[Hoot Gibson]

Prior to the elections of 1994, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for four decades. Since 1994, Republicans and Democrats have taken turns controlling the White House and the House of Representatives.

For anybody who believes that money does not grow on a federal tree, the historical trends of the national debt under different political circumstances indicate the following:

1. The federal debt tends to rise more quickly when the same party controls both the White House and the House of Representatives. However, the national debt increased more rapidly under President Bush after Democrats took control of the House.

2. The worst case, in terms of the accumulation of our national debt is when Democrats control both the House and the White House.

3. The only recent period during which the rate of increase of the national debt dropped was the period during which Republicans controlled the House with Bill Clinton in the White House.

I compiled these statistics from the federal government's TreasuryDirect web site. I calculated the rates of increase myself, so please let me know if you find any errors.

I believe that the best combination would be for fiscal conservatives to control both the presidency and the House but we have not yet put that scenario to the test.

What the following numbers clearly show is that teaming Barack Obama with a House of Representatives controlled by liberal Democrats is hands down the worst possible scenario with regard to the national debt.

However, I probably would not have even noticed that Obama and his cohorts in Congress are driving this nation into bankruptcy if not for the fact that our president is a black man. Right, CaveMan? :eyeroll:

• 1/31/1993: $3.8 trillion Clinton takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $28.6 billion/month with Democrats in control of the House.[/INDENT]
  
  
• 10/31/1994: $4.4 trillion Reps take control of House.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $16 billion/month with Republicans in control of the House.[/INDENT]
  
  
• 1/31/2001: $5.6 trillion Bush takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $43 billion/month with Republicans controlling the House.[/INDENT]
  
  
• 10/31/2006: $8.6 trillion Dems take control of House.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $74 billion/month with Democrats controlling the House.[/INDENT]
  
  
• 1/31/2009: $10.6 trillion Obama takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $147 billion/month with Democrats controlling both the House and the presidency.[/INDENT]
  
  
• 8/31/2010: $13.4 trillion Current national debt.
  

[thecavemaster]

Prior to the elections of 1994, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for four decades. Since 1994, Republicans and Democrats have taken turns controlling the White House and the House of Representatives.

For anybody who believes that money does not grow on a federal tree, the historical trends of the national debt under different political circumstances indicate the following:

1. The federal debt tends to rise more quickly when the same party controls both the White House and the House of Representatives. However, the national debt increased more rapidly under President Bush after Democrats took control of the House.

2. The worst case, in terms of the accumulation of our national debt is when Democrats control both the House and the White House.

3. The only recent period during which the rate of increase of the national debt dropped was the period during which Republicans controlled the House with Bill Clinton in the White House.

I compiled these statistics from the federal government's TreasuryDirect web site. I calculated the rates of increase myself, so please let me know if you find any errors.

I believe that the best combination would be for fiscal conservatives to control both the presidency and the House but we have not yet put that scenario to the test.

What the following numbers clearly show is that teaming Barack Obama with a House of Representatives controlled by liberal Democrats is hands down the worst possible scenario with regard to the national debt.

However, I probably would not have even noticed that Obama and his cohorts in Congress are driving this nation into bankruptcy if not for the fact that our president is a black man. Right, CaveMan? :eyeroll:

• 1/31/1993: $3.8 trillion Clinton takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $28.6 billion/month with Democrats in control of the House.
  [/INDENT]
  
• 10/31/1994: $4.4 trillion Reps take control of House.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $16 billion/month with Republicans in control of the House.
  [/INDENT]
  
• 1/31/2001: $5.6 trillion Bush takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $43 billion/month with Republicans controlling the House.
  [/INDENT]
  
• 10/31/2006: $8.6 trillion Dems take control of House.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $74 billion/month with Democrats controlling the House.
  [/INDENT]
  
• 1/31/2009: $10.6 trillion Obama takes office.
  
  
• [INDENT]Debt increased at rate of $147 billion/month with Democrats controlling both the House and the presidency.
  [/INDENT]
  
• 8/31/2010: $13.4 trillion Current national debt.
  

I'm assuming you've stopped actually reading posts that don't conincide with exactly what you believe. So many ancillary factors contribute to what you've stated above that I have to conclude it is simply another way you have invented of telling the truth...but telling it at a slant. Republicans use the "national debt" crisis always as a way of shrinking the size of government so corporations can rape the land, screw the little people, and give them tons of money to campaign on so the cycle can pepetuate.

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm assuming you've stopped actually reading posts that don't conincide with exactly what you believe. So many ancillary factors contribute to what you've stated above that I have to conclude it is simply another way you have invented of telling the truth...but telling it at a slant. Republicans use the "national debt" crisis always as a way of shrinking the size of government so corporations can rape the land, screw the little people, and give them tons of money to campaign on so the cycle can pepetuate.

That is your problem. All you do is assume and your assumptions have no basis in fact.

[thecavemaster]

That is your problem. All you do is assume and your assumptions have no basis in fact.

No, it is, apparently, your problem. I have here accused no one of racism. I have suggested that in at least some of the vitriolic opposition to Obama there is an element of racism. I also suggested legitimate policy differences exist and attributed no personal racism to you...and stated it plainly. The facts you state are slanted, in the same way the political news, as Fox reports it, is based in fact, but slanted. "Tell the truth, but tell it at a slant."

[Hoot Gibson]

No, it is, apparently, your problem. I have here accused no one of racism. I have suggested that in at least some of the vitriolic opposition to Obama there is an element of racism. I also suggested legitimate policy differences exist and attributed no personal racism to you...and stated it plainly. The facts you state are slanted, in the same way the political news, as Fox reports it, is based in fact, but slanted. "Tell the truth, but tell it at a slant."

You have repeatedly implied that I am a racist and anybody who reads your posts knows that is a fact. This is another thread where I have provided hard, cold facts and a link to the source of the statistics. If you want to rebut my conclusions, then have at it, but your obsession with race is wearing thin.

[Old School]

You have repeatedly implied that I am a racist and anybody who reads your posts knows that is a fact. This is another thread where I have provided hard, cold facts and a link to the source of the statistics. If you want to rebut my conclusions, then have at it, but your obsession with race is wearing thin.

Hoot... we all know, anyone who disagrees with Barry is a racist or at least according to CM anyway.:biggrin:

[thecavemaster]

You have repeatedly implied that I am a racist and anybody who reads your posts knows that is a fact. This is another thread where I have provided hard, cold facts and a link to the source of the statistics. If you want to rebut my conclusions, then have at it, but your obsession with race is wearing thin.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not know whether you are a racist or not, but I assume not.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot... we all know, anyone who disagrees with Barry is a racist or at least according to CM anyway.:biggrin:

I think that Obama's election effectively removed the race card from Democrats' hand. If racism in this country were half as pervasive as CM and his ilk believe, Obama would never have been elected. Nor would conservative blacks like Alan West have any chance of getting elected to office in predominately white, Republican districts.

People who refuse to acknowledge Obama's many blunders as president because he is black are doing a real disservice to minorities in this country.

[thecavemaster]

Hoot... we all know, anyone who disagrees with Barry is a racist or at least according to CM anyway.:biggrin:

Patently false, Old School. You reference the President as "Barry" as "Hussein," then post what you just did? You're funny too.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have repeatedly stated that I do not know whether you are a racist or not, but I assume not.

Sure, CM and that is why you raise the question every few posts. It's like asking the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question over and over and over. From where I stand, it just seems like you are too lazy to debate political issues in any factual context. It is much easier and less time consuming to just constantly question other people's motives. But then you already know that, don't you?

[thecavemaster]

I think that Obama's election effectively removed the race card from Democrats' hand. If racism in this country were half as pervasive as CM and his ilk believe, Obama would never have been elected. Nor would conservative blacks like Alan West have any chance of getting elected to office in predominately white, Republican districts.

People who refuse to acknowledge Obama's many blunders as president because he is black are doing a real disservice to minorities in this country.

The most vitriolic opposition of Obama is rooted in race. Are you suggesting these folks helped get Obama elected? This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. To oppose Barack Obama's policies is not racist. To hate him probably is. I did not agree with George H. W. Bush in lots of areas, thought his decisions harmed the best interest of the country, but I didn't hate him. Can you say that of Obama? Any RIght Wing Flirty invited to answer.

[Hoot Gibson]

The most vitriolic opposition of Obama is rooted in race. Are you suggesting these folks helped get Obama elected? This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. To oppose Barack Obama's policies is not racist. To hate him probably is. I did not agree with George H. W. Bush in lots of areas, thought his decisions harmed the best interest of the country, but I didn't hate him. Can you say that of Obama? Any RIght Wing Flirty invited to answer.

Do you have anything at all to say that is relevant to this thread? If not, then I think our dialogue has come to an end here. We already know that you see racism around every corner, under every bed, and in every dark closet. There is no need to rehash that fact again.

[thecavemaster]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]Sure, CM and that is why you raise the question every few posts. It's like asking the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question over and over and over. From where I stand, it just seems like you are too lazy to debate political issues in any factual context. It is much easier and less time consuming to just constantly question other people's motives. But then you already know that, don't you?[/QUOT E]

I believe in people's right to decent, affordable health care, that it is not a luxury or an earned pedigree, especially the working poor. You? I believe that 40% is not an excessive rate of taxation for those earning over, let's say, $350,000 per year. You? I believe it is irresponsible to cut taxes in time of war, and to ask for no sacrifice whatsoever. You? I will vote for people who pursue these ideas, these philosophies, in puruit of more and more promotion of the "general welfare" as that phrase is used by the Framers. You? I believe in a federal government strong enough to adapt and govern an ever growing population. I believe in a federal government strong enough to regulate mulit-national corporations that, to say the least, don't always have the best interest of "the little people" at heart? You? I know this: I wouldn't call that feather you keep stuffing in your hat macaroni.

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]Sure, CM and that is why you raise the question every few posts. It's like asking the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question over and over and over. From where I stand, it just seems like you are too lazy to debate political issues in any factual context. It is much easier and less time consuming to just constantly question other people's motives. But then you already know that, don't you?[/QUOT E]

I believe in people's right to decent, affordable health care, that it is not a luxury or an earned pedigree, especially the working poor. You? I believe that 40% is not an excessive rate of taxation for those earning over, let's say, $350,000 per year. You? I believe it is irresponsible to cut taxes in time of war, and to ask for no sacrifice whatsoever. You? I will vote for people who pursue these ideas, these philosophies, in puruit of more and more promotion of the "general welfare" as that phrase is used by the Framers. You? I believe in a federal government strong enough to adapt and govern an ever growing population. I believe in a federal government strong enough to regulate mulit-national corporations that, to say the least, don't always have the best interest of "the little people" at heart? You? I know this: I wouldn't call that feather you keep stuffing in your hat macaroni.

Try again. The topic is the national debt and its explosive growth under President Obama's watch.

[thecavemaster]

Sure, CM and that is why you raise the question every few posts. It's like asking the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question over and over and over. From where I stand, it just seems like you are too lazy to debate political issues in any factual context. It is much easier and less time consuming to just constantly question other people's motives. But then you already know that, don't you?

I'm assuming you're not a racist, Hoot. You don't have to answer that. However, that's now what we are here discussing, and you know that. I am assuming that you are an ultra conservative person who believes in less government. What I object to is referring to Barack Obama as a "socislist" or as a non-citizen or as a non-Christian and that stuff. I believe in decent, affordable healthcare for all, especially the working poor. I believe that a 40% tax rate for those making over, say, $350,000 is not excessive. I believe in a strong federal government, strong enough to regulate the huge mulit-nationals that RULE our planet, if we're not very careful. What, exactly, is it you value? Just so I understand: you are asserting that racism plays no role in opposition to Barack Obama? Not your racism, Hoot, but is it a factor at some levels?

[Hoot Gibson]

I'm assuming you're not a racist, Hoot. You don't have to answer that. However, that's now what we are here discussing, and you know that. I am assuming that you are an ultra conservative person who believes in less government. What I object to is referring to Barack Obama as a "socislist" or as a non-citizen or as a non-Christian and that stuff. I believe in decent, affordable healthcare for all, especially the working poor. I believe that a 40% tax rate for those making over, say, $350,000 is not excessive. I believe in a strong federal government, strong enough to regulate the huge mulit-nationals that RULE our planet, if we're not very careful. What, exactly, is it you value? Just so I understand: you are asserting that racism plays no role in opposition to Barack Obama? Not your racism, Hoot, but is it a factor at some levels?

Bye bye, CM. You've wasted enough of my time for one night.

[thecavemaster]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]Bye bye, CM. You've wasted enough of my time for one night.[/

Hugs and kisses, Hack Gibson. Working poor having adequate medical care not worth your time? Well, then, you are a neo-con after all.

[Old School]

Patently false, Old School. You reference the President as "Barry" as "Hussein," then post what you just did? You're funny too.

I started to say Barry "the socialist" but I didn't to send you off the deep end.:eyeroll:

[Hoot Gibson]

I started to say Barry "the socialist" but I didn't to send you off the deep end.:eyeroll:

There is a deeper end? :lmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

Old news, but still worth repeating.

[INDENT]

By the time George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion. He ran up more debt faster than nearly all of his predecessors combined: just under $4.9-trillion.

The National Debt stood at $10.6-trillon on the day Barack Obama took office. But if his budget projections are accurate, he'll run up nearly as much government debt in four years as President Bush did in eight. - more at CBS News...National Debt Hits Record $11 Trillion

[/INDENT]

[thecavemaster]

There is a deeper end? :lmao:

Where the deer and the antelope play, and seldom is heard
such a blundering turd than when Right Wing Flirties
pat each other on the back and stroke each other's hair.

[thecavemaster]

I started to say Barry "the socialist" but I didn't to send you off the deep end.:eyeroll:

Why, Old School, that would be expected. But, if he's not a socialist, why would you call him one? Art thou too a Propogandist? Hush your mouth....

[Old School]

Why, Old School, that would be expected. But, if he's not a socialist, why would you call him one? Art thou too a Propogandist? Hush your mouth....

CM....your persistent unyielding infatuation with Barry "the socialist" is admirable. While he has been in office for 20 months now, you should realize even a newborn pup will open their eyes after a week or two. At which time they are greeted with an amazing assortment of sights.

[thecavemaster]

CM....your persistent unyielding infatuation with Barry "the socialist" is admirable. While he has been in office for 20 months now, you should realize even a newborn pup will open their eyes after a week or two. At which time they are greeted with an amazing assortment of sights.

I believe in decent, affordable healthcare for everyone, especially the working poor. That principle is more important to me than the politician. That's one "for instance." I will vote for Barack Obama in 2012, not because he's the messiah or perfect or whatever else you Right Wing Flirties fling, but because, when compared to his Republican opponent, he will most closely reflect, most likely, principles I hold. How do you vote? Against your own economic interests probably, which makes the "newborn pup" routine an interesting boomerrang....

[Old School]

I believe in decent, affordable healthcare for everyone, especially the working poor. That principle is more important to me than the politician. That's one "for instance." I will vote for Barack Obama in 2012, not because he's the messiah or perfect or whatever else you Right Wing Flirties fling, but because, when compared to his Republican opponent, he will most closely reflect, most likely, principles I hold. How do you vote? Against your own economic interests probably, which makes the "newborn pup" routine an interesting boomerrang....

Is that what Obamacare is, affordable healthcare for everyone? Queen Pelosi said they would have pass the healthcare plan to see what's in it. Wouldn't it have been prudent for the politicans to know what's in the bill before voting yea? Barry and crew held a majority in both the house and senate, and still had to bribe several of their own to get them to vote for it. What does that tell you about the plan?

Obamacare slashes 500 million dollars away from Medicare. How does that help anyone? Premiums rates are going up, deductables are going up, and coverages are decreasing. Does that help anyone?

As for you voting for Barry 2012, I would expect no less from you. As I said before your unwavering infatuation with Obama is unmistakeable.