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:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/5467519/US-National-Debt-19292008

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 ave. debt increase/yr

1928-32: Hoover (R) 4 1.3 bil 65 mil

1932-45: Roosevelt (D) 13 243 bil 18.5 bil

1945-52: Truman (D) 7 500 mil 71 mill

1952-60: Eisenhower (R) 8 27 bil 3.4 bil

1960-62: Kennedy (D) 2 12 bil 6 bil

1962-68: Johnson (D) 6 50 bil 8 bil

1968-74: Nixon (R) 6 127 bil 21 bil

1974-76: Ford (R) 2 224 bil 112 bil

1976-80: Carter (D) 4 288 bil 72 bil

1980-88: Reagan (R) 8 1.7 tril 212 bil

1988-92: Bush (R) 4 1.5 tril 731 bil

1992-2000: Clinton (D) 8 1.6 tril 200 bil

2000-08: W. Bush (R) 8 4 tril 500 bil

My math may be off a bit, but I am pretty sure that I am close. While the popular
representation of Dems is that they are fiscally irresponsible, the data indicates the
opposite. Common sense supports this since Dems are more likely to raise taxes to pay
for things than Reps. Then comes the value question of what the two spend money on.
By far the largest increases in FDR's spending came as a result of WWII. Deficits to
defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany is money well spent. Eisenhower and
Kennedy's were spent on modernization of the military and the space race. The Military-
Industrial Complex isn't such a great thing, but nearly all of the technological
advancements in the past 60 years have their origins in the money spent here. The
Johnson/Nixon years we go off the track with Vietnam, but it is the Great Society
legislation that bears the brunt of the blame. 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. Looking at Reagan, you can't help but gasp. Now some
argue that money was spent defeating the Evil Empire, but I wonder, 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, 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, go to www.rottentomatoes.com and
search I Want Your Money). You might also notice that of the 4 most recent presidents,
using debt increase as an indicator of fiscal responsibility, the Dem Bill Clinton is the
most responsible and Reagan Rep W. Bush is by far the worst. I think I pull 2 things
from all of this. First, Reps only believe that social spending is bad. Modest social
spending when compared to any amount of military spending is still irresponsible, but
military spending can't be irresponsible. An interesting position coming from the
"Christian" party. The other thing is a silver lining to the Tea Party Movement. I don't
hope that they beat socially conscious candidates, but in the event that they do win, there
will at least be a representative that won't bankrupt the country with spending increases in
the time of tax cuts.

So I found a adjuster for prices at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ and

it calculated FDR's average yearly increase of 18.5 bil to 219,065,942,020,
not even half of Bush's AYI and on par with Clinton's. It calculated the 13
year debt inc...rease of 243 bil during New Deal spending and WW II at
$2,877,460,751,948, over 1 trillion less than the W. 8 year increase. The
Reagan comparison did not fare as well at $3,055,695,817,938. The
average increase was $381,063,243,178. Also worth remembering is that
the FDR is a skewed average since the WWII years saw saw significant
increases. the average increase before WWII was well below
$118,414,022,713 for all of the New Deal deficits.