Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67

Thread: An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

  1. #1

    An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending

    [url]http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/url]

    Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending really has gone out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Mr. Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/url]

    Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending really has gone out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Mr. Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.[/QUOTE]


    Although I agree that this last admin has spent like nobody's business... this argument needs to be put in a better perspective.

    Put this numbers up against GDP and what do they look like?

    Put this numbers up against the global climate and what do they look like?

    What global-political forces were at work during these times?

    What other factors were being dealt with (environmental disasters etc.)?

    You can't just look at RAW numbers.

    By-the-way, I am not dismissing the raw numbers... I would be curious to see what other influences there may be than just the implied "pork" spending your argument is making.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/url]

    Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending really has gone out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Mr. Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.[/QUOTE]

    and except for FDR who fought a war-

    the communist threat grew by leaps and bounds while a dim was in office...a Republican President was left to defeat communism and did...

    the terrorist threat grew unabbated while a dim was in office; again leaving a mess for a Republican President to clean up.....

    all of this costs money which leads one to ask, what were the rats spending all that cash on????

  4. #4
    flushingjet
    Guest
    ...every Congress for 40 years up to 1995 was controlled by Dems.
    so no matter who was president, they held the purse strings

    plus, if you happen to be old enough to recall, carter put us
    really behind the eight-ball
    double digit inflation
    double digit interest rate
    spending /lower taxes was the cure for that socialist economy
    as always

    I love libs logic, especially with hard sciences, economics
    and their revision of history

    they never wanted a balanced budget, ever, until they lost congress
    they were never concerned about MY future when I was a tot
    clintons 1st term-just notable for raising taxes-nothing else
    did he run on a deficit reduction platform-of course not

    and Bush is hardly a conservative.
    with all the lib RINOs i cant blame you for your confusion

  5. #5
    Hey I am just posting the facts here. I have not found/rec'd any links with the other metrics.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Hey I am just posting the facts here. I have not found/rec'd any links with the other metrics.[/QUOTE]
    Hey but you're just an Independent, right? No axe to grind?

    Why do so many Democrats, from John Kerry to talk show callers to messageboard posters, feel the need to belie their own core? It really is bizarre. On one hand, I am calling you out Jetdawgg, [B]but [/B]you are hardly alone. In fact most the ABB crowd on JI ('cept for our multicapped pal, of course) have in the past referred to themselves as Independents. So, for all of you, just be a Democrat, a liberal Democrat, for cryin' out loud. It's not like you'd be alone. Step up.

    For what it's worth, I'm a Republican that leans more conservative socially than fiscally. And I'm not so confident of our chances next week, there is an overabundence of mixed signals and indications. And that's where I am.

    Agenda? Perhaps, but it's not hidden.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=sackdance]Hey but you're just an Independent, right? No axe to grind?

    Why do so many Democrats, from John Kerry to talk show callers to messageboard posters, feel the need to belie their own core? It really is bizarre. On one hand, I am calling you out Jetdawgg, [B]but [/B]you are hardly alone. In fact most the ABB crowd on JI ('cept for our multicapped pal, of course) have in the past referred to themselves as Independents. So, for all of you, just be a Democrat, a liberal Democrat, for cryin' out loud. It's not like you'd be alone. Step up.

    For what it's worth, I'm a Republican that leans more conservative socially than fiscally. And I'm not so confident of our chances next week, there is an overabundence of mixed signals and indications. And that's where I am.

    Agenda? Perhaps, but it's not hidden.[/QUOTE]

    I am an Independent. I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past.

    My mind is made up about the war in Iraq. I was against it fromt he start. I have had my patriotism challenged because of it. Mostly from people who never served at all.

    Now that a few more of the American people have caught up to the flavor of the War in Iraq they are screaming to have it end.

    The current duopoly of American politics is disgraceful. The Dems are no panacea at all. I am just voting this time against the war in Iraq. It was wrong from the start and has progressively degraded since.

    America needs a change in direction. The Dems will have 2 years to get something done. I don't have much confidence in them doing anything much as Bush can still veto (joke) whatever they pass.

    But status quo is unrealistic. Throw the bums out!!!!!!

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I am an Independent. I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past.
    ...
    But status quo is unrealistic. Throw the bums out!!!!!![/QUOTE]
    So Iraq is so bad that you're digging through Republican vs. Democrat fiscal history?

    Don't forget you posted this: [COLOR=RoyalBlue][I]Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.[/I][/COLOR] That's...Independent?

    I wasn't questioning you, or judging Democrats, just exhorting you to get out of the liberal, Democratic closet! Might do you some good. John Kerry might as well admit he equates servicemen with dullards. Might do him some good, too.

  9. #9
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and except for FDR who fought a war-

    [B]the communist threat grew by leaps and bounds while a dim was in office...a Republican President was left to defeat communism and did...

    the terrorist threat grew unabbated while a dim was in office; again leaving a mess for a Republican President to clean up.....[/B]

    all of this costs money which leads one to ask, what were the rats spending all that cash on????[/QUOTE]

    Communist threat grew during WW2 because there were two bigger threats that needed to be addressed: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

    And under Democratic Presidents Truman the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan kept communism in check the world over. Those were the influential policies in setting up the fall of the USSR. Yes, Reagan was the one who saw those policies to their finish and ultimately Capitalist/Democratic victory, but don't sit here and say it was the Republicans who beat communism.


    And the war on terror has seen many presidents fail miserably. Obviously Jimmy Carter is at the top of the list, but you should read Dick Clarke's memoirs. I just picked it up and its A. very informative about the inner workings of the white house during 9/11 B. a great read C. Clearly insinuates Clinton as the most proactive anti-terror president to date even though he was handicapped by your boys in Congress who couldn't let a blow job from a fatty slide.
    Last edited by CarlSpackler; 10-31-2006 at 12:21 PM.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=sackdance]So Iraq is so bad that you're digging through Republican vs. Democrat fiscal history?

    Don't forget you posted this: [COLOR=RoyalBlue][I]Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.[/I][/COLOR] That's...Independent?

    I wasn't questioning you, or judging Democrats, just exhorting you to get out of the liberal, Democratic closet! Might do you some good. John Kerry might as well admit he equates servicemen with dullards. Might do him some good, too.[/QUOTE]

    Hey guy I am just the messenger here. I am not completely sure how Clinton flattened the line there. It is just that he did. I do remember The Fed (Greenspan) not liking his methodology to do so.

    The war is the economy. That money could be better spent here in America. I am America first, second, third.....

  11. #11
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=sackdance]So Iraq is so bad that you're digging through Republican vs. Democrat fiscal history?

    [B]Don't forget you posted this: [COLOR=RoyalBlue][I]Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, President Clinton did.[/I][/COLOR] That's...Independent? [/B]

    I wasn't questioning you, or judging Democrats, just exhorting you to get out of the liberal, Democratic closet! Might do you some good. John Kerry might as well admit he equates servicemen with dullards. Might do him some good, too.[/QUOTE]

    As an Independent you're allowed to have an opinion. You don't have to be a liberal or conservative to respect one president and question others.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Presidents don't control the purse strings by themselves, Congress does. ANY analysis of this type that omits which party controlled Congress (and the extent) at the time is laughably incomplete and, clearly, a partisan hack job. Picking a starting point that omits, for example, Carter is a joke. Then, followed by this statement, "...government spending really has gone out of control" clearly shows the bias. To also not add the macro-economic context is almostt criminal.

    The Democrats controlled Congress during Reagan's presidency. The GOP controlled Congress during Clinton's. Reagan inherited one of the worst economic conditions any modern President ever has. Bush 2 inherited a recession that began 9 months prior to his inauguration and 9 months later 9-11 impacted the economy negatively. Clinton was President during the largest stock market bubble in the history of this country and his many spending bills were severely cut back by a GOP-controlled congress. These "facts" are omitted from this analysis because they do not fit the author's conclusion, a conclusion he appraoched the data with and mined for to support. This is simply a rather unsophisticated attempt at data mining.

    GWB has spent too much, even if you adjust for the war he is fighting. The GOP HAS become too crazy with spending. All of that is true. The dirty little secret is that BOTH parties are horrible with restraining the size of government. This is why trye, small government conservatives are so disgusted with the GOP. They have let us down. They used to be abaout small government. Not anymore. The Dems, however, don't think Bush has spent enough!! That's their problem. Tax revenues have increased due to the tax rate cuts. Again, they have increased. They increased when Kennedy cut them, Reagan and now Bush. The problem is spending and BOTH parties are absolutely disgraceful on this, no matter what data one wishes to mine.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]Communist threat grew during WW2 because there were two bigger threats that needed to be addressed: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

    And under Democratic Presidents Truman the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan kept communism in check the world over. Those were the influential policies in setting up the fall of the USSR. Yes, Reagan was the one who saw those policies to their finish and ultimately Capitalist/Democratic victory, but don't sit here and say it was the Republicans who beat communism.

    [/QUOTE]

    It is rather convienient you fail to mention the incredible growth of communism during the carter's reign of error in the late 70's....to the point where it was in America's backyard in Central America and nothing was done about it....until a Republican President took over....to sit here and say Reagan or the Republicans did not beat back and ultimately defeat communism based on what took place from 77-1981 is worse than democrat spin; it is downright ignorant....

    [QUOTE]And the war on terror has seen many presidents fail miserably. Obviously Jimmy Carter is at the top of the list, but you should read Dick Clarke's memoirs. I just picked it up and its A. very informative about the inner workings of the white house during 9/11 B. a great read C. Clearly insinuates Clinton as the most proactive anti-terror president to date even though he was handicapped by your boys in Congress who couldn't let a blow job from a fatty slide.[/QUOTE]

    and read what your boy Clarke said in his press conferences the February after 9/11 which directly contradicts what he later wrote in his book.....it has been posted on this site....

  14. #14
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]It is rather convienient you fail to mention the incredible growth of communism during the carter's reign of error in the late 70's....to the point where it was in America's backyard in Central America and nothing was done about it....until a Republican President took over....[B]to sit here and say Reagan or the Republicans did not beat back and ultimately defeat communism based on what took place from 77-1981 is worse than democrat spin; it is downright ignorant....[/B]

    [/QUOTE]

    Jack@ss thats exactly what I said.

    You choose to blame everything that went wrong for America in the second half of the twentieth century on Jimmy Carter, thats your opinion.

    Yes Carter sucks, we know. So does Bush Jr.

  15. #15
    I do know that GWB has made gov't too big. In my business, people I used to go to for purchasing are no longer in charge of that.

    There is now Homeland Security (Joke) TSA (what). That is at least two additional layers of gov't to deal with.

    This may change if the Dems win. My only guess then is what will it become. [SIZE=4][B][COLOR=DarkRed]Uncertainty Rules[/COLOR][/B] [/SIZE] :)

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]As an Independent you're allowed to have an opinion. You don't have to be a liberal or conservative to respect one president and question others.[/QUOTE]

    Of course, of course.

    In my previous post I addressed the curious disposition of many "Independents" who happen to parrot Harry Reid talking points. Perhaps I'm being too quick to judge, if so please forgive. But then again, for a guy who claims to be a one-issue man (Iraq) he’s spelling out how Clinton is better than Bush, how the past 70 years shows Democratic Presidents are fiscally better than “conservative” Republicans. Now, when I hear true Independents (and I believe there are a couple who post here) argue, they rarely point out one party being historically better than the other. Not very Independent points to make, correct?

  17. #17
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler] And under Democratic Presidents Truman the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan kept communism in check the world over. Those were the influential policies in setting up the fall of the USSR. Yes, Reagan was the one who saw those policies to their finish and ultimately Capitalist/Democratic victory, but don't sit here and say it was the Republicans who beat communism. [/QUOTE]

    The Marshall Plan?
    From 1947??
    Which lasted 4 years and had no military component defeated Communism?

    The Truman Doctrine?
    C'mon.

    What are you, like 8 years old?
    Were you alive then to remember?

    More like a hardcore junior commie who cant give Reagan the credit he deserves

    Hint : It wasnt Carter or the Demoncrats who pushed
    for SDI, Pershing Missiles in Europe
    or called the USSR exactly what it was : the Evil Empire

    Go spackle the Berlin Wall together or something
    Last edited by flushingjet; 10-31-2006 at 01:42 PM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=sackdance]Of course, of course.

    In my previous post I addressed the curious disposition of many "Independents" who happen to parrot Harry Reid talking points. Perhaps I'm being too quick to judge, if so please forgive. But then again, for a guy who claims to be a one-issue man (Iraq) he’s spelling out how Clinton is better than Bush, how the past 70 years shows Democratic Presidents are fiscally better than “conservative” Republicans. Now, when I hear true Independents (and I believe there are a couple who post here) argue, they rarely point out one party being historically better than the other. Not very Independent points to make, correct?[/QUOTE]

    [I]Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close. [/I]

    You omitted this data....

  19. #19
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]The Marshall Plan?
    From 1947??
    Which lasted 4 years and had no military component defeated Communism?

    The Truman Doctrine?
    C'mon.

    What are you, like 8 years old?
    Were you alive then to remember?

    More like a hardcore junior commie who cant give Reagan the credit he deserves

    Hint : It wasnt Carter or the Demoncrats who pushed
    for SDI, Pershing Missiles in Europe
    or called the USSR exactly what it was : the Evil Empire

    Go spackle the Berlin Wall together or something[/QUOTE]

    I don't know what your problem is. I gave Reagan the credit. But I also gave Truman the credit he deserved for rebuilding Europe up, being the first to show the USSR that the US had the backbone to militarily stop the expansion of communism (Korea) which was later called the Truman Doctrine.


    Was Reagan instrumental in the collapse of the USSR? Yes.

    Was Reagan and the Republicans solely responsible for winning the cold war? Hell No.

    The cold war last for half a century and if not for Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Reagan, we might not have won.

    Its infuriating when Reaganites like yourself give all credit to your party for everything good that happens and blame every mistake on a Democrat.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]Jack@ss thats exactly what I said.

    You choose to blame everything that went wrong for America in the second half of the twentieth century on Jimmy Carter, thats your opinion.

    Yes Carter sucks, we know. So does Bush Jr.[/QUOTE]

    that's exactly what you said...and it's plain for everyone to see:

    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]Communist threat grew during WW2 because there were two bigger threats that needed to be addressed: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

    And under Democratic Presidents Truman the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan kept communism in check the world over. Those were the influential policies in setting up the fall of the USSR. Yes, Reagan was the one who saw those policies to their finish and ultimately Capitalist/Democratic victory, but don't sit here and say it was the Republicans who beat communism.


    And the war on terror has seen many presidents fail miserably. Obviously Jimmy Carter is at the top of the list, but you should read Dick Clarke's memoirs. I just picked it up and its A. very informative about the inner workings of the white house during 9/11 B. a great read C. Clearly insinuates Clinton as the most proactive anti-terror president to date even though he was handicapped by your boys in Congress who couldn't let a blow job from a fatty slide.[/QUOTE]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us