You are on page 1of 2

The Historical Record & the Representation of Political Parties It looks as if the Right is taking a page out of Michael Moore

's book, but rather than taking a skewed, but accurate look at the facts, they are rewriting history. Of course it is Congress that spends the money, but the sitting president signs off on it. To heap criticism on Obama for outrageous deficits is at best hypocritical when considering the evidence:

Just for a point of reference, here are the presidents and their terms from 1929 to the present: # of years in office appx. debt increase 1928-32: Hoover (R) 1932-45: Roosevelt (D) 1945-52: Truman (D) 1952-60: Eisenhower (R) 1960-62: Kennedy (D) 1962-68: Johnson (D) 1968-74: Nixon (R) 1974-76: Ford (R) 1976-80: Carter (D) 1980-88: Reagan (R) 1988-92: Bush (R) 1992-2000: Clinton (D) 2000-08: W. Bush (R) 4 13 7 8 2 6 6 2 4 8 4 8 8 1.3 bil 243 bil 500 mil 27 bil 12 bil 50 bil 127 bil 224 bil 288 bil 1.7 tril 1.5 tril 1.6 tril 4 tril ave. debt increase/yr 65 mil 18.5 bil 71 mill 3.4 bil 6 bil 8 bil 21 bil 112 bil 72 bil 212 bil 731 bil 200 bil 500 bil

695. there will at least be a representative that won't bankrupt the country with spending increases in the time of tax cuts. The Johnson/Nixon years we go off the track with Vietnam. Bush is by far the worst.020. Looking at Reagan. Nevermind that the historical consensus is that Johnson's Great Society never got the financial support necessary to succeed because of the spending on Vietnam. An interesting position coming from the "Christian" party.751.942. It calculated the 13 year debt inc.rottentomatoes. using debt increase as an indicator of fiscal responsibility. but I wonder.938. the data indicates the and it calculated FDR's average yearly increase of 18. how can WWII and New Deal funding be so much less than a non-shooting arms race with the floundering USSR and the constant gutting of social spending? Interestingly enough. go to www. not even half of Bush's AYI and on par with Clinton's. Then comes the value question of what the two spend money on. I think I pull 2 things from all of this.055.westegg. but nearly all of the technological advancements in the past 60 years have their origins in the money spent here. First. Also worth remembering is that the FDR is a skewed average since the WWII years saw saw significant increases.713 for all of the New Deal deficits. Common sense supports this since Dems are more likely to raise taxes to pay for things than Reps.877. .My math may be off a bit. Now some argue that money was spent defeating the Evil Empire. but I am pretty sure that I am close.065. The Reagan comparison did not fare as well at $ and search I Want Your Money). You might also notice that of the 4 most recent presidents.022.5 bil to 219. in the upcoming movie "I Want Your Money" it is Reagan that is portrayed as the responsible foil to the irresponsible Obama (to see the trailer. but military spending can't be irresponsible. but it is the Great Society legislation that bears the brunt of the blame. over 1 trillion less than the W.063. I don't hope that they beat socially conscious candidates.178. 8 year increase. the Dem Bill Clinton is the most responsible and Reagan Rep W. The MilitaryIndustrial Complex isn't such a great thing.460. Deficits to defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany is money well spent. Reps only believe that social spending is bad. Modest social spending when compared to any amount of military spending is still irresponsible. While the popular representation of Dems is that they are fiscally irresponsible.243.948. So I found a adjuster for prices at http://www. Eisenhower and Kennedy's were spent on modernization of the military and the space race.817.rease of 243 bil during New Deal spending and WW II at $2. you can't help but gasp. The average increase was $381. the average increase before WWII was well below $118. The other thing is a silver lining to the Tea Party Movement... By far the largest increases in FDR's spending came as a result of WWII.414. but in the event that they do win.