Historic 111th Congress

[Gipper]

Another Record!… 111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined – $10,429 Per Person!
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 12:55 AM

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.

It was historic.
Barack Obama tripled the national deficit in one year. When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress the national deficit was $162 billion. When she exits in 2011 as Speaker it will be at $1.29 Trillion dollars.
Obama topped a trillion dollars his second year, too.

Spending was up 84% under Obama.

CNS News reported:

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...rst-100-congresses-combined-10429-per-person/

None of this is a problem. Just tax the rich more...so thinks a DUPE.

But damn...do you see how much Reagan spent???

BO is trying destroy our constitutional republic and he is doing a good job of it.

 

[dogtowner]

they should really make those pols take an oath to defend the Constitution so this sort of thing cant happen any more.


oh wait.....

 

[Rick]

The lib media talking heads are having two orgasms apiece over the "historic congress". For them, "historic", spoken approvingly, means gigantic debt creation and huge growth in statism and the reach of government, with consequences that will probably be catastrophic for the country.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I kept telling Obama not to have the econ fall into a tailspin right before he took over, and no more tax cuts as they add to the debt...but nope did not happen.

you guys can B....about the debt, when you say no to tax cuts unless paid for...or pay for your wars under Republican leadership...or if you could not have the Banks and auto industry tank right as your leaving office, that would be great as well.

 

[Rick]

I kept telling Obama not to have the econ fall into a tailspin right before he took over, and no more tax cuts

Self-contradiction.

 

[Apathy]

\
But damn...do you see how much Reagan spent???

Red ink is red ink.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Red ink is red ink.

red ink is not always red ink...short term red to fix long term red is not the same as long term red...

but that aside...Just think if Regan had the same economy as we have today...having the banks fall, the auto industry fall, the houseing maket crushed, ....and then spent as much as he did...I bet the line would look alot the same here...

 

[Rick]

red ink is not always red ink...short term red to fix long term red is not the same as long term red...

but that aside...Just think if Regan had the same economy as we have today...having the banks fall, the auto industry fall, the houseing maket crushed, ....and then spent as much as he did...I bet the line would look alot the same here...

Leftwingies repeat bald-faced lies over and over. Reagan solved the economic disaster left him by jimmy carter with tax cuts. He increased taxes six years into his administration to save liberal spending programs, on the promise they would cut spending three to one. They lied, and never cut spending. Whether it's leftwing pols or their legions of dupes, lying is a way of life.

 

[BigRob]

red ink is not always red ink...short term red to fix long term red is not the same as long term red...

Except when that "short term" red ink does not actually "fix" anything down the road.

but that aside...Just think if Regan had the same economy as we have today...having the banks fall, the auto industry fall, the houseing maket crushed, ....and then spent as much as he did...I bet the line would look alot the same here...

Ever hear of the Savings and Loan Crisis, or the 12% inflation rate he had coming into office? Or the recession we did not get out of until 1922, or the average 7.5% joblessness he was dealing with, or the stock market crash of 1987?

Reagan had his share of economic disasters to deal with.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Except when that "short term" red ink does not actually "fix" anything down the road.



Ever hear of the Savings and Loan Crisis, or the 12% inflation rate he had coming into office? Or the recession we did not get out of until 1922, or the average 7.5% joblessness he was dealing with, or the stock market crash of 1987?

Reagan had his share of economic disasters to deal with.

savings and loan was small next to what the banks had this time. that crash of 87 was not as big as well. there was not 2 wars, going on...the recession till 22 not sure what you mean in terms of Regan?

and yes I know that red ink that does not fix anything is not the same as red ink that does...that was my point..that not all red ink is the same...

ALso Regan...had much higher taxes...that always helps bring in income to reduce debt...as its paid for.

 

[BigRob]

savings and loan was small next to what the banks had this time. that crash of 87 was not as big as well. there was not 2 wars, going on...the recession till 22 not sure what you mean in terms of Regan?

Haha, I meant the recession that ended in 1982..

However, the Savings and Loan crisis was a big deal at the time, and while the stock market crash was not as bad as today, it was still a pretty big deal.

and yes I know that red ink that does not fix anything is not the same as red ink that does...that was my point..that not all red ink is the same...

What "red ink" today are you citing that will "fix" the red ink of tomorrow?

ALso Regan...had much higher taxes...that always helps bring in income to reduce debt...as its paid for.

Much higher taxes as compared to when? As for increasing revenue, higher taxes do not increase revenue unless GDP is increased.. historically the numbers show that revenue collected as a percentage of GDP remains pretty much the same regardless of tax rates.

 

[Gipper]

Much higher taxes as compared to when? As for increasing revenue, higher taxes do not increase revenue unless GDP is increased.. historically the numbers show that revenue collected as a percentage of GDP remains pretty much the same regardless of tax rates.

Big Rob, you and others have made that factual statement multiple times here at the HOP, but liberals and other leftists either do not comprehend it or chose to ignore it. They cling to the belief that raising taxes on the wealthy will fix the problems caused by decades of deficit spending by progressive politicians. Of course they are wrong, but that does not stop them.

Many liberals also do not understand that when governments raise taxes, citizens change their behavior to avoid the new taxes often resulting in no gain or a reduction in receipts to the treasury.