Now, I always thought that if there was a Republican president, at the very least we could enjoy some sort of fiscal responsibility. At least, that's how they try and spin it, when, for example, President Bush accuses Congress of going on a "spending spree."
Really? Pots and kettles, maybe? Just look at this graph:
It looks like the only President that has been able to slow the growth of the Federal Debt is that rascally liberal, President Clinton. After Bush took office, it seems like the debt took a good dose of Viagra.
OK, I can handle this. Only 430 more days of being vexed.
2 comments:
That graph is more useful when you l00k at this one at the same time. When you combine the two you can make some really fun political leaps depending on personal bias. Was it Clinton that reigned in spending? Was it his Republican congress? Was it Bush that spent too much? Was it his Democratic congress? Were neither of them true to their ideologies and promises? The last is most likely in my b00k. I have learned one thing from the graphs. The debt rose huge in absolute terms, but was basically flat in terms of % of GDP signifying that our economy is a heckuva lot better than we've been lead to believe.
Nice graph. Good find. What it really shows is that with any fiscal responsibility at all, we probably could have actually put a nice dent in the debt.
Also, note that Bush had Republican control of Congress for his first six years, so they get full blame or credit for that span of time. (Or were you referring to Elder Bush?)
I think you actually said something intelligent with "neither of them true to their ideologies and promises." No matter who we elect, they're still politicians.
Post a Comment