On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:05:44 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:27:25 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



If you correct the above graph to display the true value of the dollar
i.e.; correct for inflation, the graph is not as steep. But it does tend
to indicate that the federal budget has increased more under Republican
presidents.

Tends to? Rationalize all you want, but you can't escape the fact that
the national debt has increased under Reagan and the two Bushes. *All*
other Presidents reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.

You might want to weigh that against the current events of the time
before drawing any cause and effect relationships.


http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

This is a misdirection since the budget (spending) is
controlled by the congress. Looking at spending by who controlled
congress shows that there is a direct correlation with spending. A
Democrat controlled congress is the runaway spender.

Not completely true. The President is responsible for submitting the
budget, the House approves it.

Which means that if the house is ideologically opposed to the
president, the bill dies. If the president wants to pass something
through, he then has to compromise. So who ultimately holds the power?


Then there is the veto and let's not
forget who has controlled the House since 1995.

The veto can be counter productive if pork spending is tacked on to an
otherwise rational and decent bill. If you veto the pork, you kill the
decent bill.

A line item veto should be a priority.


Difficult as it may be
for you to believe, historically the economy has fared better under
Democratic leadership. You might want to look at job growth, stock
market, and other economic indicators. You might be surprised.

I would think that the Carter years would be a notable exception.
Reagan corrected much of the inflation and unemployment that
accompanied the late 70's up to the mid 80's.

Dave