They're All The Same... Aren't they?

I keep hearing folks say that it doesn't really matter who goes to Washington, because they're all crooks.  Funny thing is, it is immediately followed by the statement that your crooks are worse than theirs...

I've referenced before  the concept put forth by Mark Twain that if the only tool you have is a hammer, soon every problem begins to look like a nail.  I've also pointed out that ALL politicians perceive themselves as only having one tool: spending your money.  The difference is what they spend it on and, the point of this post, how fast they spend it.

Liberals want to spend money (not their money, your money) on every bleeding heart cause under the sun.  They parade an endless stream of victims past the cameras in Washington to explain why they need to fling funds at every sad-sack situation in the world.  This usually equates to dumping the money down a hole for deadbeats, slackers and con men.

Conservatives want to spend money on the Military.  You know, those folks who have signed the dotted line that they will die in service to their county.

Moderates want to do both so as to not tick either side off.  Look under the word moderate in the dictionary and you will see a photo of John McCain.

Here is the point.  During the election of 2008, we had to choose between a liberal and a moderate.  Both wanted, ultimately, the same thing.  The rub was how fast to get there.  I don't remember there being a large difference in McCain and Obama, it's just McCain was content to slowly drive the country to financial oblivion by spending countless sums on every sad situation in the world, while Obama was going to kick in the afterburners and get us there in a hurry.

I looked up some numbers.  I didn't get these from Pelosi's office, like some sham of a graph spreading around FaceBook.  I went to the governments own official websites and pulled this info.

The day Clinton took office, the country was 217 years old.  In that amount of time the debt had accululated to $4.2T.

During the eight years of Clinton, he increased that to $5.7T, an increase of $1.5T.

During the eight years of W, he increased that to $10.6T, an increase of $4.9T.  (True conservatives were railing against this spending excess.  For the record, W was a social conservative but a fiscal moderate, a la McCain.)

During the first three years of O, he has increased that to $15.5T, an increase of $4.9T.

O has increased the debt as much in three years as Bush did in eight.

Stop.  Go back.  Read that part again.

$4.9T over eight years was appalling.  What do you call $4.9T over three?

All politicians are driving us to financial ruin.  It is the only tool they see in their bag, spending our money.  But the RATE at which O has hurried us down the road is just staggering.

So, you tell me... Are they all the same?