Comments (8)

• Greg V.

  My favorite part has to the paragraph just above fig. 4:

  During Clinton’s first term, real discretionary spending actually decreased by 8 percent. During his second term, with the Republicans in control of Congress, it increased by 8.8 percent.

  Repub's already had NO credibility, but seeing it this explicitly seals the deal for me.

  Published: March 25, 2009 10:26 PM

• Joe

  I've never saw the Bush Administration or Republicans for that matter as tightwads. They are no different than the Democrats in their spending habits. They spend and spend just like the Democrats do. The only real difference between them that I can see is where that Government money which is "created out of thin air" goes. Neither party, save for a handful of individuals like Ron Paul, care about how much money the Government prints or injects into the economy.

  Published: March 26, 2009 12:04 AM

• Cliff

  I have maintained for the last 20 years that the sole difference between Democrats and Republicans is only the speed and direction in which government becomes larger and more intrusive, and taxes increase.

  Published: March 26, 2009 4:08 AM

• Brian Macker

  Yes, but add in Obama and the Republican party will again look like the party of fiscal responsibility.

  Published: March 26, 2009 7:49 AM

• DJF

  Brian Macker says
  “”””Yes, but add in Obama and the Republican party will again look like the party of fiscal responsibility.”””

  That’s only because the Republicans are out of power. Does anyone really think that spending would be much different if McCain was President. He is onboard for the “Bail out incompetent bankers program”, the “bailout homeowners program”, the “lets expand the war in Afghanistan, keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and dozen of countries around the world” program. He even had some National health care program as well. The only thing McCain would have done is grandstand on some Congressional earmarks while selling out any idea of fiscal responsibility to the Democrats in exchange for keeping things like the war on terror going.

  Published: March 26, 2009 10:59 AM

• Brian Macker

  DJF,

  The operative words in my comment were "look like". As in the sentence "Obama makes Bush look like a genius".

  BTW, anyone can make the argument you made. For instance, in response to the claim that Bush invaded Iraq, one could claim that's only because the Democrats were out of power and Kerry would have done the same.

  If you watch pre-2000 videos of all the Democrats saber rattling against Saddam, and Obama's increase in troops to Afghanistan it certainly seems plausible. Democrats after all got us into WWII and Vietnam, and also dropped the A-bomb.

  Published: March 26, 2009 4:58 PM

• Bennet Cecil

  Both parties are big spenders. During modern times, only Clinton slowed the rise in debt. The rising stock market and higher tax rates did the trick. Obama is truly setting the house on fire and may take the credit for the death of the dollar. He might be saved if other countries depreciate their currencies along with us.

  Investors can sell dollars for Euros, yen, real estate, gold etc. Once a dollar comes to your hand you can exchange it.

  The excessive growth of government will lead to high interest rates, high unemployment and high inflation. Taxes on all Americans will increase and prosperity will diminish.

  Published: March 26, 2009 11:39 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Bush was an embarrassment to all fiscally conservative Republicans, or should be.

  Published: March 27, 2009 8:33 AM