What is Digg?329 Comments
- kingofinternet, on 01/13/2008, -13/+248democrats: tax and spend
republicans: spend and spend - pintomp3, on 01/13/2008, -3/+168it's more like:
democrats: tax and spend
republicans: borrow and spend. - tehbored, on 01/13/2008, -10/+109When it comes to spending, it looks like the democrats are much more conservative than the republicans.
- LetsGoHawks, on 01/13/2008, -10/+79The Democrats suck
The Republicans suck harder - soccerkidjp, on 01/13/2008, -0/+61Mirror:
http://i13.tinypic.com/8a15hlj.gif - rabidmonkey1, on 01/13/2008, -27/+82First off, this graph is simplistic. It's not just the President who decides how the money is spent.
Second, it doesn't take any inflation into consideration. I think it's safe to assume the dollar was worth more during Carter/Reagan than it is during Clinton/Bush 2. I don't have numbers, but wouldn't debt stay very close over time, if inflation were added?
Third, taxes aren't what get rid of the debt. It's GDP and growing the economy and not inflating the currency that solve debt.
Lastly, *Neocons, not necessarily all Republicans, and definitely not fiscal conservatives. It's a shame, really. - brentinkc, on 01/13/2008, -52/+106Actually, it's more like
Democrats: Sound fiscal policy that gets us out of debt
Republicans: Do whatever the ***** I have to do convince people to vote for me again - mikewhite314, on 01/13/2008, -4/+56B-b-but we need more defense spending?!?!11
- rpi22, on 01/13/2008, -2/+47Debt goes up, we go down.
- heucuva, on 01/13/2008, -4/+46The two main parties have flip-flopped on their positions numerous times. Democrats today are more akin to Republicans of the past. Republicans today are more akin to Satan and his minions.
- Crystallio, on 01/13/2008, -15/+56Definitely an interesting graphic, but it's a little misleading in that it omits which party controlled Congress during the various periods, and it's the legislature that has more control over national spending policies than the executive.
- jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -3/+42To be fair, the chart only shows presidential terms and not legislative terms where most spending actually takes place.
That said, the Bush administration is indeed responsible for the ridiculous spending of the past 7 years (war/tax cuts supported by republicans) - WiseWeasel, on 01/13/2008, -1/+35Exactly right. So much for Republicans being the party of "small government"... Have they completely lost all ideals and become the party of cronyism and fascism?
- tehbored, on 01/13/2008, -4/+33Let me guess, you just pulled a random large number out of your ass right there.
- GoneFishing, on 01/13/2008, -34/+59A realistic view is that Ron Paul is the only visible presidential candidate that will talk about monetary and fiscal policies.
(Oh, their going to bury this just because it has RP in it. Even when this is a valid statement.) - thecoolestguy, on 01/13/2008, -9/+34----This chart shows every American how the Republicans are bankrupting America (while cutting every program they can get away with) and passing their debts to your children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren.-----
The Republicans are not cutting every program they can get away with, they've doubled the size of the department of education with the useless 'No Life Left Behind' program, and added a huge entitlement (that the US can never hope to pay for) with Medicare D, i.e. the Prescription Drug plan.
It should also be noted that while the Democrats have been good with keeping the budget debt from growing, they have just as bad as the Republicans in letting the entitlement deficit/debt grow. The entitlement deficit is at about $2 trillion a year. I highly recommend this video in which the Comptroller General of the United States discusses the financial collapse facing America thanks to the Democrats AND Republicans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8 - morcheeba, on 01/13/2008, -3/+26No -- he almost got us to a balanced budget. The chart shows increase-in-debt per year, not actual debt.
- Fletchex, on 01/13/2008, -25/+46The Clinton regime was just about to pull America out of debt then WHAM.
- heucuva, on 01/13/2008, -5/+26If you want to get down to brass tacks, it's more like:
Democrats: Tax and spend.
Republicans: Tax, borrow, and blow it all on guns and bombs. - monkeyrun, on 01/13/2008, -5/+25Sometimes I wonder how different the world could be if Al Gore didn't get robbed.
- gotamd, on 01/13/2008, -6/+23That's an interesting, but unsurprising chart. I would have put it out beyond 1976 and it should probably also account for inflation. This particular choice of dates ignores the debt during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam which were primarily run by Democratic presidents. Anyway, I'd give it a B for information, but an A+ for bias.
- schmons, on 01/13/2008, -1/+18mirror? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2189841693_531 ...
- drmobutu, on 01/13/2008, -4/+20Adjusted for inflation, the numbers are even worse...
- capiCrimm, on 01/13/2008, -3/+19that's not the problem. The problem is they ignore the other half of the solution -- cut spending.
- XopherMV, on 01/13/2008, -3/+19That's what happens when every problem in the country has the same Republican solution: cut taxes.
- Pake, on 01/13/2008, -14/+29I believe it's more like:
Democrats: Do whatever the ***** I have to do convince people to vote for me again.
Republicans: Do whatever the ***** I have to do convince people to vote for me again.
As for taxes, Republican policies make more sense but the government hasn't learned to stop spending the money. With a properly regulated government using Republican policies, all the money from taxes would be used up, whereas a Democratic policy tends to "profit." Basically the two parties are checks and balances for each other. One spends the surplus while the other taxes the ***** out of us to make the surplus, meaning we lose either way if one party is in office for too long. - robinthehood, on 01/13/2008, -6/+21Americans really need to get out of the habit of "defense spending" which of course when the thin veil is lifted really can be called "the imperialism fund". Pre-emptively attacking other nations like Eurasia and Eastasia... oh sorry, Iraq and in the future Iran... really isn't making America safer now is it?
- airiox, on 01/13/2008, -14/+28Because Republicans cut taxes while increasing the budget. Democrats increase taxes while increasing the budget. Third party candidates for the win.
- Goobernutz, on 01/13/2008, -1/+15Politicians just need to play SimCity for a day or two. THEN they might understand life/economics as much as we do.
- kirstpo, on 01/13/2008, -3/+16People need to realize that the budget set by congress every year automatically incurs a debt of about a trillion or so dollars. When they talk about a surplus, such as what happened in the Clinton era, the country was still increasing the national debt, just not as much as projected by the budget. When they say deficit, the country is incurring a larger debt than projected by congress. The US needs to cut spending A LOT if it wants to start paying back the ~53 trillion dollar national debt. Unfortunately many people have become dependent on the welfare state and government programs that are overall not working. There are also many jobs that will be lost when we take away useless bureaucracies. The Federal Reserve is also another big problem, pilfering the lower and middle class while transferring the wealth to the upper class. About 5-10% of the budget every year goes to paying interest to the Fed. The Fed and the group of private bankers are making money off printing money to the government who "should" be using that money to serve the people. The people should not be at mercy to the Fed. Unfortunately private central banks are now used all around the world where the entire control of the economy, money, and in many ways politics is with the private bankers that control these central banks.
- Jayg28, on 01/13/2008, -1/+14Why did the maker of this graph feel the need to include the cartoon elephant at the bottom?
- brentinkc, on 01/13/2008, -7/+19You know, oddly enough, we have more and more people every year, too. More people provide more income tax revenue, and require a larger infrastructure of governmental services. Wait, you mean the government has to grow with the electorate? WTF!?!?!
- XopherMV, on 01/13/2008, -1/+13Uh, no. We were actually running surpluses with Clinton. Those surpluses were the reason given for Bush's first tax cuts. To get a surplus, you need more than a balanced budget.
You can hate Clinton all you want. But that does NOT change the fact that he was far, far more financially responsible than Bush Senior or Bush Junior. - lhbaker, on 01/13/2008, -8/+20Our country is being yanked out from under us
- MaximusPryme, on 01/13/2008, -0/+11Look up Dave Walker, the Comptroller General for the GAO. He says that the deficit will increase to 50 Trillion dollars. Chump change, huh?
- ToadLeg, on 01/13/2008, -1/+12Correction:
"B-b-but we need more defense spending?!?!9-11!!!" - br0ken1128, on 01/13/2008, -2/+13Yes because when republicans led congress, they gave him nothing .. right?
- JigoroKano, on 01/13/2008, -1/+12It depends on the size of the majority. The president does have veto power.
- lhbaker, on 01/13/2008, -3/+13You mean ethenol? Sure. Whatever. But they're going to have to start giving out loans at the grocery store.
- KOSmurfy, on 01/13/2008, -1/+11That is the problem now, isn't it? =/
- pimpofpixels, on 01/13/2008, -2/+12Basically, we've been robbed to the tune of about $30,000 per person by the criminal government who oppresses us. It's just like the Mob. There's no wise guy on the corner. There's no bricks thrown through the store windows, but the principals are the same. Fear, Intimidation, and your money… stolen.
- XopherMV, on 01/13/2008, -3/+13That Democrat-led Congress has only been around a year. Those numbers went way up BEFORE then, back when Republicans controlled both the House, Senate, and Presidency. The troops were ALREADY in Iraq. You want them to cut funding for the troops? Yeah, THAT would go over well with the American people.
- brentinkc, on 01/13/2008, -5/+15"I am the decider"
- BigJStudd, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9Actually, I am loathe to say it, but that sounds about right. It hit something like that after the health care bill was passed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8 - SzaszMan, on 01/13/2008, -0/+9Sure we will. The government will just inflate the currency. That's how the Weimar Republic of Germany got out of debt - they just ran the printing press day and night. The general public got screwed in the process, though.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/13/2008, -6/+15It really does matter who you vote for. Democrats do have some compromised individuals, and sometimes, it's just a platform to get them elected. But for the most part, Democrats are driven by populism and what is good for most of us. Republicans are driven by a long-term scam to rip off the middle class because they are fundamentally elitist, and don't think everyone should vote, nor have the time and resources to effect what goes on from those who know better. In another age, they'd be the Tories, or allied with England and the King.
You actually end up spending LESS of your money when Democrats run the government. The Republicans, tax less but print more money -- YOU end up paying for that extra money in higher utility bills, inflation (which the government now lies about), and in the Devaluation of work over the increased valuation of ownership.
Yes, the Republicans are FOR an Ownership Society -- it's just that, unless you have enough money to own everything you have with enough left over to invest -- you aren't an owner. So for 97% of the country, there isn't a benefit in having Republicans. And even for the rich -- most of them probably don't enjoy hiring security, and breathing stinking air and dealing with resentment just so they can make more money. - borneo66, on 01/13/2008, -1/+10Given that the President proposes budgets, no, the party in control of the Congress is not as important as you would make it out to be. For instance, Ronald Reagan actually proposed budgets that were larger than what the Democratically-controlled Congress passed several years of his presidency.
- JayD16, on 01/13/2008, -0/+8Lay off Dick Cheney, He's fixing social security one shotgun blast to the face at a time.
- inkswamp, on 01/13/2008, -0/+8Or how about, "When Republican presidents take us through expensive and largely unnecessary military actions to 'protect us' from a third-world threat" which is a pattern of behavior started long before Bush Jr.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 327 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
