Democrats and Republicans

This is from an old (sometime in the 1980’s) Dave Barry column, but I ran across it today and I still find it funny.  It’s about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Unfortunately for our country, it’s pretty close to the truth….

“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn’t bother to stop because they’d want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.”

Republicans spend too much on defense, bailouts of inept corporations, and in new programs designed to show people that they’re really good guys, like the prescription drug bill.  Democrats spend too much on everything.  Neither is willing to raise taxes enough to pay for their spending.  The only time in the last 50 years that spending has been kept somewhat in check is when we had a Republican congress and a Democrat as president.

For 6 years – from January 1995 through January 2001 – Republicans controlled congress and Clinton was president.  Spending was kept in check and we almost had a balanced budget.  I know Clinton claimed surpluses, but he lied.  The “surplus” came from Social Security payments and the total federal debt increased each and every year, so there wasn’t actually a surplus – but it was as close as we’re ever likely to see from here on.

Obama is making Bush’s budget busting spending look like child’s play.  This year alone, we’re spending twice as much as we’re collecting in taxes.  We’re effectively borrowing money from the Chinese to make interest payments to the Chinese.  It’s the same as using your Visa card to make minimum payments on your MasterCard.  How long do the idiots on Capital Hill think they can continue this Ponzi scheme?



2 Responses

  1. Just a note on the Clinton surplus thing:

    Turns out that even if you don’t include Social Security, there was a surplus. Not much of one, but still a surplus.

  2. I’m sorry Joe, but is wrong on this one. Here are the facts straight from the US Treasury. You can verify the data here: and here:

    Year National Debt
    9/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
    9/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
    9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    9/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

    The federal debt increased each and every year during the Clinton administration. At no time was there a reduction in the federal debt, which would have happened if there was actually a surplus. The only way to reconcile the two disparate “facts” is to assume that Clinton spent less than he collected, but not by enough to also pay the interest on the accumulated debt, so that total debt still went up each and every year of his administration.

    It’s as if I claimed a surplus because I made $100K last year and spent only $99.9K – but I didn’t count the interest on my mortgage as money spent. Sorry, I don’t have a surplus when I still owe more at the end of the year than I did at the beginning of the year.

    “FactCheck” needs to check their facts, because they are factually wrong. On the page you linked they even state:
    The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.”

    Look at the numbers above. Verify them by going to the links I provided. According to FactCheck (and I agree with this) “the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.” They go on to state “The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton…” That’s factually incorrect.

    Show me even one year where the debt decreased under Clinton. Clinton, FactCheck, and many others, including CNN are wrong. See a previous post (and the comments) on this subject here:

    Please let me know if you think there’s another explanation that accounts for the FACT that there was NO debt reduction when we supposedly had a surplus under Clinton. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll admit it if I’m proven wrong on this, but I don’t know how else to say it except FactCheck (and CNN and others) are wrong.

    They don’t have their facts straight. I must assume that they’re ignorant of the actual facts – or else they’re simply lying to suit their own political agenda.


%d bloggers like this: