Of course Republicans spend less than Democrats. Though that is debateable if you add the cost of wars that could have possibly been avoided like I do. http://costofwar.com/ Either way, BOTH parties spend and everyone has to pay the bill. America votes for the people spending our money. When Republicans take office and cut taxes, it drives up our national debt over and over and over. http://costoftaxcuts.com/ The proof is in history. Since 1945 every surplus turned into a deficit was done by a Republican. And every deficit turned into a surplus was done by a Democrat. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...deral_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg Why are people not catching onto this? They are simply buying votes with money by lowering taxes instead of being accountable. I want to vote for a Conservative sooner or later so the GOP had better get it together. I hope the Republicans either change or step aside and let the Libertarians take center stage.
what I find interesting is that the CBO projected the national debt in 2020 would be voer $20 trillion under ryans plan. 'course that just screws up one of their main talking points against Obama and the debt. As clinton says - it takes a lot of brass.
Yep haha. Clinton also said, "You all know half of that is yours" about the Debt Clock. I'm suprised this GOP is actually getting followers with its policies. But I guess it's brains vs chest beaters.
Wrong. 1948 (D-Truman) $11.8 billion surplus 1949 (D-Truman) $0.6 billion surplus 1950 (D-Truman) $3.1 billion DEFICIT 1951 (D-Truman) $6.1 billion surplus 1952 (D-Truman) $1.5 billion DEFICIT 1953 (D-Truman) $6.5 billion DEFICIT 1954 (D-Truman) $1.2 billion DEFICIT 1955 (R-Eisenhower) $3 billion DEFICIT 1956 (R-Eisenhower) $3.9 billion surplus From Eisenhower's 1960 budget surplus on, we've only had five years with a budget surplus - one under LBJ (who credited tax cuts with the economic revival) and four under Clinton. Eisenhower (R) had 3 of 8 years with a budget surplus. FDR (D) had 12/12 years with a budget deficit. So.... we can cherry pick all we want. But your claim: At best, that's a mistake. At worst, its a lie. Choose whichever one you want.
When Republicans run deficits it is to pay for unconstitutional Democrat mandatory spending like all the entitlements. Paragraph 11 Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor Spending on the national defense, or "War Spending." Is constitutional. Spending on Democrat wealth distribution and social engineering schemes is not! Democrat violations of the Constitution cause most of the debt.
The reality is that both parties will ALWAYS increase spending over full terms of Congress and the Senate. The reason? House back scratching. Plain and simple, if Congressmen want to get re-elected in their district, they have to get things done in their district, which means pork programs, economic stimulus, and social welfare that helps their citizenry. How does a Congressman get votes in Congress for their pork, their stimulus and their social welfare? They trade with other Congressman by voting for their districts pork, stimulus and social welfare. Both sides have continually done it throughout history, and both sides will continue to do it. Those things add up horrendously. Of course, they don't make the massive increases that wars, new Social programs and depression climbouts do, but it is the main reason that even when spending is already bloated, that both parties can't seem to find enough cuts to make a difference. But here's the secret you don't know about. Increasing spending doesn't really matter when the economy is slow. The reason? Once the economy kicks back up, GDP growth equals higher revenues, economic stimulus means higher spending, which equals higher revenues, and inflation means that our GDP grows faster than our deficit, especially in low interest environments. All in all, that spending adds more total dollars to our economy, which in low inflationary periods is a good thing. It makes our economy stronger relative to the rest of the world. How do you think we became the Super Power we are right now? It wasnt' because of fiscally sound policies during WWII, that's for sure. It was because we spent and spent adn spent, and then we won the war and got to dictate the economic terms for the world. Bush tried to do that in the middle East by attempting to take over and dictate oil in the world, he just failed to succeed on his short term timeline. That's one of the reasons we are where we are right now.
Swamp_music, A lot of that "spending" is Social Security. The people that put into it get it back. That social safety net has proven it's worth time and time again. Actual welfare programs, that go directly to helping the poor, are the tiniest of slivers in our budget. If you want to fix the budget/debt you have to look at Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Defense spending. Programs for the poor cost us very, VERY little. Also, spending on these things is Constitutional. If it wasn't the Supreme Court would have struck them down.
I see what you are trying to say, I guess I didn't specify. I meant when they took office and when they left office. But calling out little tweaks in the deficit won't distract the point. Nice try.
Number 1, I didn't say deficits, I said debt. Number 2, how in the world would cutting taxes pay off the Democrat mandatory spending like entitlements when cutting taxes pays less into the debt. Number 3, spending on national defense is great in my book. Spending on wars we possibly could have avoided is not. You comparing unecessary war with "national defense" is as bad as as democrats saying what they spend is constatutional because it's "general welfare". Why would you say "When Republicans run deficits it's to pay for Democratic spending" when a deficit means the exact opposite. It means they AREN'T paying for the spending.
Not really considering Wars end.....Democrat Social Teets last till bankruptcy..... Tax Cuts do not cause (D)ebt...... GDP After The JFK Tax Cuts GDP After The Reagan Tax Cuts GDP After The Bush Tax Cuts [/SIZE] Well who did you vote for in the primary? . .
You do realize those are not national debt charts right? Those are Gross National Product charts. I'd like to see the job growth side by side with those charts because there wasn't much job growth and the national debt spiked. Give a person with 4 houses more money to spend and they will buy a 5th house. It's why they have 4 houses to begin with.
My mistake...... Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts Federal Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts Federal Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts ....if anything you said were true.....shouldnt revenues be plummeting after Tax Cuts? Tax Cuts spur Job Growth every time they are tried..... . .
Look up the definition of "Revenue"...............Its basically the same charts you posted before and have little to do with national debt........I'm embarassed for you
My mistake actually. The last person that posted graphs from that website were business revenue graphs. Either way, if you recieve more revenue then cut taxes below the point of being able to pay off the debt or in other words called a DEFICIT.......then it doesn't matter. My argument still stands. Democrats are more accountable with the national debt.
So we agree......it isnt tax cuts that causes (D)ebt or (D)eficits..... Of course they are more accountable.......they invented over 75% of the Spending. . .
Truman (D) began with a surplus, and left Eisenhower (R) with a deficit. That's 1950's. You specifically said since 1945, every deficit-turned-surplus was done by a Democrat, and every surplus-turned-deficit was done by a Republican, and, as I pointed out, that's false. Truman (D) began with a surplus, ended with a deficit. Eisenhower (R) inherited a deficit, and balanced the budget three times. Lyndon Johnson (D) inherited a deficit (from Kennedy) and had one balanced budget, but did not pass it on to Nixon. Clinton (D) inherited a deficit, and left with a surplus. However, the national debt was $2,000,000,000,000 larger when he left office than when he took office (although that number pales when you throw in George W. Bush and Barack Obama's record). Bush (R) inherited a surplus, and never got us a balanced budget. However, as recently as 2007, the deficit was something like $150 billion, which, compared to today's budgets, is pretty dang good. Most of Bush's deficits weren't that bad looking bad, except for his final budget which included TARP. That pushed the deficit to 10% of GDP. Obama promised to cut that final historic deficit in half (roughly $700 billion), which would've still been our 2nd highest deficit in history after 2009. Instead, Obama has given us four straight trillion-dollar deficits. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, inherited a $3 billion deficit as governor of Massachusetts, and, in one term, turned it into a $700 million surplus with a $2 billion rainy-day fund. His successor, Patrick (D) quickly turned THAT surplus into a deficit. 2003 - Romney (R) inherits a $2,000,000,000 deficit 2007 - Romney (R) leaves office with a $700,000,000 surplus and $2,000,000,000 rainy-day fund. 2008 - Patrick (D) inherits the budget surplus, but he immediately gives Massachusetts a $495 million deficit. Romney sounds more like Clinton to me. Increased some "fees", i.e. tax revenue increased, held spending down to sustainable levels, got a surplus. Obama, however, extended Bush's tax cuts & kept spending at unsustainable levels, giving us historic trillion dollar deficits. So.... Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton and Romney look fairly good on the budget, well not Johnson so much since he only had 1 budget surplus, but each of them at least got us a balanced budget. Obama, no balanced budget. Not even a budget deficit below a trillion dollars. If we could have Eisenhower, Johnson or Clinton in office today, I'd take em. But two of them are dead, and the other is ineligible for office. That leaves us with Romney. And I am going to vote for Romney this year, and hope that he, like Johnson, voluntarily serves one term.
I never said I agreed..........you hear what you wanna hear just like every Republican. Tax Cuts absolutely causes the debt to rise and there is 100% proof of it. If you can't see it from the graph there is nothing I can say to change your mind. You are blind by bias, you will justify anything to make your party sound correct and I can't say anything to change it.
I stopped reading after your first sentence because it wasn't true. This graph is linked to wiki but it is from statistics from whitehouse.gov http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...deral_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
