While I don't disagree with your political views, your chart might look different if it were graphed against who controlled Congress.
... and mean more if graphed as a percent of GDP rather than dollars.
It wouldn't change the obviousness that Democrats are far better fiscal managers than Republicans are. That makes Democrats better leaders in general, since bad fiscal management eventually destroys a country surer than an invading army does, as we're all seeing firsthand now. The prez submits the budget to Congress, not the other way around. Like I said, Clinton was continuously harping on Congress to spend less. Whereas with GWB it's always "I need yet another $300 billion for the unnecessary war I started, stat!" Nor did Reagan need to sacrifice our future to break the back of Communism. If Communism was so bad, it was a foregone conclusion that it would fail on its own, as numerous historians have noted. There was certainly no need to create enough weapons to destroy every major city many times over. When Clinton created a budget surplus, I remember Republicans in Congress being furious that taxes wouldn't be reduced, as if it was found money and there was no existing massive debt to ever pay off!
Every "emergency" Republicans want $trillions for just so happens to make the rich far richer. That's a coincidence to no one except naïve & gullible people.
And we all know that liberals are never ever naive.
They rarely are, the record shows. Liberals have consistently voted for those who have the best track record. That's not luck. Whereas if you look at the other side, it's full of people who don't even have a clue who has the best track record.
Tim, when do we get to declare this thread a flame war?
For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue for one party or the other in the way Markor is because we have only one president every 4 years (at most). You can't make a statistical argument on a sample size of 4-5. Here's a litmus test. Do these charts help you know who you should vote for in 2016 or 2020? That's far enough in the future we can predict which parties will have a candidate (R/D) but too far to guess who the candidates will be.
For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue for one party or the other in the way Markor is because we have only one president every 4 years (at most). You can't make a statistical argument on a sample size of 4-5.
Actually we have one president every day (sometimes two!). Plenty of data for stats.
It's a myth that Democrats shower the poor with money. Clinton ended welfare as we knew it. You don't get $$ for babies anymore, except temporarily.
Democrats support and work toward balanced budgets--at least the one Democratic prez we've had in the last 28 years did. So they don't steal from the future, except in the process of correcting the country-busting wealthy-engorging pork barrel expenditures of the Republicans. Clinton increased the prosperity of the rich and the poor and the middle class--every class. He did it mainly by cutting expenses and by making a myriad of other liberal (i.e. for the good of all, not just the rich) decisions.
Clinton increased the prosperity of the rich and the poor and the middle class--every class. He did it mainly by cutting expenses and by making a myriad of other liberal (i.e. for the good of all, not just the rich) decisions.
Heh, I remember people saying that Clinton shouldn't be impeached because the "economy was good". In hindsight most people realize that that was just the internet bubble.
Comments
Every "emergency" Republicans want $trillions for just so happens to make the rich far richer. That's a coincidence to no one except naïve & gullible people.
For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue for one party or the other in the way Markor is because we have only one president every 4 years (at most). You can't make a statistical argument on a sample size of 4-5. Here's a litmus test. Do these charts help you know who you should vote for in 2016 or 2020? That's far enough in the future we can predict which parties will have a candidate (R/D) but too far to guess who the candidates will be.
that's really the only thing that keeps me reading.
Are you saying that Democrats steal from the rich to give to the poor while Republicans steal from the poor to give to the rich?
corrected
Democrats support and work toward balanced budgets--at least the one Democratic prez we've had in the last 28 years did. So they don't steal from the future, except in the process of correcting the country-busting wealthy-engorging pork barrel expenditures of the Republicans. Clinton increased the prosperity of the rich and the poor and the middle class--every class. He did it mainly by cutting expenses and by making a myriad of other liberal (i.e. for the good of all, not just the rich) decisions.
oh yeah, it's here...
How is that different than republicans at the time?