Regardless of agreement on what's presented, it'd be preferable to show a source (and analysis thereof) that backs up this claim.
and George H.W. Bush only had 4 years!
I'm not pulling for either side in particular, but "statistics" are WAY too easy to manipulate when they're laid out in such a vague manner, aside from the inherently obvious problems of claiming presidents control spending when congress holds the coin purse when all is said and done. I Don't care who or why it was made to make one side look good and the other bad, but you're not really helping, in fact you're part of the problem. There's already enough misdirection and lies coming from politicians and sensationalist media, we don't need it from the public too. Not that it will change anybody's mind, it seems like it's human nature to draw lines in the sand and polarize the masses.
Misleading. A 135% increase for Reagan is probably less overall than Bush's 86% increase, since the debt was much greater to begin with for Bush.
Having said that, this chart still drives home an important point (albeit incorrectly): NeoCons are really just gigantic assholes. If you voted republican, and you're not part of the richest 1%, then you're just fucking yourself over.
You almost got away with it, libs... were it not for your meddling, misleading dear leader Pelosi
EDIT: @poptart2nd- the politifact article was posted on May 19th. This re-worked graph from her photostream was magically posted May 19th as well, although she had originally posted the same graph with the stats in question (on my link) on May 3rd. It all could be a miraculous coincidence but in all likelihood it's probably not. They probably saw the erring on their part and corrected it after the fact. I mean, even with stats notwithstanding, the article I linked to does make excellent points, such as this (an idea you shared in your own review): "Bush served a full eight-year term, while Obama had served just 27 months by the time the chart was compiled. If the Obama figure were to be scaled out to a full eight-year period, he'd have a debt increase of 121 percent rather than 34 percent, making his increase greater than Bush's. To be fair, that would be a simplistic exercise -- but no less misleading than the chart."
Korin43 is right, a bar graph would show how much more extreme the Bushs were.
I wonder if this chart included Bush's Enron accounting before he left office. Obama corrected that and he might have been punished for it.
Percent increase is misleading.
This figures are inaccurate and even if they were, they only tell half the story, congress controls spending, not the president.
Reagan for instance had a Democratic congress for his terms as president. They passed his tax cuts but not the spending cuts, so even though federal income increased, federal spending increased even faster.
The information is poorly displayed. 37% increase of the amount of debt before Clinton is a bigger numeral than 55% of the amount of debt before H. W. Bush
what is called liberal today is not liberal, what is called conservative is not conservative - it is up to men like us to change the world by changing our sensibilities - of course i understand your meaning here fully and moreover, that you possess such a sophistication already; however, i felt like pointing this out since, when i look at this inforgraphic, i merely see the faces of my enemies, the men trotted out by the NWO to serve as the CEO's of Slavery Inc. - we live in a hijacked nation, as if someone had desecrated a holy place.
Also, Treasury Dept.?
anyone who actually understands government, under this much: whatever reportage they offer on spending reportage etc. can generally be accepted as a lie.
the very metric "who increased the debt" is an absurdity and oversimplification of the policy and legislative landscape of the given intervals. (indeed as http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/BitesTheDust/ - points out, there is a serious logical fallacy at work in the incipient phenomenology of the entire line of reasoning behind the construction of such a graph)
and one last point, this curve is real and it is there on purpose to sustain the two party paradigm - the Actual Managers simply change the strategy and measures in a given fiscal quarter in order to make one side SEEM to be liberal or conservative.
but anyone with two brain cells to rub together can take one look at the faces of these men and realize that the Best among them merely Thought they were doing the right thing while the majority are open servants of the NWO
Actually - Clinton's data column should reflect a $500 B surplus (that would be waaaaaaay below zero on the X axis on this chart) before Bush put $2 trillion on the credit card for war and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Um, wait. There's actually a debate about whether Obama is more fiscally sound than Bush? Seriously?
Corporations and the rich paid more taxes before Bush's term than during and it cost your country billions each year. Armies cost an ASSLOAD of money (a technical term, look it up). Bush signed off the on the bailouts for the banks and those corporations 'too big to fail'. He mired your country in debt, approved of the de-regulation that led to the mortgage crisis and ensuing recession, and then walked off away from the whole shit-smear to cut some more brush in his backyard (Too much brush lets the terrorists win.)
What's the debate? The Bush administration is solely responsible for your economic situation. The only thing you can say about Obama is how he's handled the hellish situation he volunteered to manage, and that's like critiquing [damn, I can't think of anything but a Titanic analogy right now and, meh.... I'll have to come back to this later. Message me if you have a good one.]
As for the actual website or something, the "graph" might as well be a swirl of colours representing the author's inner feelings on the subject. Was inflation accounted for? What's the definition of "public debt"? There's too many ways to manipulate information on a bar graph for this to be trusted.
misleading and wrong. better luck next time.