How dishonest is this cartoon?

[??????????]

Reagan and Bush 1 both had Democratic congresses, Clinton had a GOP congress.

[Franzl]

Not extremely dishonest....I don't recall Reagan refusing the Democratic budget.....and of course his own love of throwing money out the window didn't help matters.

I mean, sure Bill Clinton got help in balancing the budget through the GOP congress, that's obviously true, but it's really dishonest to claim Reagan and Bush I were just victims of Congress.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan and Bush 1 both had Democratic congresses, Clinton had a GOP congress.

Of course, thanks Newt Gingrich for the surplus.

[Franzl]

Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority certainly contributed to balancing the budget. I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

That said though....congress also wasn't able to force Presidents Bush I and Reagan to spend money like drunken sailors.


Congress can refuse spending.....and the President has no way of making them spend, but it doesn't entirely work the other way around. The President can actually block wasteful spending, and if he doesn't, he's also to blame.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

What makes you think so ?

[President Mitt]

I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

What makes you think so ?

Bill Clinton wouldn't have moved to the center if his Party still had control of Congress.

[John Dibble]

Well, factually there's no lies in it. However, like most political cartoons it takes only part of the facts into account and tries to get the reader to draw conclusions from that alone. In the sense that it's omitting important information it is deceptive, but really not more or less so than most propaganda of this sort.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

What makes you think so ?

Bill Clinton wouldn't have moved to the center if his Party still had control of Congress.

Clinton campaigned and was elected as a centrist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most political cartoons are dishonest. But this one isn't funny, isn't powerful and isn't well-drawn. So has no value.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The cartoon does not factor in macroeconomic conditions.

[Franzl]

I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

What makes you think so ?

Bill Clinton wouldn't have moved to the center if his Party still had control of Congress.

Clinton campaigned and was elected as a centrist.

Denying that his policy did change after 1994 is not very honest

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is a good graph.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Quite, it's pure partisan hackery. Clinton never had a real surplus, and they curiously decided to leave out Obama.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I doubt strongly Clinton would have had a balanced budget if his party had had control of Congress.

What makes you think so ?

Bill Clinton wouldn't have moved to the center if his Party still had control of Congress.

Clinton campaigned and was elected as a centrist.

Denying that his policy did change after 1994 is not very honest

Prior to 1994 he was a centrist willing to implement an extremely moderate agenda. After 1994 he became a centrist renouncing to implement anything because the he knew Congress wouldn't have accepted it.

[Franzl]

You don't think a strong Democratic majority in Congress would have sent him enough spending that he would have signed....regardless of the deficit?

I very strongly doubt he would have vetoed his own party's agenda.

[King]

About as dishonest as saying Reagan had to deal with a Democratic Congress.  Yeah, the House was Democrat.

But since when does a barely majority Democratic House have complete and total override on the government? That would imply that Ronald Reagan and Howard Baker were complete and total lightweight losers.

I don't think Bush 41 would've acted much differently with a Republican Congress.  He was on the way to balancing the budget, but he wanted it to happen gradually nonetheless.

Still doesn't explain Dubya, Hastert, and Frist's mess.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Quite, it's pure partisan hackery. Clinton never had a real surplus, and they curiously decided to leave out Obama.

The cartoon was made durring the election.

[Beet]

It's hackery, but it does reflect the fact that the "Reagan revolution" was more of a debt revolution than a freedom revolution, as its backers sold it to be for a long, long time.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Quite, it's pure partisan hackery. Clinton never had a real surplus, and they curiously decided to leave out Obama.

The cartoon was made durring the election.

Yeah, they included McCain, so where was Obama?

[WillK]

Not extremely dishonest....I don't recall Reagan refusing the Democratic budget.....and of course his own love of throwing money out the window didn't help matters.

I mean, sure Bill Clinton got help in balancing the budget through the GOP congress, that's obviously true, but it's really dishonest to claim Reagan and Bush I were just victims of Congress.

Bill Clinton got big help was during the 2 years when he had a Democratic Congress and the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed without any GOP support.

[??????????]

Clinton would have spent nearly as much as Obama did if given the chance. Running such a huge surplus is never a good thing for a government to do, a government should run as close to the middle as possible. All that surplus should have been used to pay down our huge debts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You heard it from States first, ladies and gentlemen. Surpluses are bad.

[??????????]

Thanks for not answering the point.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You heard it from States first, ladies and gentlemen. Surpluses are bad.

     Bad because the money should be going to pay off the debt. Can't really take issue with that point.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

You heard it from States first, ladies and gentlemen. Surpluses are bad.

he probably does not even understand the economic impact surpluses have, and thus i really couldn't care of what he has to say about budgets.