once we make this mistake. He will zero in on the mistake and make us look silly, thus winning the argument in the eyes of all viewers.
We could argue, and legitimately, that who caused the debt is never represented solely by who currently occupies the White House. We could also point out that almost every president increases the debt by more than his predecessor. We could also argue that when balanced budgets have almost exclusively happened under democratic administrations (even when we go way back in time, though the Clinton Administration).
However, charts like this, support the conservative’s argument and we lose.
Here is the actual data from the Treasury Department that the author of that chart hoped you would not analyze:
Historical Table
Detailed Breakdown