Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The case for a divided federal government?
#2
Hoot Gibson Wrote: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.
Messages In This Thread
The case for a divided federal government? - by thecavemaster - 09-27-2010, 03:28 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)