Debt Up $1.59T Under GOP House

[Trinnity]

Debt Up $1.59T Under GOP House—More in 15 Months Than First 97 Congresses Combined
(http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-159t-under-gop-house-more-15-months-first-97-congresses-combined)


http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/medium/images/BOEHNER-CANTOR-AP%20PHOTO.jpg (http://cnsnews.com/image/john-boehner-eric-cantor-1)


(CNSNews.com) - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.
In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives--led by Speaker John Boehner--has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.



Dammit, republicans - we conservatives and libertarians are holding you accountable too. We can throw your asses out in a heartbeat.
You think you can control us Boehner? LOL

We'll get more fiscal conservatives in. The party is OVER.

[Peter1469]

Dammit, republicans - we conservatives and libertarians are holding you accountable too. We can throw your asses out in a heartbeat.
You think you can control us Boehner? LOL

We'll get more fiscal conservatives in. The party is OVER.

1. The GOP House has passed several budgets over the last 15 months. All died in the Senate.
2. When Reagan's budgets were killed by the Democrat Congress during his administration, and the Democrat Congress passed huge budgets, Reagan got the blame....

[Shoot the Goose]

The GOP is not going to change the spending curve until we at least get the Senate too. This is all Obama and the Dem's BS. As noted, they won't pass a budget. And if you do not pass the continuing appropriations, the Dems will shut down government, and just keep it all about political blame.

[MMC]

1. The GOP House has passed several budgets over the last 15 months. All died in the Senate.
2. When Reagan's budgets were killed by the Democrat Congress during his administration, and the Democrat Congress passed huge budgets, Reagan got the blame....


Yes, but this piece says the House has Enacted. So wouldn't this mean the ones that have been approved? Moreover Cantor is a straight up putz and clearly not a leader. We need to run his azz out of the House. Same thing with Boner. Then Boner can get back to what he luvs doing best. Tanning and playing some golf. As far as i am concerned both are a dedriment to US politics.

C.I.N.O.s thats what these guys are. :angry:

[Beevee]

What's this? Attacks by Republican sympathisers on the GOP?

Where's SMW to straighten the ship?

[Trinnity]

C.I.N.O.s thats what these guys are. :angry:You better not be talking about me! I'll pinch you, sonny~ :grin:

[MMC]

You better not be talking about me! I'll pinch you, sonny~ :grin:

No not you Trinnity.....Boner and Cantor. They can talk a good game about being conservative. But if they truly were they would have done what Rand Paul did when he got elected. He cut staff, offices and made sure there was no unnecessary spending by his staff and himself. He showed the results to all others that could immediately have made a serious statement to all of Congress and this President.

[Goldie Locks]

I have wondered since the GOP took over the house why haven't they just defunded some of these programs???

[Trinnity]

Yeah, Rand Paul is the real deal. I like him a lot.

[Chris]

We saw the same thing with Contract with America with Gingrich giving in to the old boy network, anything to gain power.

[Shoot the Goose]

We saw the same thing with Contract with America with Gingrich giving in to the old boy network, anything to gain power.

Frankly, no we did not. Gingrich's House passed virtually all of the Contract, but more importantly, it was Gingrich's House that caused Bill Clinton to knuckle under and get a grip on spending. If we get the Senate back, then we'll what the GOP can do.


In any case, you are quite mistaken.

[Chris]

Frankly, no we did not. Gingrich's House passed virtually all of the Contract, but more importantly, it was Gingrich's House that caused Bill Clinton to knuckle under and get a grip on spending. If we get the Senate back, then we'll what the GOP can do.


In any case, you are quite mistaken.

Contract with America achieved a lot. I think you forget Gingrich sold out when it came time to close down the government.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps that is because the American people turned against Newt. Politics does not happen in a vacuum.

[Shoot the Goose]

Contract with America achieved a lot. I think you forget Gingrich sold out when it came time to close down the government.

He didn't sell out. He lost that fight. Stop just making stuff up.

[Chris]

He didn't sell out. He lost that fight. Stop just making stuff up.

I take it you're a supporter of that statist.

[Shoot the Goose]

I take it you're a supporter of that statist.

You can take it that I know what I am talking about.

Always.

Which means I don't make stuff up in forums. ;)

[Chris]

Perhaps that is because the American people turned against Newt. Politics does not happen in a vacuum.

No, the young Contract with America congressmen were ready to keep the government shut down, but the old boy network, led by Dole, who'd gotten used to kowtowing to Dem dominance, made Gingrich one of their own, and the shut down ended.

Newt fell from grace with the people later.

[Peter1469]

In a Republic, sometimes the leaders don't get their way.

[Smartmouthwoman]

The GOP is not going to change the spending curve until we at least get the Senate too. This is all Obama and the Dem's BS. As noted, they won't pass a budget. And if you do not pass the continuing appropriations, the Dems will shut down government, and just keep it all about political blame.

Thank gawd they labeled Reps The Party of No! Think of how much they woulda spent if they'd said Yes!!!

I'd have to see details before getting too excited about this report. It wasn't that long ago Barack was threatening seniors with missing their next SS check if the Reps didn't give him what he wanted. For now, I'll file this story in the same folder as the one on Obama spending less than any president in history.

The smoke & mirrors file.

[Shoot the Goose]

Thank gawd they labeled Reps The Party of No! Think of how much they woulda spent if they'd said Yes!!!

I'd have to see details before getting too excited about this report. It wasn't that long ago Barack was threatening seniors with missing their next SS check if the Reps didn't give him what he wanted. For now, I'll file this story in the same folder as the one on Obama spending less than any president in history.

The smoke & mirrors file.

What some do not realize, or remember, or have taken time to research, is that Gingrich did hold his ground on a Government shut-down ... and got his political ass handed to him. Penny-wise and pound-foolish at the time, learned the hard way.

We are not going to revamp America, that is to make the structural changes necessary, without waging and winning the political battle. Ethical highground is not enough.

[Chris]

Well, I doubt we'll take the White House, so holding Congress and taking the Senate is the better plan. The US works better under a divided government.

[Conley]

Things do seem to work marginally better (or maybe I should say not as bad) when Congress and the White House are opposing parties. I haven't followed it closely but it's projected to be a Republican senate, right?

[Chris]

Non-Defense Spending Relative to GDP, Color-Coded by Party in Power, or the Obama Hockey Stick (http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2011/08/graph-non-defense-spending-relative-to.html)
http://i.snag.gy/88qDF.jpg
http://i.snag.gy/QX7oR.jpg

Looking at the first graph, which displays which political party controlled the Presidency, we can see a sharp increase under President Carter (a Democrat), movement up and down under Reagan and HW Bush (Republicans), a sharp decrease under Clinton (a Democrat), a modest trend up under W Bush (Republican), and then a mind-bottling explosion of an increase under Obama (a Democrat). The conclusion that I draw is that Republicans keep federal defense spending as a share of GDP near the historical average when they are in power, but Democrats are more inconsistent- there was Clinton on one side of the ledger, and Carter and Obama on the other. In particular, Democrat Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States when it comes to this measure.

Looking at the second graph, which displays which political party controlled the Congress, we can see an increase under Democrats (particularly when paired with a Democratic President), a modest decline under a divided Congress, another sharp increase under Democrats (particularly when paired with a Democratic President), a sharp decrease under Republicans, steady under divided government, steady under Republicans, another sharp increase under Democrats (particularly when paired with a Democratic President), and steady under divided government (with the little data that we have). The lesson here is more clear- under Democrats, non-defense spending increased at a greater percentage than GDP increased, and that giving Democrats total control of government (President and Congress) resulting in irresponsible explosions in non-defense spending and/or the collapse of the GDP. Putting Republicans in charge seems like the best bet- they keep this measure steady or decrease it, either by cutting spending or by increasing the GDP.