The actual data shows this is nonsense. Anyone can find the data at the US Department of Treasury:

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/related.html

Start here and use the actual numbers. You've had charts showing both relative to GDP as well as absolute number graphs and neither seems to get through. The numbers are there versus "I'd prefer to look at actual spending bills . . ." that is assertion not backed up with evidence. Where are your facts and data?

The GDP argument came from Republican apologists who claim:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I prefer the original version, Zeno's paradox:In contrast, the experiment was performed in 1981, 1993 and 2003. In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes to eventually eliminate the deficit and we had a terrific economic boom. We were paying off the Reagan Memorial Debt. In contrast, both Reagan and Bush have proved the folly of tax cuts not tied to spending. It is the Republican way. But we also see the same pattern with Nixon/Ford.

This is the "pox on both their houses" argument, yet we've seen Clinton response to the Mississippi floods and Bush response to New Orleans. The real difference is the Democrats seek to achieve their goals and objectives and Republicans are doing everything to prove government is incompetent . . . and they start and succeed with themselves.

Bob Wilson

 

Much of this economic boom had to do with the unbelievable explosion of affordable personal computers and the recognition and buildup of the internet. The famous NASDAQ stock "unsustainable bubble" and all that. I suppose the stock market crash of March 2000 was GW's fault too, since he was in power then. Very rose-colored glasses, here. To not even consider the often long-lasting financial effects of prior-administration-adopted programs is missing the point Worthywads was making.

All Democrat-good, All Republican-bad = WRONG

 

Cool data Bob! Your graphs rock as always.

People try to pretend Clinton had nothing to do with the budget surplus all the time by saying "But what about the Internet." The internet was important but Clinton's administration had a hand in encouraging its growth (no, they didn't invent the internet, but they did help make it the boom that it was).

Clinton also ran a "leaner meaner government" initiative that helped lead to the surplus. Now, did Republican back pressure against spending also help? I'm sure it did. But pretending the surplus under Clinton had nothing to do with Clinton is just Republican spin.

In any case, Bob's data does spell it out clearly - deficits expand when Republicans take the Presidency. If you want a balanced budget your best bet is a Democrat for President.

I'm not the only one saying this - check in with The Economist, they've been a Republican magazine for decades but for the past few years they've woken up and started questioning their party. They're tired of Republican spending too. Take it from them if you like - if anybody knows economic conservatism I think they've got the lock on it... .

 

Hi,

For those who prefer numbers instead of graphs, here is a summary, absolute numbers, from Oct. 1980. I've put a blank line in every four year presidential election:

FY-Start Receipts Outlays Deficit
Oct-80 $599,272 $657,204 -$57,932

Oct-81 $618,969 $729,627 -$110,658
Oct-82 $600,562 $795,917 -$195,355
Oct-83 $666,356 $841,798 -$175,442
Oct-84 $734,051 $945,983 -$211,932

Oct-85 $769,091 $990,231 -$221,140
Oct-86 $854,142 $1,003,804 -$149,662
Oct-87 $908,216 $1,063,317 -$155,101
Oct-88 $990,701 $1,144,020 -$153,319

Oct-89 $1,031,307 $1,251,774 -$220,467
Oct-90 $1,054,266 $1,323,756 -$269,490
Oct-91 $1,090,454 $1,380,793 -$290,339
Oct-92 $1,153,227 $1,408,532 -$255,305

Oct-93 $1,257,451 $1,460,552 -$203,101
Oct-94 $1,361,496 $1,515,412 -$153,916
Oct-95 $1,452,765 $1,560,211 -$107,446
Oct-96 $1,578,954 $1,600,918 -$21,964

Oct-97 $1,721,466 $1,652,222 $69,244
Oct-98 $1,827,286 $1,704,545 $122,741
Oct-99 $2,025,061 $1,788,140 $236,921
Oct-00 $1,990,205 $1,863,039 $127,166

Oct-01 $1,853,288 $2,011,809 -$158,521
Oct-02 $1,782,610 $2,160,864 -$378,254
Oct-03 $1,879,800 $2,292,353 -$412,553
Oct-04 $2,153,350 $2,472,095 -$318,745

Oct-05 $2,406,681 $2,654,160 -$247,479

I'm just an engineer and use the same criteria in politics (and everything else) that I use in engineering, the facts and data. To see the most recent data source:

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0107.txt

"01" - month
"07" - year

To get the prior years, you have to find the historical records, which are available, and go back to WW-II. It appears that Republican deficits really came into being with Nixon/Ford.

Bob Wilson

 

OK, I rescind my early judgment, there is no guarantee that a divided government is better at slowing Federal spending growth, bad generalization but which did hold for 12 years.

We ultimately lost with Reagan who gave us a 7.1% annualized growth, through presumably huge increased military spending, which the dems failed to stop, as my theory calls for. Reagan did veto the most new spending of any recent president though, so it could have been worse.

The Bush I's annualized growth of 3.1% actual beat Clinton's 3.4%

An All republican government is the worst case for growth, my hope is that a dem congress can change this for the next 2 years, but I'm not optimistic.

There was never any question that reps lead the way in deficit spending either.

We can come back in 10 years and assess how an All democrat and female president compares.

 

All I'm hoping for is a return to fact based government. We've had so many 'fantasies' that have never been looked at critically that there is a considerable backlog to examine. This is especially so after the news media became subordinate to entertainment and advertisers and all but abandoned fact based news reporting.

Bob Wilson

 

Hi folks, please stay on topic which is:
If you want a general economic discussion that's fine- and if so please open a new thread in this anything goes area.

Thanks

 

You're right, HotGa.

I just had to give a little balance to the Rep-bashing that is persistent here.

And Soopahman, you'd be surprised at my varied voting record.

My .02, the Dem's WILL be good for hybrids. Dem's have traditionally been "greener" than Rep's, so it just seems logical. They also would love nothing more than to de-rail Halliburton (and Cheney) a little bit. Hopefully, they realize how big a political coop it would be to take a stand against big-oil, and to start real programs for the US to reduce our foreign oil dependency. I'd love to see it happen. I'm a proponent of adding a tax on every gallon of gas. That's ONE way (and the quickest, most effective way, I think) to get the general population to wake up - and use/drive the "right tool for the job" as Bob put it so well. Such a tax would NEVER happen under Rep. rule, but it *might* have a chance under Dem. rule. The time is now.

 

Good point gumby.

I think one thing about the Prius and the rest of the hybrids is that the genie the oil industry has tried to keep in the bottle for decades is out - for example, with Exxon buying up patents that would get us there and sitting on them. It's not going back in the bottle. Ultimately, there's only so much a politician can do, and the best thing a politician ought to do is incentivize. Well if there's no industry to incentivize they're a little paralyzed aren't they?

Obviously they could've been incentivizing research but that gets so abstract all 2 voters will respect it and everyone else goes for the other guy. Point being, hybrids are a booming industry ready to be incentivized further and companies like Exxon have only one path left to stop it: buy the politicians. They've got the oil tycoon Administration in their pocket. Hopefully with the way things are swaying they can't buy the Dems as well. They're going to try!

 

Hi folks,

What trumps political parties is reality, the growing shortage of oil and increasing demand. The history of oil since we became an oil importing nation in 1968-69 is available and there are detectable, repeatable patterns between each party. But what trumps party are these facts:

• First hybrid for sale - Toyota of Japan, Inc.
• First hybrid sold in USA - Honda of Japan, Inc.

To the best of my knowledge, neither are Democratic or Republican party operations.

Bob Wilson