Posted on 8/29/2009, 3:06:24 AM by adamjeeps
I have always wanted to do this so I figured I would put together a little project.
Since 1980, the national debt has for the most part risen under a Democrat controlled Congress and fallen under a Republican controlled Congress. I have heard the argument from the libs about Reagan and Bush hiking the national debt and Clinton reducing the debt, but who is in control over making the budgets: Congress: Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435) 2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 233
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242
From About.com
Now the debt:
From Zfacts.com
A clear conclusion can be said Republican Congress reduces the national debt and the Democrats spend, spend spend.
Uh,. . .am I stupid or something but it looks to me like the deficit is going up (in red?) during Reagan Bush years, and Bush II years.
parsy, the curious
Parsifal,
This graph should be quite self-explanatory:
Basically, who is the President is really immaterial, as the budget does not come from the President, but from the Congress. And there is a very high correlation between falling deficits and GOP control of the budgetary process. Letting the Democrats control either (or worse, both) chamber will increase the deficits.
I just get sick and tired of hearing how Clinton reduced the deficit and Bush spent too much. I am sick of the Dems asking why we were not upset over Bush's deficit spending, but they forget that the deficit did not skyrocket until the 2006 Democrat Congress wins. They call us the hypocrites but have no clue as to how the budget actually works.
I hope someone points these facts out during the TEA Party weekend because I know CNN and the drive-by’s will say Bush started the problem.
Where did you get your table? I’d love to incorporate it...
And you are completely right - the deficits were dropping under President Bush and the GOP controlled Congress; the data doesn’t lie. When Pelosi and Reid took over, things exploded.
The biggest current lie: President Obama inherited the deficit! BOLLOCKS! He sat in the Senate when the 2009 budget was passed, and then he signed it into law as President (Bush promised a veto, and thus Congress never sent it to him to sign).
The 2009 deficit was created by Pelosi/Obama/Reid, and signed into law by Obama. He owns this 100%.
Here is an even better graphic:
http://blog.cleangovernmentnow.org/2009/04/03/do-you-want-our-country-and-obama-to-succeed-2.aspx
save for lib smashing
That is why we have to starting pushing back! And the first thing we do is tell Congress that the money we will allow them to spend in the future is LIMITED. There will be no more fiscal insanity by an incompetent, inept, irresponsible Congress. We, the people, need to be protected by law from Congressional insanity.
Check out Zfacts.com
Seems to be run by liberals but its fun to turn their own graph against them.
Yep, it did. Reagan got his tax cuts, just barely, and revenues increased substantially. But the Democrats held both houses of Congress, at the time, and increased spending beyond the new revenues.
while I don’t disagree with your overall assessment. There is a major, and obvious, flaw in this graph.
The last two points which you have colored blue represent the years 2007 and 2008 both years that Bush 43 was in office. Obama entered the office in Jan. 2009. although your graph has a point labeled 2009 the line connecting to it is representing the year 2008. For which, you must agree Bush 43 is responsible. Obama has done some damage since then, but give W. his due, he was no frugal spender either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.