I guess the chart is only using nominal dollars, because the % of GDP spent as debt was highest in 1989. If adjusted for inflation, I think that would be the lowest point on this time-frame.
Also, the surplus in the Clinton years is also “too good to be true” because the surplus was reliant on not investing the social security surplus.
Not investing the social security surplus? The social security surplus was not invested under Reagan, Bush the dumb or Bush the dumber. So, that is a mute point.
1989 Does do much for the argument either that has to be blamed on Reagan or Bush.
The point of this is that the Republican claim of being fiscally responsible conservatives is a lie.
Well, the graph is nominal, not percentage based, but still brings up an important point about fiscal responsibility and the so-called ‘fiscal conservativism’ of Reagen, HW Bush and W Bush.
Explore the PBH Network! More funny, faster.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I guess the chart is only using nominal dollars, because the % of GDP spent as debt was highest in 1989. If adjusted for inflation, I think that would be the lowest point on this time-frame.
Also, the surplus in the Clinton years is also “too good to be true” because the surplus was reliant on not investing the social security surplus.
DAMMIT!
Not investing the social security surplus? The social security surplus was not invested under Reagan, Bush the dumb or Bush the dumber. So, that is a mute point.
1989 Does do much for the argument either that has to be blamed on Reagan or Bush.
The point of this is that the Republican claim of being fiscally responsible conservatives is a lie.
Well, the graph is nominal, not percentage based, but still brings up an important point about fiscal responsibility and the so-called ‘fiscal conservativism’ of Reagen, HW Bush and W Bush.
Why don’t we see an update? Is the TRILLION $$ deficit under the almighty Obama not a cause for concern?