In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does. During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html
2007-11-14 11:19:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Here are some numbers:
bush 43 $2,850,702,997,599.80
clinton $1,860,889,657,200.59
bush 41 $1,315,026,460,744.03
reagan $1,442,575,890,953.00
The numbers above reflect the change in the national debt from the approximate beginning of the president's term to the end (with the exception of Bush 41 (just through 2006)
Since most people don't understand exactly how the budgeting system works, many believe that Clinton's budgets actually reduced the national debt. As the numbers show, the national debt never decreased during Clinton's administration. Basically, the income coming in during those years outpaced the growth in spending. However, if you had removed the social security contributions, the budget was still short every year he was in office.
Interesting article from the poster beneath me. I found this quote interesting concerning the time Clinton was in office.
"After Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994, Clinton, having no real political convictions, proclaimed that the "era of big government is over," and embraced other elements of the GOP agenda, such as welfare reform. The result was that spending grew at a rate of just 0.81% during his administration, the lowest growth rate since Eisenhower."
So, no one has cut the national debt in almost the last 50 years (Eisenhowser).
2007-11-14 11:02:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by bkc99xx 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
This president has increased the national debt more than any other bar none. The debt increased under Republicans more than Democrats.
Only Clinton had a plan that actually lowered the National Debt. Bush has the distinction of running it up to the highest level ever even accounting for inflation, and he started from the surplus Clinton left him.
Trying to pay for a war while cutting taxes on the rich is the classic example of stupidity.
And its been Republicans that have controlled congress or the presidency for the last thirty two of forty years, and for eight of those, during the Clinton years, the debt went down
2007-11-14 10:57:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by justa 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
the 1st step in handling the debt is to handle the deficits. Cuts in government spending and financial develop are the foremost. Of the spending, 2/3 of that's tied up in entitlements. they might desire to be reformed to be made greater fee-sensible. element of it is by ability of utilising unfastened-marketplace amenities as element of their remaking. The unfastened-marketplace grants greater desirable, greater fee-sensible, useful, versatile and greater responsible ideas than government tries at it. photograph the government making the products and amenities you employ daily. How do you think of they could fare to those you employ daily. As for financial develop. Republicans know the thank you to restore economies. the availability-element economics they practice have worked each time they have been used for merely approximately a hundred years! that's frequently completed with tax cuts. notwithstanding, with this financial gadget, that's getting the regulatory monster, unleashed by ability of this administration directly to business enterprise, off the back of business enterprise and their vendors. American recoveries initiate, sharply, quickly after a recession ends. The recession resulted in July 2009 and has been something yet sharp. end the business enterprise-opposed atmosphere and the thought that government is the foremost to prosperity, not the deepest sector, gets a appropriate restoration going.
2016-09-29 06:15:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the republican administration.has risen the national debt the most.look at their history in government.more taxes,more spending under the republicans.most under the bush and reagan era don;t know if anyone ever lowered it.the national debt that is.
2007-11-14 11:01:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by bigjon5555 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
G H W Bush held the record for increasing the national debt until GW Bush became president.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton lowered the national debt.
2007-11-14 10:53:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
3⤊
3⤋
Republicans definitely. Mostly because republicans will get rid of a surplus. They increase government spending, usually for their own agendas and ideas. Things that will give themselves and their closest posse dollars. Republicans usually don't care if the budget is balanced or not. As long as the money is going out it don't matter.
Democrats are very conservative usually, they don't like to spend and try to decrease the spending by as much as possible, and like to have a balanced budget.
2007-11-14 10:47:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Living In Fast Forward 4
·
6⤊
3⤋
Yes.
The National Debt has Risen with EVERY Adminstration.
But the News Media keeps quiet when there is a Democrat President.
Most people on Yahoo, that worry about the National Debt, are people who don't even work & pay taxes.
After Hillary gets Elected, these same people won't even care how HIGH the Debt goes.
It's just something for Non-Workers to whine about.
2007-11-14 10:47:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by dinamuk 4
·
4⤊
9⤋
if 9/11 didn't happen Bush would have been better than Clinton on debt, freedom isn't free
2007-11-14 10:55:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by mission_viejo_california 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
Since the president doesn't spend $$$, congress does, I'd say democrat congress since they controlled it for forty years until 1994 and now for over the last year
2007-11-14 10:53:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋