$8.184 trillion is not enough

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by anh911
" Democrat or Republican most of these guys in office have a limited financial education. "

GW holds an MBA from Harvard.

Not to devalue his education but, so what. I would bet the majority of MBAs earn a living by working for someone who doesn't have an MBA that started the company and built an asset.

Lest we also forget that Clinton didn't pay down the national debt...he merely recategorized what falls into the national debt column.

A shell game regardless of who is running the ship...

[techweenie]

[BGCarrera32]

Nice graph but incomplete...

[techweenie]

Imagine the number of axes of a "complete" graph.

Got a lot of incomplete ones, though:

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Don't we own all of the oil in Iraq? Just sell that.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Don't we own all of the oil in Iraq? Just sell that.

Heck, while we're at it, let's sell the WMDs!

[David]

I agree that it's both parties fault, but why is the national debt curve steeper when Republicans are in the White House?

Could it be that they don't actually care about the "people" of this country? God forbid right? Maybe it's true.

I must admit, I didn't give my tax cut back, but at least I thought about it. I bet no Republicans thought that.

[Brother]

Originally posted by BGCarrera32
Its rather hypocritical when one party blames the other for spending and running up the debt. Both sides are guilty of playing the game. Democrat or Republican most of these guys in office have a limited financial education. Sadder yet is that the majority of the American public has their head in the sand and has a bad enough time with their own finances, let alone their countries. I am a conservative and a capitalist through and through and find the current situtation deplorable. Running debt to acquire assets that pump money back into the economy and provide a return while paying the debt back is one thing; 8.184 trillion of *very* questionable squandering is quite another.

I love how the quality posts get run over by one liners.

I agree with with BG (Marshall from Alias). The only exception is that I think these guys know exactly what they are doing and ignore it blatantly.

[Crowbob]

Why don't they cut and run from the quagmire of the war on poverty.

[techweenie]

Let's see: the Republicans have controlled the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government for five years...

So tell me again why this horrific spike in budget deficits (greater than all deficits for all prior administrations put together) is "both parties fault?"

[Crowbob]

Because they all voted for it.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by JIMCRY
Because they all voted for it.

Huh?

[Tobra]

Originally posted by techweenie
Huh?

Perhaps what he is referring to is the fact that there was no filibuster threatened whenever these budgets come down the line.

Big Government is a more traditionally associated with Democrats, but whatever you say, tradition is tradition. I personally think that a Democracy with career politicians running the show has a limited lifespan. The founders never envisioned what our "leaders" would become in the 20th century and beyond.

If they never had to think about re-election, perhaps they would be more likely to do their jobs, rather than always taking the short term easy way, long term untenable path.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by Tobra
If they never had to think about re-election, perhaps they would be more likely to do their jobs, rather than always taking the short term easy way, long term untenable path.

Plus you might get people who care, rather than career politicans.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Tobra
Perhaps what he is referring to is the fact that there was no filibuster threatened whenever these budgets come down the line.

Big Government is a more traditionally associated with Democrats, but whatever you say, tradition is tradition. I personally think that a Democracy with career politicians running the show has a limited lifespan. The founders never envisioned what our "leaders" would become in the 20th century and beyond.

If they never had to think about re-election, perhaps they would be more likely to do their jobs, rather than always taking the short term easy way, long term untenable path.

I keep seeing that "big government is associated with Democrats" line, but it's totally bogus.

Nixon's dream was a nationalized health care system. Reagan introduced governmental bloat: first in California then in Washington. 'Star Wars" was a fantasy cooked up by sci-fi authors that RR bought in to and threw billions at. Bush 1 continued to run huge deficits. And Bush II is off the chart, budget-wise and in terms of the number of people on the Federal payroll.

Yes, you can hold up LBJ's War on Poverty, but neither Carter nor Clinton have grown government the way the presidents who bookended them did.

[turbo6bar]

I think fiscal policy is a concern of Democrats, but it isn't high enough on their list. After all, if millions of Americans could care less about a balanced budget, why should politicians?

[Tobra]

Originally posted by techweenie
I keep seeing that "big government is associated with Democrats" line, but it's totally bogus.

I guess it is the old "If you hear a lie enough times" thing then. Could not have anything to do with any "Deals" new or otherwise. Society, even a "Great" one can't run on sunshine and roses brother.

People forget this about Reagan, but one of the first things he did when he became governor was to raise taxes. I quess it was just a fluke that the economy both in California and later throughout the US did so well with him at the helm.

[Wrecked944]

Originally posted by techweenie
Imagine the number of axes of a "complete" graph.

This graph explains it all....