Ok, apparently the national debt rises during Republican presidencies and goes down during Democratic presidencies (pic related).

But since congress determines the budget, not the president, I'd like to see how debt changes as congressional control changes.

Does a graph like this exist?

10/23/2008 1:42:58 AM

:carlface:

Whatever dude, you try to fight terrorism with hope.

10/23/2008 1:44:00 AM

Quote :

"But since congress determines the budget, not the president, I'd like to see how debt changes as congressional control changes. "

It would be trivially easy for you to compile this info yourself. Stop being lazy and expect others to spoon feed you.

And treetwista, oddly, had a good point last time this graph was posted, even though the majority of the graph seems accurate, for the very first republican admin., it has an upwards pointing arrow, while it shows a downward trend.

10/23/2008 1:45:08 AM

^^ that would actually be a pretty good way to fight terrorism (if you can transfer that hope to the poor/disenfranchised on the other side).

10/23/2008 1:45:46 AM

^^ It was meant to be a food for thought type thing, but here you go:

Regan had a democratic congress
Bush v 1.0 had a democratic congress
Clinton had a republican congress 6 years of his 8
Bush v 2.0 will have had a republican congress 6 years of his 8

I would argue that the "war on terror" explains much of the money spent during Bush's current term.

This would imply democrats are the least fiscally responsible.

(Libertarian btw, before I get accused of being a Republican shill)

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 1:48:47 AM

My roommates said the war (with Afghanistan) could end if we just bought all the opium. They are hardcore liberals. I counterargued that the money would probably go to an armaments program, but they me. Oh well.

10/23/2008 1:49:48 AM

You'd be better off as a conservative republican then a libertarian.

At least then you could blame God for being selfish and politically immature.

10/23/2008 1:51:12 AM

^Well done. You have contributed a quality, thought provoking and stimulating comment to this discussion using facts and/or logical reasoning, and you chose not to lower yourself to baseless ad hominem attacks. The political community on TWW is better off having you as a member.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 1:59 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 1:52:51 AM

Yes

Because you really upped the bar pointing out George W. Bush's deficit spending.

What were you thinking when you saw that graph?

"Oh man, I bet TSB never had THIS discussion before"

10/23/2008 2:00:18 AM

Quote :

"I would argue that the "war on terror" explains much of the money spent during Bush's current term."

Except that you'd be wrong. Non-defense discretionary spending has increased at its highest rate under Bush since LBJ. Some highlights:

-A reversal on the Farm Bill, with a glut of new ag subsidies
-Medicare Part D
-A massive new Department of Homeland Security (which, let's face it - is to some degree ancillary to the War on Terror, and has more to do with a massive reshuffling of federal bureaucracy)
-Large, across-the board increases in federal programs overall

Couple a massive jump in spending with tax cuts and you've got... record deficits!

Quote :

"You'd be better off as a conservative republican then a libertarian. At least then you could blame God for being selfish and politically immature."

So what's your excuse?

10/23/2008 2:01:34 AM

Too much drinking caused by my party not having enough of a spine to make effective reform possible
and because Nancy Pelosi is a cunt.

10/23/2008 2:05:12 AM

Fair enough, then.

10/23/2008 2:06:02 AM

^^^^,^^^ Firstly, I don't post on soapbox often, and I don't reread all past posts before posting as I'm sure most people on here refrain from doing. Second, I saw this pic posted on another board and thought the argument interesting.

I agree that Republicans have spent WAY too much money during the past 8 years and have lost their conservative roots, and it pisses me the fuck off. My argument is that Democrats in general are less fiscally responsible.

As for my Libertarian leanings, I could fill pages explaining the rationale behind the Libertarian philosophy, but taking a page from moron's comment, it would be lazy to ask that of me when you can just as easily google it and have it in front of you in 2 seconds.

If you have a specific question regarding libertarianism that could be answered directly, and concisely I'd be happy to oblige.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 2:09 AM. Reason : ^^^]

10/23/2008 2:08:15 AM

Quote :

"I agree that Republicans have spent WAY too much money during the past 8 years and have lost their conservative roots, and it pisses me the fuck off. My argument is that Democrats in general are less fiscally responsible."

I'm not sure how. Maybe if you're comparing the Class of 1996 Republicans to Democrats during Carter/Reagan. But lately Democrats have been louder deficit hawks than the Republicans.

I mean, at what point do the Republicans forfeit the whole claim of advantage on fiscal stewardship for what they did a decade ago considering the hash they've made of spending when they had unified control of Congress and the Presidency?

Democrats are generally terrible at pointing out where they're going to cut spending. But lately, Republicans haven't been a lot different, except in the regard that their new strategy has been to whine about the fact the Democrats are going to raise your taxes.

As if deficit spending is not a deferred stealth tax increase as it is.

10/23/2008 2:12:34 AM

Using national debt as a metric, I would argue that the Republican's did a decent job in the '90's. As of late, HELL NO.

And while the Republicans are spending money like a fat kid in a candy shop, the democrats want to institute new social programs and expand current ones. I think universal healthcare would be a monetary boondoggle, leading to ever increasing costs with a decline in healthcare access if Canada and the UK are to be used as an example.

The thing is I dislike both the Democrats and the Republicans. But I dislike the Republicans a bit less, and since they're the only two viable parties right now, I have to choose one or the other.

10/23/2008 2:20:49 AM

The President usually submits the budget, Congress signs it into law. So the Presidents actually have pretty direct control over spending.

10/23/2008 2:25:12 AM

Quote :

"The President usually submits the budget, Congress signs it into law. So the Presidents actually have pretty direct control over spending."

The budget submitted by the President is generally advisory, however - it is not in any way binding. The fact that the President has veto power is really how their influence on the budget manifests.

Which is part of the explanation for the explosion in federal spending - we went for over 4 years without a Bush veto.

10/23/2008 2:29:22 AM

^^ The president can't spend a dime without congress' approval, so the president doesn't have direct control.

A president proposing a spending bill is like a child asking his parents for money for a list of things he wants.

Which is why people need to pay more attention to congressional elections than to presidential ones. Amazes the hell out of me that so many people show up to vote for president, but won't vote in an even more important election, that of their representatives

^ also, I'm inclined to agree with Steve there. The president should have dusted off his veto pen A LOT more than he did. Prescription drug bill anyone?

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 2:35 AM. Reason : ^]

10/23/2008 2:29:24 AM

Ahhh, yes. the ol' democrat surplus argument. I never get tired of seeing that bullshit

10/23/2008 6:49:18 AM

Quote :

"My roommates said the war (with Afghanistan) could end if we just bought all the opium. They are hardcore liberals. I counterargued that the money would probably go to an armaments program, but they me. Oh well."

Ahh yes, the hardcore of both parties deserves a


Ultra-Liberal Democrats: "Americans are an aberration of greed in a world of hope and love. If we just loved them back we'd have world peace."

Reactionary Republicans: "America is an aberration of virtue in the world. If they don't like us, fuc'm. Nuke'm."

10/23/2008 9:02:07 AM

Quote :

""My roommates said the war (with Afghanistan) could end if we just bought all the opium. They are hardcore liberals. I counterargued that the money would probably go to an armaments program, but they me. Oh well.""

That idea has far less to do with their liberal ideology than their sheer stupidity. Saying "buy all the *insert farmable commodity here*" is the kind of thinking I'd expect to come from some creature that never lived more than 3 months and had no concept of seasons let alone years. Had they said

Quote :

"if we first legalized then farmed and provided our own opium, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign terrorist-friendly opium supplies..."

Then you could pretend it was extreme liberalism and not just the fact that they are clearly colonies of fruit flies that have commandeered human bodies.

[Edited on October 23, 2008 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2008 9:22:49 AM

I think the secret is to have a Dem president to encourage progressive policies and a GOP controlled congress to cut frivolous spending and reduces taxes.

LEts not forget though that the GOP dominated congress during the W administration the beginning of the 07 congressional session.

10/23/2008 9:15:16 PM

Quote :

"Reactionary Republicans: "America is an aberration of virtue in the world. If they don't like us, fuc'm. Nuke'm. If you don't like it then ye can GET THE FUCK OUT!"

i amended it for you. I love how reactionary republican claim to love freedom and america yet want to quash; silencing anyone that opposes their 19th century views.

10/23/2008 9:17:47 PM