# Why do the Democrats have so many rich leaders? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386 "2014-09-23T23:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/81 "2014-09-25T02:23:49Z")
> [@Uncommon\_Sense](#): > > We just don’t like how the government takes fistfulls of tax money and throws it blindly in the general direction of the nearest “poor” person. Do you know when and where the next blind throwing is scheduled? 'Cause I’d love to dress up in my hobo suit and grab some of that blindly thrown cash. (It is cash, right, or maybe blank checks?) Do they throw it by hand, or shoot it out of one of those cannons they fire t-shirts out of at ball games? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/82 "2014-09-25T03:02:36Z")
The less fortunate get ALL the breaks! ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/83 "2014-09-25T03:09:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Of far greater significance, though, is simply the fact that your list of what the Democrats have done consists of only three things, and leaves out a vast number of other things. When hundreds of billions of dollars are given to bail out the country’s largest banks and insurance companies, who benefits more, the rich or the working class? Yeah, I remember when notorious Democrat George W. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to spend hundreds of billions to bail out the banks and insurance companies by purchasing bad mortgage-backed securities. Good thing you’re here to remind us that the Democrats were solely responsible for that one. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/84 "2014-09-25T03:35:00Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Do you know when and where the next blind throwing is scheduled? 'Cause I’d love to dress up in my hobo suit and grab some of that blindly thrown cash. (It is cash, right, or maybe blank checks?) Do they throw it by hand, or shoot it out of one of those cannons they fire t-shirts out of at ball games? At least the blind have a job. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/85 "2014-09-25T05:26:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t get my information from Bill Maher. Bill can really turn a phrase, and I quoted him because he got this particular point across really well with his matchless acerbic wit. Wait, Maher is trying to be witty? I certainly wouldn’t have known that from reading the quote you posted, or from anything else that I’ve seen him say. His stuff not only isn’t funny; it’s not even recognizable as an attempt to be funny. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it would be more productive if you tried to address what he was actually saying instead of who he is, namely that the present political climate has moved so far to the right that Democrats have become the party of the rich and big business, while Republicans have drifted off the chart into loony-land and become a party of exploiters, radical social conservatives, and religious nutbars. How can anyone “address” a person whose argument consists of name calling? Maher (and you) call the Republicans “relgious lunatics”, “nutbars”, and so forth. He (and you) have nothing of substance to say. > [@](#): > > If this is not so, how do explain Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney’s suddenly contrived right-wing radicalism, the solidarity of Republican global-warning deniers, or the complete insanity of the Romney-Ryan budget platform that I already talked about? First of all, I can’t recall you saying anything about the Romney-Ryan budget. As for your demand that I explain Rick Santorum, he was presumably formed when one his dad’s sperm fertilized one his mom’s eggs. This explains why Rick Santorum exists. Perhaps instead you wanted me to explain why Rick Santorum did something specific, or why somebody reacted to Rick Santorum in a particular way. If so, you should obviously have been much more specific in the phrasing of your question. Likewise if you want me to explain Mitt Romney’s “right-wing radicalism” or the “insanity” of the Romney-Ryan budget, you first would have to explain what you’re talking about. Someone could just as easily ask you to explain Obama’s “left-wing radicalism” and the “insanity” of the Democrats’ budget. (Of course the Democrats haven’t really had a budget in most recent years, but that’s beside the point.) > [@](#): > > You say you get your information from all sorts of credentialed experts, but in that very same post, in support of your argument about government spending you provided a link to someone’s right-wing blog; in support of your argument about tax burdens you provided a link to a litany of complaints by the Heritage Foundation (whose contempt for factual accuracy I’m intimately familiar with mostly from dealing with their gross misrepresentations of climate science); in support of your argument about government regulation you provided a link to a litany of complaints by the National Association of Manufacturers (whose goals I think are fairly transparent). Are you denying that total government spending (as % of GDP) has been higher than ever before in the Obama years (excepting WWII)? Are you denying that costs of complying with regulations have shot upwards recently? Or that real tax burdens are higher than ever? The tax burden graph, for instance, comes from the census bureau. The graph of government spending comes from [usgovernmentspending.com](http://usgovernmentspending.com). The data for both can be verified easily by anyone who wants to search for it. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/86 "2014-09-25T05:28:00Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Because Democratic policies make people rich and moral I’d certainly agree that their policies have made their leaders rich. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/87 "2014-09-25T05:52:48Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > However, let’s tackle ag subsidies first. The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed eliminating or reducing farm/ag subsidies in their 2014 Back to Work budget. So, there’s your progressive Democrats working to eliminate farm subsidies. > > Now, the reason I am discussing subsidies here is because you brought up corn, which I assume you were concerned about subsidies in that context. Also, sugar receives subsidies as well. Agricultural subsidies started during the New Deal. (There may have been some small subsidies before then, but under FDR they went big time.) They persist today and most Democrats and Republicans rubber stamp ever larger farm subsidies every five years. There’s usually a bit of criticism of the subsidies to big ag from the both left and the right, but certainly only Republicans have made any serious effort against them. Last year, a group of House Republicans lead by Paul Ryan actually fought for cuts in those subsidies. Very modest cuts, to be sure, but better than we’ll ever actually see from leading Democrats. While I’m certainly opposed to the huge subsidies for corn and other crops, what I actually mentioned at first was the corn ethanol mandate, started under Dubya, expanded by Obama and Democrats in Congress. It drives up the price of gasoline and food for everyone–but the poor pay a larger percentage of their income on those two things than the rich. Meanwhile it’s a huge boon to the biggest agriculture corporations. We have price supports for all kinds of things: [separate programs to raise the prices of raisins, cranberries, walnuts, almonds, cherries, and prunes,](http://www.freeenterprise.com/regulations/raisin-hell-supreme-court) just to name a few. By the same logic, these hurt the poor most. Neither party shows much interest in abolishing these programs. Obama chose as his Ag Secretary a former governor of Iowa, who’s about as pro-agribusiness as you’d expect from a former governor of Iowa. The bottom line is that one cannot hope to eliminate pro-rich, anti-poor agriculture policies by voting for Democrats or Republicans, but Republicans are more likely to offer a few small cuts in these programs. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/88 "2014-09-25T06:17:17Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wait, Maher is trying to be witty? I certainly wouldn’t have known that from reading the quote you posted, or from anything else that I’ve seen him say. His stuff not only isn’t funny; it’s not even recognizable as an attempt to be funny. His audience certainly seems to think he’s funny. If Republicans think he’s not, then I know he’s doing his job. I think his mission is actually to try to get some of them to shoot their TVs. 😃 > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > First of all, I can’t recall you saying anything about the Romney-Ryan budget… > > …As for your demand that I explain Rick Santorum, … Likewise if you want me to explain Mitt Romney’s “right-wing radicalism” or the “insanity” of the Romney-Ryan budget, you first would have to explain what you’re talking about. My apologies – I did mention the Romney-Ryan budget, but it turns out [it was in a different thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17745154&postcount=132) (who can keep track? ;)). The irony is that this was the analysis of David Stockman, the very personification of a Reagan conservative, not some partisan Democrat. As for Santorum, I’m just saying the fact that a hateful dogmatic religious nutcase like that was actually a popular and viable Presidential candidate speaks volumes about the Republican base – but you knew that, right? Ditto the fact that Romney had to declare himself “severely conservative” (his exact words), effectively repudiate Romneycare, and align himself with an extremist like Ryan. I mean seriously, is there some kind of question about whether or not the Republicans have veered way to the right in recent decades and especially since Obama? > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Are you denying that total government spending (as % of GDP) has been higher than ever before in the Obama years (excepting WWII)? Are you denying that costs of complying with regulations have shot upwards recently? Or that real tax burdens are higher than ever? The tax burden graph, for instance, comes from the census bureau. The graph of government spending comes from [usgovernmentspending.com](http://usgovernmentspending.com). The data for both can be verified easily by anyone who wants to search for it. I was amused by the fact that all your links were right-wing partisans. I’m denying nothing – what is missing from your cites is context. Like the fact that broken government and insufficient financial regulation was a contributing factor to the financial meltdown, which then required massive government spending to avert a major economic depression, or the fact that insufficiently regulated industries continue to pollute our air and water with relative impunity (check out Bush-Cheney’s delightfully named “Clean Air Act”), or the fact that giant mega-corporations continue to monopolize media ownership and control of the political process. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/89 "2014-09-25T11:46:12Z")
I think that Republicans are indeed hostile to the poor. Consider this quote from John Boehner: > [@](#): > > I think this idea that’s been born over the last – maybe out of the economy, over the last couple of years that, you know, I really don’t have to work. You know, I don’t really want to do this; I think I’d just rather sit around. This is a very sick idea for our country. So on his seven week vacation, the Speaker calls the unemployed lazy. That’s downright civil compared to what your right wing Facebook friends are posting. Look at the calls to drug test welfare recipients- that’s outright contempt for the poor. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/90 "2014-09-25T11:53:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The bottom line is that one cannot hope to eliminate pro-rich, anti-poor agriculture policies by voting for Democrats or Republicans, but Republicans are more likely to offer a few small cuts in these programs. Republicans are more likely to cut programs that directly benefit the poor – food stamps, unemployment, welfare, health care programs, disability programs, social security, etc. Republicans are less likely to raise the minimum wage (and indeed many favor eliminating it), which has directly benefited the poor the last few increases. Republicans want to lower taxes for the rich, and some Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor. Republicans oppose funding and increasing public transportation that mostly benefits the poor and middle class. Republicans favor private prisons, which might be the most harmful industry in America to the poor. Many Republicans favor the rights of businesses to discriminate against individuals based on race/religion/sexual orientation-- these individuals usually happen to be poor. Republicans favor legislation that makes it more difficult for workers to organize. Republicans oppose the rights of women to make decisions about their own pregnancies, and when they can’t make it illegal they strive to make it as difficult as possible – and poor women are far more harmed by such policies than others. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/91 "2014-09-25T13:25:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Nevertheless, I’ll give my best estimate of my net worth: about $20,000. I see. I guess you are qualified to care about the poor, but insufficiently successful to run for public office. Carry on! ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/92 "2014-09-25T14:17:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I see. I guess you are qualified to care about the poor, but insufficiently successful to run for public office. Carry on! Hold up. Being poor doesn’t necessarily mean one cares for the poor. By your fruits and all that. It does make for a bit of headscratching when one advocates for practices and policies that will hurt the poor, but people have written whole books about that phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/93 "2014-09-25T14:29:23Z")
I’m just saying that if all these liberals with their filthy lucre are ineligible to care about the poor, the OP doesn’t have that problem to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/94 "2014-09-25T14:47:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > [Rand Paul looks like the best bet.](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/darrell-issa-richest-congressman-355-million-article-1.1431618) Not so much, the mans ‘middle class’ net worth is [$2,500,000](http://www.davemanuel.com/net-worth/rand-paul/). ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/95 "2014-09-25T16:58:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Wait, Maher is trying to be witty? I certainly wouldn’t have known that from reading the quote you posted, or from anything else that I’ve seen him say. His stuff not only isn’t funny; it’s not even recognizable as an attempt to be funny. Or, more likely, your ideology colors your perceptions. After all, he has had a weekly television program for what, twenty years? > [@](#): > > How can anyone “address” a person whose argument consists of name calling? Maher (and you) call the Republicans “relgious lunatics”, “nutbars”, and so forth. He (and you) have nothing of substance to say. Not all GOP members are religious lunatics. However, unlike the Dems, the religious lunatics in the GOP craft policy. Creationism in textbooks, for instance. > [@](#): > > First of all, I can’t recall you saying anything about the Romney-Ryan budget. > > As for your demand that I explain Rick Santorum, he was presumably formed when one his dad’s sperm fertilized one his mom’s eggs. This explains why Rick Santorum exists. Perhaps instead you wanted me to explain why Rick Santorum did something specific, or why somebody reacted to Rick Santorum in a particular way. If so, you should obviously have been much more specific in the phrasing of your question. Likewise if you want me to explain Mitt Romney’s “right-wing radicalism” or the “insanity” of the Romney-Ryan budget, you first would have to explain what you’re talking about. Someone could just as easily ask you to explain Obama’s “left-wing radicalism” and the “insanity” of the Democrats’ budget. (Of course the Democrats haven’t really had a budget in most recent years, but that’s beside the point.) If it’s beside the point, why say it? You’re just shoehorning in a partisan dig for no reason. In any case, Santorum needs to be explained, because he has a position of eminence in the GOP, and he’s a fruit loop. > [@](#): > > Are you denying that total government spending (as % of GDP) has been higher than ever before in the Obama years (excepting WWII)? Are you denying that the Great Recession, would obviously cause that with greater need for government assistance? If unemployment spikes because of a huge recession, you would have children starve? That you think you’ve scored a point there is weird. > [@](#): > > Are you denying that costs of complying with regulations have shot upwards recently? Are those regulations warranted, is the question. Which ones do you have in mind? > [@](#): > > Or that real tax burdens are higher than ever? What was the top marginal rate in 1979? 70%? What is it today? 39.6%? > [@](#): > > The tax burden graph, for instance, comes from the census bureau. The graph of government spending comes from [usgovernmentspending.com](http://usgovernmentspending.com). The data for both can be verified easily by anyone who wants to search for it. The question is does the data support your point. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Call_Me.Tim)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/96 "2014-09-25T17:23:16Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Are you denying that total government spending (as % of GDP) has been higher than ever before in the Obama years (excepting WWII)? Are you denying that costs of complying with regulations have shot upwards recently? Or that real tax burdens are higher than ever? The tax burden graph, for instance, comes from the census bureau. The graph of government spending comes from [usgovernmentspending.com](http://usgovernmentspending.com). The data for both can be verified easily by anyone who wants to search for it. Maybe he’s not, but I am. Using the state of the country at the beginning of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was from the budget authored by president George W. Bush (and modified by such gems as the massive bank bailout of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008): FY 2009 (41.44%.) Using the state of the country at the end of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was during FY 1945 (51.79%.) The buck for 1945 stopped at President Harry S. Truman. You can’t have it both ways. Pick either one, in neither case is your claim that Obama was responsible for the highest post-WW2 spending year true. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/97 "2014-09-25T21:34:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’d certainly agree that their policies have made their leaders rich. It makes everyone rich ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/98 "2014-09-25T22:28:27Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > Maybe he’s not, but I am. > > Using the state of the country at the beginning of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was from the budget authored by president George W. Bush (and modified by such gems as the massive bank bailout of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008): FY 2009 (41.44%.) > > Using the state of the country at the end of each respective year and your numbers, the highest spending post-WW2 was during FY 1945 (51.79%.) The buck for 1945 stopped at President Harry S. Truman. > > You can’t have it both ways. Pick either one, in neither case is your claim that Obama was responsible for the highest post-WW2 spending year true. FY 1945 was not post-World War 2; it was almost entirely _during_ World War 2. The budget for 1945 was obviously dominated by the war. FY 2009 spanned the Dubya and Obama Administrations; both shared responsibility. (Anyway, it’s not like Obama or other Democrats were opposed to the massive bank bailouts that Dubya signed into law.) But total government spending at all levels, as a percentage of GDP, has been high throughout the Obama Administration–before FY 2009, the only time when it had been so high is World War 2. Under Obama it’s never been below 36%. That’s more than a full percentage point about the average for any previous Administration, except in World War 2. [Here’s the graph again.](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2019USp_15s1li011mcn_F0t) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/99 "2014-09-25T23:46:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > [Here’s the graph again.](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2019USp_15s1li011mcn_F0t) Interesting chart. What I noticed is that there is a fairly steady upward trend beginning around 1901. With a few fluctuations, there appears to be a steady growth that should have put us at around 49% or 51% this year, except that it dipped under Clinton, spiked under Bush, began trending downward under Obama, and has since flat-lined under Obama. Clearly, Clinton and Obama have broken the constant upward thrust. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386/100 "2014-09-26T00:01:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > FY 1945 was not post-World War 2; it was almost entirely _during_ World War 2. The budget for 1945 was obviously dominated by the war. > > FY 2009 spanned the Dubya and Obama Administrations; both shared responsibility. (Anyway, it’s not like Obama or other Democrats were opposed to the massive bank bailouts that Dubya signed into law.) But total government spending at all levels, as a percentage of GDP, has been high throughout the Obama Administration–before FY 2009, the only time when it had been so high is World War 2. Under Obama it’s never been below 36%. That’s more than a full percentage point about the average for any previous Administration, except in World War 2. [Here’s the graph again.](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2019USp_15s1li011mcn_F0t) I love this claim, mostly because it is so hilariously stupid if you just take a second to look at it. First off, Presidents (Obama included) don’t submit a budget request until October - How is Obama responsible for 2009 again? Second, don’t your remember the claims that Republican’s made during his first four years about Obama not passing a budget? Do you really need me to link to them? Third, how is the President responsible for the budget anyway? Does he write and pass the law? Last time I looked, I was sure it was congress that did this… Can you help me out here? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-the-democrats-have-so-many-rich-leaders/699386.md?page=6)