What conclusions can you draw from this graph?

[PLC1]

 

[TheWaffle]

I do find it extremely interesting that liberals are so often accused of being the bid spenders in government. Under Clinton the debt was increasing at a decreasing rate and towards the end of his second term he effectively stopped borrowing money. Not to mention, as this graph indicates, that there was considerable economic growth under Clinton as the Debt became more and more a smaller % of the GDP.

To me it seems that the republican presidents are good at looking good in the eyes of the public, but they don't seem to be too good for this nation's economy. They borrow money to pay for instant acclaim but then we are stuck pay billions in interest every year, money that literally goes out the window. And yet republicans are the ones complaining about dems trying to steal their money. If we weren't paying all this interest thanks to el Reagan and the two Bushes then everyone could get tax cuts that would make a difference, and meanwhile, hey guess what, the government would have the same amount of money that it does, hence everyone wins. Too bad the American public isn't smart enough to realize this.

 

[palerider]

It is well known that Reagan built the military up from a very poor state and equally well known that the only real budget cuts that clinton made were on military spending, and that Bush II had to spend quite a bit to restore military rediness from the decline of the clinton years.

It is no secret that defense technologies aren't cheap and it is no secret that democrats aren't particularly concerned with national security and willingly ignore it in favor of their pet social programs.

 

[TheWaffle]

It is well known that Reagan built the military up from a very poor state and equally well known that the only real budget cuts that clinton made were on military spending, and that Bush II had to spend quite a bit to restore military rediness from the decline of the clinton years.

It is no secret that defense technologies aren't cheap and it is no secret that democrats aren't particularly concerned with national security and willingly ignore it in favor of their pet social programs.

So how do you explain the fact that the economy improves under democrats in all of these charts? What about the fact that numerous studies have shown that the stock market does between 3-5% better under democrats over the past hundred years?

Also democrats are not against military spending, they are simply against giving military development a blank check. Military development is notorious for being an enormous money pit, the comanche helicopter cost 8 billion dollars and in the end was scrapped. Likewise the Valkerie project was cancelled having cost us 1.5 billion dollars. Think of projects like Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Enormous money pits that republicans like throwing out there to look good instead of actually analyzing and checking to see if they are actually practical at all.

Also dems are also weak on invading foreign countries for no apparent reason. Honestly Iraq takes the cake on financial cost.

And your right, dems love those disgusting social programs like social security, medicare, welfare. God it disgusts me to think that instead of giving money to weapons developers we may actually give the money to people who need it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

And your right, dems love those disgusting social programs like social security, medicare, welfare. God it disgusts me to think that instead of giving money to weapons developers we may actually give the money to people who need it.

There's a difference. Government is supposed to spend money on defense -- the first priority, the chief function of a government is to protect it's people. That where most of the money should go.

 

[vyo476]

There's a difference. Government is supposed to spend money on defense -- the first priority, the chief function of a government is to protect it's people. That where most of the money should go.

Perhaps that is not what we believe anymore. I'm still on the fence on that but I know of a lot of people who no longer believe that government's primary function is defense. One of its primary functions, but not THE primary function.

 

[PLC1]

There's a difference. Government is supposed to spend money on defense -- the first priority, the chief function of a government is to protect it's people. That where most of the money should go.

Yes, the government is supposed to fund defense. Just how much defense spending is enough, though? As it is now, we are spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Simply spending more isn't going to make the country any safer.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Yes, the government is supposed to fund defense. Just how much defense spending is enough, though? As it is now, we are spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Simply spending more isn't going to make the country any safer.

Of course. As I've said here before, I'm not for big government -- I'm for effective government. I resent all taxes, but have less of a problem paying for them if they are going to the military then if they are going into people's welfare checks.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

In truth, the conclusions that can be drawn from the chart are that the national debt is a fact of American life, has been for quite some time, and most likely will be well into the future. It's not all bad, either. Part of those numbers reflect lots of foreign currencies translated into and spent as U.S. dollars. As long as our economy remains healthy, and we retain a strong position in the global marketplace, many around the world will find us a good place to invest in our future, and theirs.

 

[Dave]

Yes, the government is supposed to fund defense. Just how much defense spending is enough, though? As it is now, we are spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Simply spending more isn't going to make the country any safer.

We spend that much to maintain superpower status. Everyone gripes about the U.S. being the world's police, but no one else seems to step up and take the role. The U.N. refuses to enforce its own laws (or they simply can't) and God knows the E.U. won't step into this role if they get the superpower status. We, as the superpower, are going to be the target of actions like 9/11 no matter what we do. It is in our best interest to police areas that cannot, or will not police themselves. Its like a mansion in a bad neighborhood. The owner of the mansion hires guards to patrol the streets surrounding the mansion in order to ensure his own safety, and ends up benefitting the people that live around the mansion. Democrats don't spend more because they don't seem to realize this. Somalia turned out to be a very cheap operation since Clinton turned tail and ran at the first sign of trouble. However, if we had done things right and actually done some good there, it would have been much more expensive.

 

[PLC1]

Of course. As I've said here before, I'm not for big government -- I'm for effective government. I resent all taxes, but have less of a problem paying for them if they are going to the military then if they are going into people's welfare checks.

I resent taxes as well, but I resent even more the pseudoconservative ideal of cutting taxes while increasing spending.

A more effective government wouldn't have to waste so much money in order to have a strong military, nor would it use that military against a country that was no threat to us to begin with. An effective government would have gone into Afganistan and Pakistan after the attacks of 9/11, taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, then come home. It would not have engaged in nation building in Iraq.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

There's a difference. Government is supposed to spend money on defense -- the first priority, the chief function of a government is to protect it's people. That where most of the money should go.

Exactly! Yes, the primary duty of the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution is for the common defense. In todays world, that includes the military, immigration, national security, intelligence.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

So how do you explain the fact that the economy improves under democrats in all of these charts? What about the fact that numerous studies have shown that the stock market does between 3-5% better under democrats over the past hundred years?

Also democrats are not against military spending, they are simply against giving military development a blank check. Military development is notorious for being an enormous money pit, the comanche helicopter cost 8 billion dollars and in the end was scrapped. Likewise the Valkerie project was cancelled having cost us 1.5 billion dollars. Think of projects like Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Enormous money pits that republicans like throwing out there to look good instead of actually analyzing and checking to see if they are actually practical at all.

Also dems are also weak on invading foreign countries for no apparent reason. Honestly Iraq takes the cake on financial cost.

And your right, dems love those disgusting social programs like social security, medicare, welfare. God it disgusts me to think that instead of giving money to weapons developers we may actually give the money to people who need it.

Actually, the national debt is not "the economy." Estimates range from 1-3 years for the period of time it will take for the behemoth called the U.S. economy to change directions. Short term actions can have an effect, but it takes quite some time for changes to manifest their results.

The stock market? Do you mean under Democrat presidents, or Congress, or both? The political scene here is only one factor of the stock market, but it too is driven over a period of time by fiscal policies at the federal level. We can only imagine where it might be today if 9/11 had not happened. It WAS a huge hit on the markets, that took months to recover from. But the economy continued to expand and improve to date.

The failed programs and wasted money? No denying it. But if you look for evidence, you will find these types of huge expenditures, often money down the drain, in almost all administrations and congress. With Congress holding the purse strings, you're giving the President, any President too much credit, or blame.

Invading for no apparent reason - That's subject to opinion and perspective.

Social programs - To be honest, they are areas that the federal government really has no business being in, for the most part. To provide a responsible, adequate safety net is one thing. To be our nanny, our sugar-daddy, and the arbiter of income redistribution is something else.

 

[palerider]

So how do you explain the fact that the economy improves under democrats in all of these charts? What about the fact that numerous studies have shown that the stock market does between 3-5% better under democrats over the past hundred years?

This chart isn't a reflection on the economy. It reflects the nationa debt as a percentage of the GNP. There is nothing there about how well any economy has done. If that is what you got out of the graph, I suggest that you take some time and learn to read a graph.

As to the economys (which aren't addressed by the graph) Perhaps you should do a bit of historical research and see what the economy was like under J. Carter and the numbers show clearly that the economy was rising when clinton took office, and was entering recession before he left office. It is evident that democrat presidents leave a mess for republicans to clean up. But again, that is not the topic that is addressed by the graph.

 

[palerider]

Yes, the government is supposed to fund defense. Just how much defense spending is enough, though? As it is now, we are spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Simply spending more isn't going to make the country any safer.

And even so, defense spending is not as much as we spend on social programs.