Posted on 09/09/2005 10:14:51 AM PDT by GinaB
On it's face, it's pretty damning of Republican administrations. It's only a superficial view of course.
BTTT
D- "Take assignment back and reconfigure in constant $"
Professor Econ
On the surface, but below the surface (Deficit as a Percentage of GDP) it's a chart put together at the DNC.
Oh yeah, the current projection for the FY 2004 is about $330 billion, not the $480 billion in the graph, but what's $150 billion when you're trying to make a point? ;-)
Of course Clinton's "surplus" was make believe, created by borrowing heavily from SocSec and Medicare in off the book no interest no legal reason to pay them back loans. Turn those into regular t-bills and Clinton was in deficit just like everybody else.
The difference under Bush is far more than you can make up for by adjusting for inflation.
The Clinton side was BS since they were only PROJECTED figures.
How much more? Your contention can only be rationally held by someone who has adjusted for inflation. Point stands.
It's why I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. And it's why the "Republicans" with a MAJORITY in Congress are a joke! They have the opportunity to fix this, but instead care more about their "careers". Sickening.
Actually, FY 2004 is over already... but both for 2003 and 2004 the projections are off -
In 2003, the deficit was $378B off budget, or $538B on-budget. 2004, it was $412B off budget, or $567B on-budget. 2005 was looking to be better, but still absolutely pathetic. Whatever happened to fiscal conservatives? There don't seem to be many, if any at all, in DC.... Time to bring back pay-go... you want to make tax cuts permanent? Fine, but you have to cut spending to match...
Granted, things look better as a % of GDP, but debt is debt - if the economy is good, there shouldn't be a deficit. Period. End of question...
Interesting.
How about a new chart using constant dollars!!
For extra credit, plot the yearly "foreign aid" expenditures for the same period - you might be surprised at what you find . . .
Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Why is Clinton's "net gain" +523 million and not +382 million?
Somebody needs to go back to 2nd grade math.
Forgetting Clinton's surplus spike, did the value of a dollar go down by that much between GHW Bush and current Bush? According to the BLS calculator, GHW's $280B is worth about $377B today, still over $100B shy of current Bush's mark.
So, no, inflation doesn't excuse Bush's wild spending habits. Point dies.
See my previous post.
Is the federal government spending too much? "Yes." Do I blame the Repbulicans? "Yes." Does this chart help us quantify it? "No." Is the President given primary responsibility for the budget? "No." Did 'W' use veto power enough? "No." Remember the number one way to start becoming a dumb liberal is to oversimplify stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.