Which party is really about less government?

[BanginJimmy]

Do you read Graphs very often? If you look at the second graph which is the legislative branch it shows that spending is continuous regardless of who has control. What changes is the slope of the line dependent upon who is president.

seems that a dem president and a republican congress flattens out spending.

The graph on Congress is relatively flat during the Clinton years as compared to when George W. Bush took over. Obviously the president has an effect on Federal Spending.. to think otherwise would simply be fooling yourself.

You also have to look at what happened during the individual presidencies. Reagan made no secret of the fact that he planned spend the soviet union out of existance. Every defense penny he spent caused the Soviet union to spend money they didnt have. Bush Sr. had Gulf War 1 and Hurricane Andrew. Both of which resulted in huge govt spending to pay for. Clintons presidency was pretty much eventless. Bosnia was under UN control and had a small impact. The terrorist attacks resulted in no action at all. Bush Jr. has had to deal with 9/11 and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and an economic meltdown. All of which resulted in HUGE spedning at the federal level.

Furthermore your argument, if true would absolutely negate the argument that Obama will raise spending to astronomical heights.. because as you say, the President cannot control that. Your words.

The president alone cannot control that, but when the president has a congress that will go alone with his every whim it will definately cause increased spending.

[tony]

seems that a dem president and a republican congress flattens out spending.

Clinton's spending raised in his second term, when he had a republican congress. The others I havent really looked at in detail, I'll do it when I get home.

[rrutter81]

Clinton's spending raised in his second term, when he had a republican congress. The others I havent really looked at in detail, I'll do it when I get home.

er....what? lol

gingrich cockblocked his ass

[tony]

er....what? lol

gingrich cockblocked his ass

Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%

[BanginJimmy]

Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%

during those years our national security apparatus really took a hit in the budgets so where he cut spending is not a secret.


1 moer thing I have to mention though. Since the late 70's the Republican party and the conservative platform have been drifting apart. I have a feeling that that is a big part of the problem republicans are having now. They are more like the dems of the 60's than the reps of the 60's while the dems have drifted so far to the left that I'm not even sure they are in the same playing field anymore.

[rrutter81]

Bill Clinton 1993-1997 debt/GDP -0.6%
Bill Clinton 1997-2001 debt/GDP -8.2%

After Gingrich and the Reps. swept into office in 94 with the "contract with America", Clinton worked with Congress to balance it. Don't forget that Clinton pushed the largest tax increase in US history in his first 2 years which led to the Reps. winning Congress for the first time in 42 years in 94.

You have to take in to account everything instead of skewing the LARGEST tax increase in U.S. history vs spending.

[tony]

After Gingrich and the Reps. swept into office in 94 with the "contract with America", Clinton worked with Congress to balance it. Don't forget that Clinton pushed the largest tax increase in US history in his first 2 years which led to the Reps. winning Congress for the first time in 42 years in 94.

You have to take in to account everything instead of skewing the LARGEST tax increase in U.S. history vs spending.

But the budget was balanced nonetheless, forget all these little stupid partisan explanations.. the data is straight forward.

[rrutter81]

But the budget was balanced nonetheless, forget all these little stupid partisan explanations.. the data is straight forward.

dude you are so full of shit.

When Republicans assumed control of Congress in 1995, their foremost goal was to keep a promise they made to the American people: To balance the federal budget and to cut their taxes. However, standing between Republicans and the fulfillment of their promise was the President. Now after more than two years of refusal, President Clinton has finally agreed to a balanced budget that reduces taxes.

Getting to this point has not been easy. Prior to Republicans assuming control of Congress in 1995, President Clinton refused to embrace the idea of a balanced budget. Clinton's first budget called for an astronomical tax hike of $220 billion that Democrats in Congress increased to $240 billion.

Clinton's first three budgets -- released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans' budget in 1995 -- a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969. Not until election year 1996 did he even aspire to balance, producing a budget that left an $81 billion deficit in its final year.

This is on a government site btw.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/...UDDEAL2.JT.htm

Clinton was a failure masked by republicans (newt gingrich) balancing the budget and Clinton finally caving.