Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(cont.)
From Jan 1987 to Jan 1993, Republicans held the presidency and the Democrats held congress.
During that period, the debt rose from 2.2 Trillion to 4 Trillion. An increase of 1.8 Trillion Dollars.
Again, as the branches were split, we'll split the blame evenly. Bringing the totals up to:
Dems: 1.37 Trillion, Reps: 2.23 Trillion
Now we reach the Clinton Era.
From Jan 1993 to Jan 1995 the debt increased from 4.1 Trillion to 4.7 Trillion. For a total increase of 600 Billion dollars.
During this period Democrats were in control of both branches, so:
Dems: 1.97 Trillion, Reps: 2.23 Trillion
In January of 1995, Republicans took control of both houses of congress. From Jan 1995 to Jan 2001, The president was Democratic and Congress Republican, so again we split the difference. During this period, the Debt rose from 4.7 Trillion to 5.7 Trillion, an increase of 1 Trillion Dollars.
Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 2.73 Trillion
Now, in Jan 2001, President Bush took office. From Jan 2001 to Jan 2007, except for a brief tie in the senate (with a republican tie-breaker as VP), the Republicans held both houses of Congress.
During this period, the debt rose from 5.7 Trillion to 9 Trillion. An Increase of 3.3 Trillion Dollars.
Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 6 Trillion Dollars
From Jan 2007 to Jan 2009, the Democrats controlled Congress, and George W Bush was president, so, again, we split the difference. During that period, the debt rose from 9 Trillion to 11.2 Trillion. A difference of 2.2 Trillion dollars.
Dems: 3.6 Trillion, Reps: 7.1 Trillion
Which brings us to 2010, where congress and the presidency are both controlled by Democrats.
In the past year the debt has risen to 12.6 Trillion dollars, for an increase of 1.4 Trillion dollars.
Thus the totals are:
Dems: 4.8 Trillion Dollars, Reps: 7.1 Trillion dollars
Sources:
Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855?2008 — Infoplease.com
National Debt Clock - Defeat the Debt
Questions? Comments?
You do realize that your numbers 'don't add up', right?
2001 bush is clinton's figure...belongs under clinton, they run a fiscal year
2009 barry is bush's figure...under the gvt's fiscal year
but i get the gist of what you are trying to point out....
Congress control spending and the only time we saw any progress was when semi-Conservative Newt ran Congress
You missed a vitally important point.
All the spending on Socialist Security, MediScam, and Welfraud can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - in particular FDR who BROKE THE CONSTITUTION and discarded the tattered pieces. Without that abandonment, of Checks and Balances, the entire national debt would still be LESS than a trillion dollars.
Further I did not ask for you to post a few numbers, but ALL the links to congressional records so we could do an in depth analysis of the ACTUAL figures - you failed because we all know what that would reveal.
Something tells me that your grandparents didn't see SS as socialist.You missed a vitally important point.
All the spending on Socialist Security, MediScam, and Welfraud can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - in particular FDR who BROKE THE CONSTITUTION and discarded the tattered pieces. Without that abandonment, of Checks and Balances, the entire national debt would still be LESS than a trillion dollars.
Further I did not ask for you to post a few numbers, but ALL the links to congressional records so we could do an in depth analysis of the ACTUAL figures - you failed because we all know what that would reveal.
The real question is why did the right "create" such a debt?
2.5 trillion tax cut
3 trillion in war
trillion stimulus package
Who knows how much wasted on Katrina cleanup that never happened?
Who know how much their drug package cost?
Then the left get's stuck with this mess. Worse, the Republicans, the very people who created this disaster, think they know how to clean it up? Are they insane?
Hell, I'm saying both parties are to blame, I'm just giving you the facts here.
Hell, I'm saying both parties are to blame, I'm just giving you the facts here.
You're right both are to blame, but the Democrats are the greater culprit. Reagan and Bush Sr. defeated the Soviet threat without a single shot fired. It cost money, but less than a war would have cost.
Clinton set Bush Jr up for a fall. He helped insure a destroyed economy while giving only lip service on informing Bush Jr of Bin Laden's potential threat.
As for your idiot "inflation blah blah blah"
Treat all those 1960'a dollars as if they were 2005 dollars and see how much larger the Democratic portion grows. Why did you ignore the initial 300 Billion in your 1965 numbers? Because that was all from the Democrats?
Saying the Republicans are more at fault is like trying to absolve the Democrats of their lion's share of the responsibility. They (Democrats) broke the system and it has never worked as well since. What is needed is a return to small government, small businesses and self reliance by the citizenry. All those however would sit ill with the democrats who get their votes from Labor unions and welfare recipients (and a bit from liberal academics but those are too few to tip the scales the Democrats NEED poor voters as the middle class is so solidly Republican)
If you cannot realize this from your personal observations then you have no hope of ever seeing the truth.
3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.
3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.
I suppose what we should do is just print up a few trillion dollars of monopoly money and pay off the debt with that right?
The problem with your so-called analysis is that it falls apart. Of all the presidents in the last 30 years ONLY Clinton has a truly strong economy, and that was absolutely unrelated to his party affiliation. Because of inflation over those years the most recent debt would HAVE TO BE more noticeable. Particularly when you don't include interest on the old debt, which you did NOT. Or discount the effect of the ongoing socialist programs passed by the Democrats, which you did not.
It becomes clear you are a Democratic party hack trying to disguise yourself as a neutral, so I'm done with this thread. Going to the unsubscribe button now.
3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.
I suppose what we should do is just print up a few trillion dollars of monopoly money and pay off the debt with that right?
The problem with your so-called analysis is that it falls apart. Of all the presidents in the last 30 years ONLY Clinton has a truly strong economy, and that was absolutely unrelated to his party affiliation. Because of inflation over those years the most recent debt would HAVE TO BE more noticeable. Particularly when you don't include interest on the old debt, which you did NOT. Or discount the effect of the ongoing socialist programs passed by the Democrats, which you did not.
It becomes clear you are a Democratic party hack trying to disguise yourself as a neutral, so I'm done with this thread. Going to the unsubscribe button now.
