Which political party is more responsible for contemporary deficit increases?

Dumpy Dooby · 07-26-2006, 12:34 PM

I was comparing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...Office-holders
to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%25_of_gdp.jpg

I can't seem to tell if it's mostly conservatives or liberals that consistently cause it to increase. Of course, the president isn't the one and only person soley responsible for the national debt, but nevertheless, I'm looking for a tendancy and I don't see one. What do you girls think?

Ardentfrost · 07-26-2006, 12:37 PM

Well, both parties have gotten to where they want to spend, they just want to spend on different things, and each thinks the other's spending only takes away from what they want instituted, but then they never retract previous programs to free up money for new ones, they just keep adding programss

So, the answer is, both

DosEquis · 07-26-2006, 12:39 PM

I think democrats and republicans were both pretty conservative on the fiscal side after world war 2. If they weren't conservative, they were at least fiscally responsible... as in run low deficits and only spend it if we can afford it. As opposed to putting it on credit.

I think you have to look at 1980 - Present. That is when the real debt increases have taken place.

Ardentfrost · 07-26-2006, 12:47 PM

I think it started before WW2. They instituted a system in which they could easily go into debt in 1913, although back then, congress was full of economists instead of lawyers, so they were a little smarter about things. WW2 didn't necessarily turn some key that meant we should spend more, it just began the snowball rolling where republicans support a stronger military... but both sides of things (military spending and social program spending) has exhibited a snowball effect. The social program side of spending started really picking up speed because of FDR imo.

It's one of those things that's really hard to pinpoint though

DosEquis · 07-26-2006, 12:57 PM

it was just an observation i made using his graph.

Most of the deficit defenders and bush people like to use % of the gdp because it doesn't look as bad. Obviously ww2 was a serious financial burden. However, the % of gdp drops after ww2 regardless of president... not only that but they were actually paying off the debt from ww2 at the same time.

1980 - present however, is a different story.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think it started before WW2. They instituted a system in which they could easily go into debt in 1913, although back then, congress was full of economists instead of lawyers, so they were a little smarter about things. WW2 didn't necessarily turn some key that meant we should spend more, it just began the snowball rolling where republicans support a stronger military... but both sides of things (military spending and social program spending) has exhibited a snowball effect. The social program side of spending started really picking up speed because of FDR imo.

It's one of those things that's really hard to pinpoint though

Because of FDR in your opinion? How about because of FDR and its proven fact?

Both democrats and republicans are equally responsible for the ballooning budget/deficit/debt. If you had asked me this question 6 years ago I would have had a different answer, however, given the current administration and crop of washington republicans casting blame in any one corner is misguided at best.

Donkey® · 07-26-2006, 01:32 PM

If contemporary means "recent", then the Republicans. If contemporary means "all time" then it is both.

kinggovernor · 07-26-2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If contemporary means "recent", then the Republicans. If contemporary means "all time" then it is both.

.

Dumpy Dooby · 07-26-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If contemporary means "recent", then the Republicans. If contemporary means "all time" then it is both.

Contemporary can be synonymous with "current" or "modern." So the former.

I'd say 80's until today.

Okay, so your answer is Republicans, right? Why do you think Republicans are the main cause? Rather, what are they doing wrong? What can they do to not suck so much with money?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Contemporary can be synonymous with "current" or "modern." So the former.

I'd say 80's until today.

Okay, so your answer is Republicans, right? Why do you think Republicans are the main cause? Rather, what are they doing wrong? What can they do to not suck so much with money?

The only way republicans can be held responsible is if you're talking 2000 forward...you go back to the 80s it was the democrat congress that passed TONS of pork legislation. Granted Reagan bears some of the blame for not using the veto, however, a closer examination of politics at the time would reveal why the veto wasn't used.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 02:59 PM

I've been looking for the image that I usually see posted, but I can't find it.

Googling, this is the first thing that came up

Which is a little more bias of an image than I would have preferred with its commentary.

And another one..

Dumpy Dooby · 07-26-2006, 03:06 PM

Those graphs indicate two different things, though. The top one clearly shows us as being in debt all the time, while the bottom shows us having a surplus and deficit. What's the difference, though? What methods were used to obtain the information?

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Those graphs indicate two different things, though. The top one clearly shows us as being in debt all the time, while the bottom shows us having a surplus and deficit. What's the difference, though? What methods were used to obtain the information?

Debt and Deficit are not the same thing thats why. Running a surplus does not mean we're no longer in debt it means we're paying down the debt and/or building up monies in a seperate fund of some kind.

motivez · 07-26-2006, 03:15 PM

Yeah, I posted both the debt and the deficit.

Ardentfrost · 07-26-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Because of FDR in your opinion? How about because of FDR and its proven fact?

Well, I was saying it could have STARTED with FDR, but I'm not convinced he was who REALLY started it... he certainly propagated it, however.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Well, I was saying it could have STARTED with FDR, but I'm not convinced he was who REALLY started it... he certainly propagated it, however.

No the massive deficit spending was started with Roosevelt. Not so much in the beginning of his term but in the latter parts of 1935 he had a fairly significant shift in policy, this shift to the left meant he was going to try to do more planning of the economy and deficit spending. Then spending was further increased to finance WWII. Some of the reasons for the spending were justified others specifically with reguards to some of his domestic programs were not.

Ardentfrost · 07-26-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

No the massive deficit spending was started with Roosevelt. Not so much in the beginning of his term but in the latter parts of 1935 he had a fairly significant shift in policy, this shift to the left meant he was going to try to do more planning of the economy and deficit spending. Then spending was further increased to finance WWII. Some of the reasons for the spending were justified others specifically with reguards to some of his domestic programs were not.

But events before him allowed him to do those things

I don't blame FDR as much as others, though I do put a lot of blame on him.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-26-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But events before him allowed him to do those things I don't blame FDR as much as others, though I do put a lot of blame on him.

Events before who? FDR? What events allowed him to do what?

Ardentfrost · 07-27-2006, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Events before who? FDR? What events allowed him to do what?

Well, lincoln set the stage for executive orders... taft brought forth income taxes and the 16th amendment, Wilson got the Federal Reserve started.

Without those things, FDR wouldn't have been able to do what he did

6SpeedTA95 · 07-27-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Well, lincoln set the stage for executive orders... taft brought forth income taxes and the 16th amendment, Wilson got the Federal Reserve started.

Without those things, FDR wouldn't have been able to do what he did

Without guns I wouldn't be able to shoot someone in the face, but if I do I'm still the one that bears that responsibility, sorry the passing the buck argument doesn't work here, at least not with me, the majority of FDR's policys prolonged the depression.