Spinning tends to revolve around presenting the facts in a different light or using different words to elicit a different emotional reaction than the original. Spinning doesn't need to involve a lie at all. For example, one can say that the police action in Iraq is currently deterring islamic militants from attacking both soldiers and the civilian population. None of that is a lie, it's just a massive distortion of the truth(considering most of those islamic militants are iraqis trying to kill other muslims).
It's braver to say "I don't know or care" at times, than to toe the party line and vote confidently for or against something you really don't know or care about.
Not at all. I support the Democrats in the presidency over the Republicans because the latter are big nanny state loving liberals who have taken their policy cues for Woodrow Wilson and FDR (Which makes sense, because they don't believe in taxes, so they just run up the debt), where the former, historically, work harder to keep a balanced budget.
That said, I'm a pre-eisenhower Republican. Nixon had the right idea with respect to fiscal policy, even though he's an immoral asshole. Compared to Kennedy and Johnson, he raised spending far less, and he actually managed to pay down the debt. Unfortunately, that idiot Ford managed to squander Nixon's fiscal prudence, to raise spending at a rate that wouldn't be seen again until Reaganomics turned the budget into a living joke.
Frankly, we don't need the federal government determining personal economics, social policies, OR moral policies. It should be the responsibility of the states to do that, because this country is way too big to be forcing one way on everyone.
Let's say he said we'll eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, financing this by pulling our military out of 150 countries, and instead of using the military to bully the world, we use diplomacy and commerce. Let's say he wants to eliminate the department of homeland security, along with most of the other departments, to save more money.
Let's say he says that social security isn't going to work, we should phase it out, paying for the people who rely on it but letting the youth opt out.
Let's say he said we should eliminate the central bank and replace the currency based on debt with a currency backed by commodities.
Let's say he said that we shoudn't try to use the Federal Government to jam our social or moral agendas down people's throats, and that we should instead remove those powers from the Federal Government and let states decide these issues instead.
Well, by saying all that, you've got someone who will only get 7% of the vote. Congratulations, you've gained a following of people who think your policies are wise, and 90% of the population thinks you're crazy.
You know, people like you just prove his behaviour right. If you want to be president, don't tell people what you want to do, because they'll just disagree with you.
No wonder the one man who actually articulated a concrete plan for America, Ron Paul, is a pariah. He's an insane lunatic because he actually has a plan other than being a really cool guy.
The numbers there are from a federal government website which gives budget numbers. Where are your numbers from?
The Republicans controlled the senate, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. If they wanted to cancel any sort of entitlements, they simply needed to pass legislation to do so.
Also, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Democratic presidents since WWII have only added a net of 500 billion dollars to the debt, adjusting for inflation. Republican presidents have increased the debt by 6,046 billion, accounting for inflation. Democratic presidents have only increased the federal budget by 687 billion accounting for inflation, Republican presidents have increased the federal budget by 1450 billion, accounting for inflation.
McCain has been a lot of things that he stopped being when he wanted ot become president. Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy.
Reagan was wrong. His increases in spending and debt haven't resulted in an increase in the size of the economy big enough to justify themselves.
I think of taxation theory in terms of thermodynamics. Money, like energy, will flow from an area of high need to an area of low need naturally. The people who need it least are the rich. Thus, if you set your tax system to punish the poor and support the rich (many rich people don't pay as much tax as the people who work in their factories), you're supporting taking money and keeping it in an area of low need.
This is fine if you want to take money out of circulation (Personally, I'd just increase interest rates, but that's just me), but if you want to see the economy increase in size, you want to increase the flow of money in the economy. You can do this by taking money from areas of low need and placing them into areas of high need (or, more acceptably, simply lowering taxes for the majority).
The high need people will manifest that need by spending the money. That spent money will flow through the economy to the rich, who will get to keep a portion of that profit while being taxed to support services they themselves tend to use government services more anyway -- Who uses the justice department more? You, sitting at your computer, or the RIAA, who have sent out tens of thousands of lawsuit requests this year? Who sues more, the guy making minimum wage, or the company who had a dozen patent lawsuits this year? Who recieved more welfare, the guy who lost his job from GM, or Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae?
Entitlements are part of the budget. This means they're included in my figures.
McCain has changed his political platform completely to become electable. He's going to do exactly what Reagan and Bush 1 & 2 did, and waste more of MY money. It's wonderful that you old men don't mind spending it, but my generation is going to have to pay for all that debt.
Only if you ignore that tax cuts for 90% of the population will mean there's more money in the economy moving.
Rich people save their excess money. Even middle class people can't afford that. They spend their money right away on bills, or new things.
This would mean that rich people with investments in manufacturing and commerce will find that they're suddenly making a lot more money because people can afford to buy more things, and will result in those rich smart people investing more money there, and hiring more people in manufacturing and commerce, which would create a cycle where more people working means more wealth for companies, which means more jobs, which means more money for the regular people, who will spend it thus giving money to the rich, who will be taxed when the money trickles back up.
Ignoring fairness(Because nothing about taxation is fair), this is a good way to keep the money in the economy moving, to prevent it from stagnating, and ensuring that jobs stay here. Current tax policies support sending jobs to people in China.
Henry Ford supported this, and I think he knows a thing or two about how to run a company.
In the US, the federal government was only originally meant as a binding entity keeping the 50 states together and providing an armed forces to defend the country.
This is an incredibly intelligent design, because the nation is practically the same size as Europe, and many US states have the same population as Europe. The idea is, the individual states should be able to make decisions on their own, so for example you don't have the entire country getting in stupid debates over abortion or gay marriage when individual states can just pass the laws they want, much like member states of the EU.
That may be the case, but if you're for smaller government, then you should vote Democrat. The past 32 years show that the Republicans haven't ever seen a porkbarrel project they didn't like.
My data shows increases in debt and budget in 2007 dollars.
Carter: Debt $-206.17 billion *(Note: This means the debt SHRANK, an alien concept I know!) Budget $87.04 billion Reagan: Debt $2019.17 billion Budget $315.87 billion Bush 1: Debt $1206.38 billion Budget $128.06 billion Clinton: Debt $1430.63 billion Budget $130.83 billion Bush 2: Debt $2712.64 billion Budget $777.70 billion
Bush 2's numbers are pretty conservative, since they don't include the wars in Iraq or Afganistan. Pretty amazing what can get done when Republicans run all branches of government.
As you can see, Republicans are growing the government at a much higher rate than Democrats.
If you hate big government, it's sad but your only practical choice is the Democrats. Eventually, I'm positive there's going to be a revolt within the Republican party, because young conservatives like me aren't interested in paying for middle-aged losers' socialist paycheques.
Will you be able to find a citation for the fact that Republicans controlled the senate, congress, judiciary, and the executive during this time?
If the Republicans can't even take responsibility for running the country when they've got every branch of government, they should step the hell back and leave governing to adults.
So what we're seeing here is that Clinton managed to keep his 8 years of spending to George H. W. Bushs 4 years of spending. We can also see that George W. Bush has increased spending and debt at a rate that even surpasses Reagan. So much for this myth that Democrats spend spend spend.
It's the irresponsible Republicans, with their liberal Wilsonian "Keeping the world safe for democracy" principles, and their liberal "Never saw a big government they didn't like" that is destroying the budget, not the world around us.
US military funding is greater than the next 22 countries COMBINED.
Losing 30% of that shouldn't be a problem. What we need to do is get OUT of the 150 countries we're in, quit paying to establish bases in countries that have absolutely no need for bases(I'm looking at you, western Europe!), and bring our troops home. Get those troops to protect our cities so we can protect ourselves against a 9/11 event (There's no reason we shouldn't have shot down the second, third, and fourth planes), and to protect our borders so illegal mexicans don't become the largest demographic in the US like they already are in southern states.
I know it's painful, letting go of liberalism and Wilsonian "Making the world safe for democracy" bollocks, but it's a great way to save money, better protect ourselves, and make sure the US stays one of the most powerful nations on the earth.
As an aside, I have to ask you. Given that the Republicans have increased the national debt at a rate of 5:1, and given that Republicans outspend Democrats at a rate of 2:1, given that they've created new government departments and tend to change their stance on certain issues such as woman's rights based entirely on the situation at hand, I have to ask you.
Why are you a Republican? I mean, I could understand being a conservative who believes in smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes, but Republicans only lower taxes, and then only by spending our kids' money.
As an aside, trickle-UP is more likely to help the economy.
Rich people simply hang onto their money, or put it into a useless investment like the stock market(Protip: High stock prices don't mean dick unless you're a stockholder).
Poor and middle class people use that money to pay their bills, or to buy things. This incentivizes real investment by upper-class and the rich because there is lots of money out there to be made.
I think you should also take into account that video games are more interactive, so gamers will tend to be more involved with their thought process as a result.
Watching TV tends to lead me straight through what I'm doing. I'm watching a story.
Playing a video game, by contrast, tends to get me into a really intellectual state. I'm solving puzzles, I'm making decisions, I'm deciding on tactics. When I'm playing a game with a good story, I'm involved in that, I'm a part of it. I'm not watching a story, I'm a part of a story.
So I tend to think more when I play video games, and introspection is part of that.
Don't be silly. The US government doesn't spend taxpayer money when a ridiculously overblown problem is presented, the US government spends DEBT.
We're basically handing our kids money to companies. Don't worry though, all the middle-aged losers who are spending the money will be long dead before the time comes to pay most of it back.
Correction: Both political parties would cease to exist.
Remember when Bush ran on balancing the budget, reducing the size of government, and a humble foreign policy?
Let's see. Excluding the wars in Iraq and Afganistan(which are off the books), he's increased the budget(in 2008 dollars) by 777 billion dollars, twice the largest budget increase in history, Reagan at 350 billion dollars in 2008 dollars. He's increased the debt by 2,700 billion dollars(in 2008 dollars), more than Reagan, at 2,000 billion dollars (in 2008 dollars). He's declared war against a country that hasn't done anything to us, and wants to attack Iran and Syria next.
Yeah, Republicans and Democrats are both damned dirty liars. The only difference is that Democrats don't increase the federal budget and the federal debt as badly. Unfortunately, at no point since WWII have the Republicans had a platform consistent with their message. Eisenhower was a New Dealer, Nixon was an amoral jackass, Ford was a spendaholic, Reagan was an ignorant retard spendaholic debtaholic, Bush 1 was a Reaganite, and Bush 2 makes Reagan look like a fiscal conservative.
If the Dems weren't such dirty warmongers with their Wilsonian delusions, they'd be greatly superior to the Republicans in practical terms.
Shit, I just realised my inflation numbers were reversed. The Republicans are insane.
Since the end of WWII, the inflation adjusted debt the Democrats have accrued is equal to only 500 billion dollars, while the inflation adjusted debt the Republicans have accrued is 6 trillion dollars.
The reason for the low number is that Truman and Carter both paid down incredible amounts of debt -- about 1 trillion inflation adjusted dollars combined. The only comparable debt reduction for Repblicans is Nixon. He didn't pay down the debt any, but he increased inflation exponentially by eliminating the gold standard, resulting in a 161 billion dollar decrease in the debt accounting for inflation.
The truly sad thing is that if Reagan hadn't decided to spend like a middle class family destined for bankruptcy, we'd be looking at 2 trillion dollar debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar budget. With a debt of that size, and a budget that small, it would take only one year at current tax rates to pay off the federal debt.
I find the budget interesting, but having the numbers in front of me is depressing.
If by "only one", you really mean "all three in the past 20 years", then I agree.
I've done the math over a fuller scale, since WWII. If you compensate for inflation, the Republicans increase debt and government spending at a rate more than double that of Democrats. The majority in increases of spending and debt were caused by Republican presidents, by a 2:1 ratio, even if you compensate for the fact that Republicans had 10 more years in office than Democrats.
Also, you're incredibly ignorant. According to my figures, the budget has been balanced at a number of times even since World War II. 5 of the 7 times this has been done, it was under a Democratic president, and 5 of the 7 times this has been done, it was under a Democratic house and senate.
Slashdot Mirror
I always think of a lie as a false statement of fact made knowing it is untrue or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Stating a true statement of fact stated in such a way as to alter the emotional impact of the statement isn't a lie, it's spin.
Spinning tends to revolve around presenting the facts in a different light or using different words to elicit a different emotional reaction than the original. Spinning doesn't need to involve a lie at all. For example, one can say that the police action in Iraq is currently deterring islamic militants from attacking both soldiers and the civilian population. None of that is a lie, it's just a massive distortion of the truth(considering most of those islamic militants are iraqis trying to kill other muslims).
It's braver to say "I don't know or care" at times, than to toe the party line and vote confidently for or against something you really don't know or care about.
Bush fans will disagree.
Not at all. I support the Democrats in the presidency over the Republicans because the latter are big nanny state loving liberals who have taken their policy cues for Woodrow Wilson and FDR (Which makes sense, because they don't believe in taxes, so they just run up the debt), where the former, historically, work harder to keep a balanced budget.
That said, I'm a pre-eisenhower Republican. Nixon had the right idea with respect to fiscal policy, even though he's an immoral asshole. Compared to Kennedy and Johnson, he raised spending far less, and he actually managed to pay down the debt. Unfortunately, that idiot Ford managed to squander Nixon's fiscal prudence, to raise spending at a rate that wouldn't be seen again until Reaganomics turned the budget into a living joke.
Frankly, we don't need the federal government determining personal economics, social policies, OR moral policies. It should be the responsibility of the states to do that, because this country is way too big to be forcing one way on everyone.
I'd like to see Ron Paul's speeches.
40 years of following the same voting policies, he's not spinning. How does he score?
So let's say he actually articulated a policy.
Let's say he said we'll eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, financing this by pulling our military out of 150 countries, and instead of using the military to bully the world, we use diplomacy and commerce. Let's say he wants to eliminate the department of homeland security, along with most of the other departments, to save more money.
Let's say he says that social security isn't going to work, we should phase it out, paying for the people who rely on it but letting the youth opt out.
Let's say he said we should eliminate the central bank and replace the currency based on debt with a currency backed by commodities.
Let's say he said that we shoudn't try to use the Federal Government to jam our social or moral agendas down people's throats, and that we should instead remove those powers from the Federal Government and let states decide these issues instead.
Well, by saying all that, you've got someone who will only get 7% of the vote. Congratulations, you've gained a following of people who think your policies are wise, and 90% of the population thinks you're crazy.
I bet you disagree with a lot of that.
That's why Ron P
You know, people like you just prove his behaviour right. If you want to be president, don't tell people what you want to do, because they'll just disagree with you.
No wonder the one man who actually articulated a concrete plan for America, Ron Paul, is a pariah. He's an insane lunatic because he actually has a plan other than being a really cool guy.
Interesting. You invent what he's thinking about, then attack your own invention.
You were thinking about molesting boys just now, weren't you? You were thinking about their soft soft skin!
You're a sick monster, if that's what you were thinking. A sick monster.
To answer your question, Here are my numbers.
The 2009 budget submitted is indeed 3.1 trillion, however, that's not what I'm looking at, I'm looking at the increases adjusted for inflation.
The numbers there are from a federal government website which gives budget numbers. Where are your numbers from?
The Republicans controlled the senate, the congress, the executive, and the judiciary. If they wanted to cancel any sort of entitlements, they simply needed to pass legislation to do so.
Also, talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Democratic presidents since WWII have only added a net of 500 billion dollars to the debt, adjusting for inflation. Republican presidents have increased the debt by 6,046 billion, accounting for inflation. Democratic presidents have only increased the federal budget by 687 billion accounting for inflation, Republican presidents have increased the federal budget by 1450 billion, accounting for inflation.
McCain has been a lot of things that he stopped being when he wanted ot become president. Remember what George W. Bush ran on? Smaller government. Balanced budgets. Humble foreign policy.
Reagan was wrong. His increases in spending and debt haven't resulted in an increase in the size of the economy big enough to justify themselves.
I think of taxation theory in terms of thermodynamics. Money, like energy, will flow from an area of high need to an area of low need naturally. The people who need it least are the rich. Thus, if you set your tax system to punish the poor and support the rich (many rich people don't pay as much tax as the people who work in their factories), you're supporting taking money and keeping it in an area of low need.
This is fine if you want to take money out of circulation (Personally, I'd just increase interest rates, but that's just me), but if you want to see the economy increase in size, you want to increase the flow of money in the economy. You can do this by taking money from areas of low need and placing them into areas of high need (or, more acceptably, simply lowering taxes for the majority).
The high need people will manifest that need by spending the money. That spent money will flow through the economy to the rich, who will get to keep a portion of that profit while being taxed to support services they themselves tend to use government services more anyway -- Who uses the justice department more? You, sitting at your computer, or the RIAA, who have sent out tens of thousands of lawsuit requests this year? Who sues more, the guy making minimum wage, or the company who had a dozen patent lawsuits this year? Who recieved more welfare, the guy who lost his job from GM, or Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae?
You fail. Your skill is not enough.
Entitlements are part of the budget. This means they're included in my figures.
McCain has changed his political platform completely to become electable. He's going to do exactly what Reagan and Bush 1 & 2 did, and waste more of MY money. It's wonderful that you old men don't mind spending it, but my generation is going to have to pay for all that debt.
Only if you ignore that tax cuts for 90% of the population will mean there's more money in the economy moving.
Rich people save their excess money. Even middle class people can't afford that. They spend their money right away on bills, or new things.
This would mean that rich people with investments in manufacturing and commerce will find that they're suddenly making a lot more money because people can afford to buy more things, and will result in those rich smart people investing more money there, and hiring more people in manufacturing and commerce, which would create a cycle where more people working means more wealth for companies, which means more jobs, which means more money for the regular people, who will spend it thus giving money to the rich, who will be taxed when the money trickles back up.
Ignoring fairness(Because nothing about taxation is fair), this is a good way to keep the money in the economy moving, to prevent it from stagnating, and ensuring that jobs stay here. Current tax policies support sending jobs to people in China.
Henry Ford supported this, and I think he knows a thing or two about how to run a company.
In the US, the federal government was only originally meant as a binding entity keeping the 50 states together and providing an armed forces to defend the country.
This is an incredibly intelligent design, because the nation is practically the same size as Europe, and many US states have the same population as Europe. The idea is, the individual states should be able to make decisions on their own, so for example you don't have the entire country getting in stupid debates over abortion or gay marriage when individual states can just pass the laws they want, much like member states of the EU.
That may be the case, but if you're for smaller government, then you should vote Democrat. The past 32 years show that the Republicans haven't ever seen a porkbarrel project they didn't like.
My data shows increases in debt and budget in 2007 dollars.
Carter:
Debt $-206.17 billion *(Note: This means the debt SHRANK, an alien concept I know!)
Budget $87.04 billion
Reagan:
Debt $2019.17 billion
Budget $315.87 billion
Bush 1:
Debt $1206.38 billion
Budget $128.06 billion
Clinton:
Debt $1430.63 billion
Budget $130.83 billion
Bush 2:
Debt $2712.64 billion
Budget $777.70 billion
Bush 2's numbers are pretty conservative, since they don't include the wars in Iraq or Afganistan. Pretty amazing what can get done when Republicans run all branches of government.
As you can see, Republicans are growing the government at a much higher rate than Democrats.
If you hate big government, it's sad but your only practical choice is the Democrats. Eventually, I'm positive there's going to be a revolt within the Republican party, because young conservatives like me aren't interested in paying for middle-aged losers' socialist paycheques.
Will you be able to find a citation for the fact that Republicans controlled the senate, congress, judiciary, and the executive during this time?
If the Republicans can't even take responsibility for running the country when they've got every branch of government, they should step the hell back and leave governing to adults.
Actually, if history is a demonstrator, it's highly unlikely the next government will hold the new record if Democrats get into power.
My data shows increases in debt and budget in 2007 dollars.
Reagan:
Debt $2019.17 billion
Budget $315.87 billion
Bush 1:
Debt $1206.38 billion
Budget $128.06 billion
Clinton:
Debt $1430.63 billion
Budget $130.83 billion
Bush 2:
Debt $2712.64 billion
Budget $777.70 billion
So what we're seeing here is that Clinton managed to keep his 8 years of spending to George H. W. Bushs 4 years of spending. We can also see that George W. Bush has increased spending and debt at a rate that even surpasses Reagan. So much for this myth that Democrats spend spend spend.
It's the irresponsible Republicans, with their liberal Wilsonian "Keeping the world safe for democracy" principles, and their liberal "Never saw a big government they didn't like" that is destroying the budget, not the world around us.
US military funding is greater than the next 22 countries COMBINED.
Losing 30% of that shouldn't be a problem. What we need to do is get OUT of the 150 countries we're in, quit paying to establish bases in countries that have absolutely no need for bases(I'm looking at you, western Europe!), and bring our troops home. Get those troops to protect our cities so we can protect ourselves against a 9/11 event (There's no reason we shouldn't have shot down the second, third, and fourth planes), and to protect our borders so illegal mexicans don't become the largest demographic in the US like they already are in southern states.
I know it's painful, letting go of liberalism and Wilsonian "Making the world safe for democracy" bollocks, but it's a great way to save money, better protect ourselves, and make sure the US stays one of the most powerful nations on the earth.
As an aside, I have to ask you. Given that the Republicans have increased the national debt at a rate of 5:1, and given that Republicans outspend Democrats at a rate of 2:1, given that they've created new government departments and tend to change their stance on certain issues such as woman's rights based entirely on the situation at hand, I have to ask you.
Why are you a Republican? I mean, I could understand being a conservative who believes in smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes, but Republicans only lower taxes, and then only by spending our kids' money.
As an aside, trickle-UP is more likely to help the economy.
Rich people simply hang onto their money, or put it into a useless investment like the stock market(Protip: High stock prices don't mean dick unless you're a stockholder).
Poor and middle class people use that money to pay their bills, or to buy things. This incentivizes real investment by upper-class and the rich because there is lots of money out there to be made.
I think you should also take into account that video games are more interactive, so gamers will tend to be more involved with their thought process as a result.
Watching TV tends to lead me straight through what I'm doing. I'm watching a story.
Playing a video game, by contrast, tends to get me into a really intellectual state. I'm solving puzzles, I'm making decisions, I'm deciding on tactics. When I'm playing a game with a good story, I'm involved in that, I'm a part of it. I'm not watching a story, I'm a part of a story.
So I tend to think more when I play video games, and introspection is part of that.
Don't be silly. The US government doesn't spend taxpayer money when a ridiculously overblown problem is presented, the US government spends DEBT.
We're basically handing our kids money to companies. Don't worry though, all the middle-aged losers who are spending the money will be long dead before the time comes to pay most of it back.
Correction: Both political parties would cease to exist.
Remember when Bush ran on balancing the budget, reducing the size of government, and a humble foreign policy?
Let's see. Excluding the wars in Iraq and Afganistan(which are off the books), he's increased the budget(in 2008 dollars) by 777 billion dollars, twice the largest budget increase in history, Reagan at 350 billion dollars in 2008 dollars. He's increased the debt by 2,700 billion dollars(in 2008 dollars), more than Reagan, at 2,000 billion dollars (in 2008 dollars). He's declared war against a country that hasn't done anything to us, and wants to attack Iran and Syria next.
Yeah, Republicans and Democrats are both damned dirty liars. The only difference is that Democrats don't increase the federal budget and the federal debt as badly. Unfortunately, at no point since WWII have the Republicans had a platform consistent with their message. Eisenhower was a New Dealer, Nixon was an amoral jackass, Ford was a spendaholic, Reagan was an ignorant retard spendaholic debtaholic, Bush 1 was a Reaganite, and Bush 2 makes Reagan look like a fiscal conservative.
If the Dems weren't such dirty warmongers with their Wilsonian delusions, they'd be greatly superior to the Republicans in practical terms.
Shit, I just realised my inflation numbers were reversed. The Republicans are insane.
Since the end of WWII, the inflation adjusted debt the Democrats have accrued is equal to only 500 billion dollars, while the inflation adjusted debt the Republicans have accrued is 6 trillion dollars.
The reason for the low number is that Truman and Carter both paid down incredible amounts of debt -- about 1 trillion inflation adjusted dollars combined. The only comparable debt reduction for Repblicans is Nixon. He didn't pay down the debt any, but he increased inflation exponentially by eliminating the gold standard, resulting in a 161 billion dollar decrease in the debt accounting for inflation.
The truly sad thing is that if Reagan hadn't decided to spend like a middle class family destined for bankruptcy, we'd be looking at 2 trillion dollar debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar budget. With a debt of that size, and a budget that small, it would take only one year at current tax rates to pay off the federal debt.
I find the budget interesting, but having the numbers in front of me is depressing.
If by "only one", you really mean "all three in the past 20 years", then I agree.
I've done the math over a fuller scale, since WWII. If you compensate for inflation, the Republicans increase debt and government spending at a rate more than double that of Democrats. The majority in increases of spending and debt were caused by Republican presidents, by a 2:1 ratio, even if you compensate for the fact that Republicans had 10 more years in office than Democrats.
Also, you're incredibly ignorant. According to my figures, the budget has been balanced at a number of times even since World War II. 5 of the 7 times this has been done, it was under a Democratic president, and 5 of the 7 times this has been done, it was under a Democratic house and senate.