That graphic is a pretty good example of looking only at the direct consequences. Yes, presidents do have control over their budgets, but they also work to pass legislation--which stays with the country for decades. They also have to cope with the effects of pass legislation.

If you look at the programs which increased the budget by the largest percent, and trace them to the presidents who supported or enacted them--you will find most end up at a liberal president. FDR enacted the new deal almost 70 years ago, yet his healthcare programs alone now take up $1500 billion dollars of our current budget. Thats almost 60%. Clinton, too, is guilty of such programs whose effects we are feeling now, and will continue to feel in the distant future.

Modern republicans tend to engage in lengthy, costly wars, so it is no surprise that they tend to have larger budgets (and thus lower surpluses). Democrats are more likely to avoid wars, instead choosing to pass legislation which becomes extremely expensive decade later.

Its not a legitimate analysis to simply compare budgets between presidents.

Are you saying that the Healthcare program is not a plus to an economy? Why not look at it in the reverse and look at how liberal spending on infrastructure has allowed Republicans to have tax cuts and live on depreciating infrastructure.

Democrats don't engage in costly wars? What was World War 2 then? What was LBJ with the Vietnam war?

Excellent visualization.

^Farhad2000:
Are you saying that the Healthcare program is not a plus to an economy?

Yes. Again, you aren't considering any secondary effects--you are only looking at the most obvious consequence. You see a new hospital created by government funds so you think that the economy must be one hospital richer. You are neglecting the other buildings, products, or services that would have existed if taxes were not collected to erect that hospital--just as in the broken window fallacy.

The government cannot create wealth, all it can do is take from A and give to B. At best, there will be no net gain to the economy. At worst--the funds will require overhead (as they always do), or be spent in an inefficient manner (as they usually are), be lost to lobbying (as is usually the case), etc. with the result of a loss to the economy.

Its fine if you assert that a hospital is a plus to the community as it may be a beneficial or essential service--and using that as a basis for collecting taxes for it.. What is not fine, is to assert that erecting a hospital is a plus to the economy--and using that as a basis for collecting taxes for it.

^Farhad2000:
Why not look at it in the reverse and look at how liberal spending on infrastructure has allowed Republicans to have tax cuts and live on depreciating infrastructure?

Infrastructure in 2007 under George Bush was $72 billion. Infrastructure in 1998 under Bill Clinton was $43 billion. Adjusted for inflation, the 1998 figure becomes $57.80 billion. So George Bush actually spent $15 billion more than Bill Clinton, thus he is actually the liberal spender.

You forget that the 2007 figure is Katrina and the shoring up of infrastructure programs post bridge collapse.

2007-1998 inflation adjusted difference (billions)
national defense $186
education                     $10
health                        $57
medicare                      $42
income security               $4
social security               $9
environment                   $4
transportation                $18
community development         $44
international affairs         $8
general science               $3
agriculture                   $13
admistration of justice       $10
general government            $2
interest                      -$75
total                         $335

Bush actually spend more in every single category except for interest payments than Clinton did. Source:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

Nice.

Well you proven my point, you have increased government spending, which doesn't factor in defense and military spending increases, at the same time you have a shrinking of tax base. Increasing federal deficits.

I just find it ridiculous for you to claim that Republican spending can recreating multiplier effects later on while you cannot assume the same for a Democratic president (really our usage of them being liberal is false).

Furthermore using abstract figures of government increases in spending doesn't really give us a good indicator of the economy, which one encapsulate one side of the nation, my preferred count in the growth of the middle class since it means people moving from low incomes families into the middle class, and at the same time allows more middle class families to move into the upper classes of income.

This is an interesting report. http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-70

According to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Budget says:

"The nonpartisan eyeshades at the Committee for a Responsible Budget totaled up the spending, tax cuts and savings in the two candidates' platforms and added them to the CBO's optimistic projection of a $147 billion deficit in 2013.

Sen. Obama would increase that year's deficit by $286 billion to $413 billion and
Sen. McCain by between $167 billion and $259 billion"

via http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/sep/14/prediction-on-deficit-is-dire/

^ Here's the full study: http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/files/crfb/USBW%20Voter%20Guide%20October%205%202008.pdf

I'm not sure how that paper came to those numbers, because there's not nearly that big a difference in their estimate of the deficit.

Also, once you start looking at the line items, and make fair guesses about what they're making up ($114bn for "Unspecified Spending Cuts" is a good one to look at on McCain's plan, for example), they both look like big spenders.

To some degree, I think people shouldn't take these numbers as gospel -- I'd love to see the same analysis done on Bush's campaign promises in 2000, and compare it to the actual values.

However, a plan like this gives you a good idea, in numbers, what kinds of things these candidates care about, and how they would want to change the budget.

After all, the budget needs to pass through Congress.