Where is the evidence that Republican Presidents are good at controlling spending?

You're wasting your time. The people that believe that aren't going to change their opinions based on facts and evidence.

CONSERVATIVES are good at controlling spending. Republican politicians today, largely, aren't conservative. Also, Obama spent more against the debt in 18 months than G.W. Bush did in 8 years, and yes, this is a fact you can research for yourself, which totally negates your entire argument. As for Clinton, what did he do? He signed NAFTA, which basically gave companies free reign to outsource to other countries and screw american workers. He signed the de-regulation of mortgages, specifically the bailouts for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, which allowed people to borrow way more money than they could afford for a house, causing our housing crisis. Yeah, some president the last two Democrats have been. One gets some in the oval office while giving away our jobs and houses, the other intentionally prohibits job creation and spends like the end of the world is tomorrow.

"The next slowest increase is President Clinton with a Democratic Congress"

Two years after Clinton took office, the GOP gained majorities in both houses of Congress which resulted in 4 consecutive balanced budgets and a surplus.

If you google the author, "Rex Nutting", you'll find the answer.

He is manipulating the data to get the results he wants.

Reagan wiped out many useless government programs.

I do disagree with Reagan culling the mental hospitals (as Governor), but when you add it all up, he was the best president we ever had, in my opinion.

More of that chart that IGNORES much of the spending that Obama signed off on.

That claim relies on statistics cherry-picked from different sources and, tellingly, uses CBO projections rather than ACTUAL outlays, and lets the President off the hook for FY 2009 - a budget that was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Now check out the liberals’ math… the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's spending column…lmao!

And what libs fail to recognize is that after taking office, Obama immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money. But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, is getting credited to "Bush’s spending" and not Obama.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending.

It amazes me how you libs fall for this BS hook line and STINKER

Of the $15 trillion national debt the last 3 Republican Presidents are responsible for about $10 trillion of it, or roughly 67%.

Because Obama has spent more in 40 months that every President who ever lived in total, except for Bush. But he is trying to include him also.

.

But who knows? Seen a budget? Obama, in 1100 days, has never made one.

Actually, it's CONGRESS that controls spending.

And, BO's spending does not include his first 10 months in office where he spent HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars. Just because the previous budget approved the money does NOT mean he was under any obligation to spend it.

Nice spin, but you're just making yourself dizzy - not the rest of us.

.

You are kidding right? I think you need to look at some reliable polls and then consider what was being spent. You can spend little but cause great economic grief.

They haven't been lately. But they will do a better job than Democrats.

They are better at raising revenues too.

I have not seen any evidence to that effect.