The GOP has come out with a series of charts that track the Democrats performance by a number of varying metrics. The results aren’t pretty.
If you thought Barack Obama was serious about curtailing the national debt this should disabuse you of that notion.
Fair? About as fair as the campaign rhetoric that led the Democrats to the majority in ‘06. The Democrats in congress joined President Bush in creating this crisis and have done nothing but enable Obama to drive us deeper into the abyss.
At some point the myth that the Democrats are “responsible” big spenders has to die. The IMF calculates our GDP at $14.2 trillion, our national debt will be between $12-$13 trillion at the end of this year. Once our national debt eclipses our gross national product do you think that will get the attention of the Democrats in congress?
This next chart isn’t from the GOP but it is revealing as hell. We spent the last 5 years here raking Bush and the RINO big spenders in congress over the coals for their destructive abdication of conservative principles. If their spending is compared to just the spending proposed in the first 100 days of Obama’s administration what would the budget deficits look like?
I would say the Democrats are heading for a reckoning with the American voter but that presupposes the Republicans have stumbled upon a clue. I remain skeptical.
Hat-tip: Ace of Spades
I don’t know who made the “national debt” graph, but it is ridiculously distorted. The height difference between 12.86 and 16.17 is more than five times the height difference between 2.68 and 8.45.
In other words, the debt during the Republican reign of congress is distorted to look lower than it was, and/or the the debt during the Democrat reign of congress is distorted to look higher than it actually was.
I’m not claiming that Democrats are responsible spenders, but if you believe so strongly in how right your cause is, you probably don’t need to edit the scale of your graphs to exaggerate your point. It’s dishonest to say the least.
Looks like an edited Viagra progress graph.
I think its logarithmic with time factored in, the reason the difference is greater for the more recent numbers is that the debt increased much quicker.
On a logarithmic graph, 16.17 would appear much closer to 12.86 than 12.86 would appear to 2.68.
The log of 2.68 is .42. The log of 12.86 is 1.1. The log of 16.17 is 1.2.
1.2 is closer to 1.1 than 1.1 is to .42.
“Factoring in time” doesn’t change anything. This is a doctored chart.
Minor correction: The slope would be different based on “factoring in time”, because you would get to a point faster.
However, the point itself would still be the same height.
This graph shows the difference between 16.17 and 12.86 as being drastically larger than the difference between 2.68 and 8.45. It’s not a difference in slope. It’s a difference in height.
Don’t take my word for it. You all have excel.
Plot the points. (1990, 2.68) (2007, 8.45) (2009, 12.86) (2012, 16.17)
Do the same thing for (1990, log(2.68)) (2007, log(8.45)), (2009, log (12.86)), (2012, log(16.17))
There is absolutely no way to get a graph like the one displayed on this page without seriously doctoring the graph, and there is no reason to seriously doctor the graph unless your intention is to mislead.
Again, I’m not saying the Democrats are responsible spenders, but if you believe strongly enough that your cause is right, you probably don’t need to seriously doctor graphs.
David that graph is misleading.
Yeah, yeah, you’re all pissed about Specter switching parties… but I’m not letting you off the hook for that ridiculous graph just yet.
I just saw all this, sorry Shiffman for the tardy reply. Yes the graph is distorted. The numbers are real but the final leg of the graph between 2009 and 2012 look like it is a simple exponential increase instead of a linear connection of the two data points.
I calculate the rate of change between 2007 and 2009 as 2.205 trillion per year while the rate of change between 2009 and 2012 is 1.103 trillion per year, so yes obviously the graph cannot look like it does.
Since I put up the graph this is my fault, truth is I double checked the numbers, but didn’t really pay attention to the curvature of the graph itself. Good catch.
Thanks, Mike, for responding. I know there’s been a lot of other crap going on today.
Where did the original graphs come from?
The link in the post:
http://www.gop.gov/accountability