I have to agree with AustinRoth that you did not, in fact, refute the claim I made about the deficit being turned around and reduced only at times during Democratic Presidents and Republican Congresses.

For some reason you went into damage control mode to protect your beloved party. I wasn't even slamming democrats. You ought to know by now that I am a democrat. I was merely pointing out trends.

Austin is also correct that the Congress controls the purse strings. However…. The President WRITES the budget. It is only approved by Congress. My main point is that the government works well with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. They compliment each other.

Regardless, when one party controls both branches – things get out of hand. Something tells me that you agreed with that in 2001 when Repubs controlled it all. Something also tells me that you don't hold the same candle up to the Democrats now, however.

You really should. This ain't about party. It should NEVER be about party.

The last sentence of your comment:

The ghost of Bush can no longer be blamed when it is THEIR votes that cause the debt to go higher.

Is what I was addressing.

You are grasping at straws, misrepresentation and outright lies rather than just saying 'I misread the meaning of JD's post.'

That tells us a lot about your lack of character. I have in the past when shown to be wrong or having misinterpreted someone's words been more than willing to admit it.

Man up, dude.

You've already forgetting the flurry of calls and letters to congress at that time? Or maybe you're thinking that Bush was popular and that mainstream Republicans were cheering him on? I remember the MSM screaming at the top of its lungs that it was desperately needed or we would all die, and both presidential candidates practically falling over each other to get back to congress first so that they could get it passed, but not the people. Of course, Bush was on his way out, so there wasn't much anyone could do to him, but I know a lot of people were relieved (temporarily) when congress first rejected the bailouts.

I know this isn't going sit well with many of you, but domestically, Obama seems to be just a continuation of Bush.

I'd snicker but it's a sickening joke on Americans as well as on America.

AustinRoth wrote: “Your bias seems to be causing you to lose your ability to read and comprehend, to the extent it was there to begin with.”

AustinRoth -

Your bias seems to have caused you to lose the ability to comprehend the fact that the President and the 111th Congress have only been in session for nine months. And you implication that “recent history” is only the last nine month is silly.

Where was your concern when the republicans (and the George W Bush administration in particular) got us into this mess? Much of the trillions of current “wasteful spending” is the same military funding that Bush funded, the difference?.. President Obama put on the books where it belonged. From a surplus to a multitrillion dollar deficit in eight years of George Bush and all the republicans can say is “You've gotta quit blaming Bush.”

It's embarrassing and it's shameful for the right expects all the economic problems caused by ten years of republican mismanagement and failure to be solved in nine months. And all the republican minority seems to be doing is exacerbating the problem with divisive tactics.

“to the extent it was there to begin with” eh Austin? You're starting to sound like jwest.

Your bias seems to be causing you to lose your ability to read and comprehend, to the extent it was there to begin with.

Your post makes no sense as a counter-point as you try to present it, as it only goes to support what JD said – that the times of real deficit reduction in recent history are during a Democratic President with a Republican Congress.

How do you think showing Bush had a Republican Congress and making pithy remarks about it proves anything other than his point?

106th United States Congress – January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001
The Senate – January 3, 1999 – 55 Republicans / 45 Democrats
The Senate Republicans had a 54% to 46% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 51.2% to the Democrats 48.5%.

107th United States Congress – January 3, 2001 to January 3, 2003
The Senate – January 3, 2001 – 50 Republicans / 50 Democrats
The Senate Republicans had a 51.5% to 48.5% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 52.0% to the Democrats 48.0%.

108th United States Congress – January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005
The Senate – January 3, 2003 – 50 Republicans / 48 Democrats / 1 Independent / 1 Ind (D)
The Senate Republicans had a 51% to 49% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 52.0% to the Democrats 48.0%.

109th United States Congress – January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007
The Senate – January 3, 2005 – 55 Republicans / 44 Democrats / 1 Independent
The Senate Republicans had a 55% to 45% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Republicans 53.0% to the Democrats 47.0%.

110th United States Congress – January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009
The Senate – January 3, 2007 – 48 (49) Democrats / 2 (1) Independent / 49 Republicans
The Senate Democrats had a 50.5% to 49.5% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Democrats 54.3% to the Republicans 45.7%.

111th United States Congress – January 3, 2009, and January 3, 2011
The Senate – January 3, 2009 – 58 Democrats / 2 Independent / 40 Republicans
The Senate Democrats had a 60% to 40% majority (with Lieberman and the BlueDogs voting the GOP line)
The numbers in the House fluctuates but the final voting share was Democrats 59.1% to the Republicans 40.9%.

In the last 10 years:
2 Congresses (106th / 109th) had a strong Republican majority. 4 years. 2 w/ D 2w/ R President
3 Congresses (107th / 108th / 110th) were balanced. 6 years. 6 years w/ R President
1 Congress (110th) has a strong Democrat majority. 9 MONTHS. 9 MONTHS w/ D President

Like JD says (after looking at one graph) the numbers prove that this mess just HAS to be the Democrats fault… LOL

1.) Means test Social Security. Warren Buffet and the elderly very rich don't need it.
2.) Tax everyone's earnings fully for SS. The arbitrary $106,000 or whatever it is, makes no sense. (and the antitaxers can bite it–I would guarantee that my husband and I would pay much more tax–but we would gladly, if it helped get the country back on track)
3.) Encourage hospice and comfort care at end of life, rather than expensive tests and procedures that may lengthen life slightly, but add incredible costs to he rest of us.
4.) Get the hell out of Dodge–Afghanistan and Iraq.

That would be a start.

However, that was only the case after 1976. After 1976 our politics and economy changed. Our politics became more divisive and our economy shifted into “service” mode after jobs began to be shipped out of the country. It was also the time our energy became irreversibly controlled by foreign dictatorships and monarchs.

Now with a Democratic President and Congress our debt is climbing at the fastest rate in history. That worked in 1945 since we had a huge industrial sector with jobs a-plenty. It just won't work the same this time around. The spending will be just that – spending. No tangible benefits for the working man.

You'd make an excellent military leader, Polimom (if you aren't one already).
Well said.

Placing those with the original graphs depicting Presidential rule, another conclusion can be reached.

The eras of most downward trend were during times when a Democratic President was presiding with a Full Republican Congress (Truman and Clinton). Both of these instances were reversals of upward debt into a better economy and lower debt.

At no time in history has such a reversal been acheived with same party rule with the President and Congress. That goes for both parties.

And yes, the Democrats are indeed running us into debt oblivion. And yes, it was started by a Republican (Bush). The ghost of Bush can no longer be blamed when it is THEIR votes that cause the debt to go higher.

Say what you want about Bill and Newt, but they left us in the best fiscal shape of my lifetime.

Ahh, the wonders of divided government. Federal spending tends to go up whenever one party controls both the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of which party is in power.

Even the few cuts that Obama suggested earlier this year are now being snubbed by his own party. You would think that out of 2.5 trillion, something could be cut out.

1) On Medicare, we are planning major cuts (particularly to Medicare Advantage) and if the larger health care bill bends the total cost curve then it will help. Still, health care is going to continue to eat up an alarming slice of the American budget as we live longer, eat unhealthy food, and use fancy technology.

2) On Social Security the answer is pretty easy if a commission gives the political cover to do it: Raise the retirement age to 67, and raise the cap from roughly 90k to 130k. That will take care of a HUGE chunk of our deficit and our long term debt.

3) On defense, continue cutting wasteful weapons systems and move away from neocon imperial fantasies.

Eventually we will need to raise income taxes, though probably not by a lot. We've seen over the last few decades that marginal increases and decreases in income tax rates have virtually no effect on the national economy – but a large effect on the government's balance sheet.

Make the bold choices on long-term spending and revenue and we will be alright.

Also, not all spending is bad. But we definitely need to reign it in. But hey, the Big 2 have it all figured out: back-forth and blame and do the same. Whatever…