The Democrats held Congress for 44 year since the sixties and the Republicans 12 and both have destroyed America.

The comments that this goes back 40 years or more (actually to the 1960's under Johnson when we first started borrowing $1 for each $1 of GDP), are correct. The democrats held Congress for 44 year since the sixties and the republicans 12 and both have destroyed America. We saw under Clinton, a 1993 tax increase and the peak and collapse of job growth rates in every sector of both durable and non-durable manufacturing. We saw a tax cut and a bubble that ramped tax collection up by billions.

Tax type.............................year.....Amount in billion........percent chg
Indidvidual........................1994.............$543........................
Indidvidual........................1995.............$590........................+8.7
Indidvidual........................1996.............$656........................+11.2
Indidvidual........................1997.............$737.......................+12.3%
Indidvidual........................1998.............$828.......................+12.4% (peaks)
Indidvidual........................1999.............$879........................+6.1% (hint of what is coming)
Indidvidual........................2000............$1,004......................+14.2% (bubble peak)
Indidvidual........................2001............$994............................-1% (bubble collapse)
2004 increase
2008 decrease

Corporation........................1994............$140........................
Corporation........................1995............$157........................+10%
Corporation........................1996............$171........................+8.9% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1997............$182........................+4% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1998............$188........................+3.2% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................1999............$184........................-2% (growth rate slowing just as is mfg job growth)
Corporation........................2000............$207........................+12.5% (bubble peaks and we get a massive influx of profits)
Corporation........................2001............$151........................-27% (bubble bursts and we collapse tax revenues)
2004 increase
2008 decrease

Unemployment Ins.............1994...........28..............................
Unemployment Ins.............1995...........29................................+3.1% (reflects higher employment)
Unemployment Ins.............1996...........28,6..............................-1% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1997...........28.2..............................-1.2% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1998...........27.5..............................-2.5%(fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............1999...........26.5...............................-3.7% (fewer workers paying in)
Unemployment Ins.............2000...........27.6................................+4.4% (bubble peaks and there is a lot of short lived hiring)
Unemployment Ins.............2001...........27.8................................+.6% (bubble bursts and we start laying off and rate shrinks again)
2003 increase (we start to see more paying in)
2007 decrease (we see the layoffs hitting this payment)

The FUTA tax rate is 6.2% of taxable wages. The taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax, on a timely basis, will receive an offset credit of up to 5.4% regardless of the rate of tax they pay the state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8% (6.2% - 5.4%), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000. = $56.00).

Look at the deficits under Clinton (increases in national debt not budget spin where off budget spending isn't counted)

Here are the increases under Clinton

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

1/21/1993... Nat. Debt ....$4,174,218,594,232.91

1/21/1994... Nat. Debt ....$4,503,707,505,503.35
debt increase $329,488,911,270.44 ( increases )

1/20/1995... Nat. Debt ....$4,796,537,934,595.60
debt increase $292,830,429,092.25 (decreases)

1/22/1996... Nat. Debt ....$4,988,050,606,130.79
debt increase $191,512,671,535.19 (decreases)

1/21/1997... Nat. Debt ....$5,310,267,076,516.85
debt increase $322,216,470,386.06 ( increases )

1/21/1998... Nat. Debt ....$5,501,520,207,927.51
debt increase $191,253,131,410.66 (decreases)

1/21/1999... Nat. Debt ....$5,600,287,708,585.56
debt increase $98,767,500,658.05 (decreases)

1/21/2000... Nat. Debt ....$5,711,817,746,476.20
debt increase $111,530,037,890.64 ( increases )

1/21/2001... Nat. Debt ....$5,728,195,796,181.57
debt increase $16,378,049,705.37 (decreases to only this much of an increase at the peak of the bubble)

At this point, the bubble bursts and we start back up as we spend to stay out of a depression the Tech Bubble would have created without the spending.

Bush tax revenues increase each year as we come out of the recession that were aided by a tax cut and housing bubble as was Clinton.

Jan-05 1.9 trillion
Jan-06 2.1 trillion
Jan-07 2.3 trillion
Jan-08 2.5 trillion

Neither President, of course, actually did much as Congress controls spending and tax rates. A president can ask for things but, Congress has to pass the legislation he signs. Presidents have very little to do with the condition of the nation. It is Congress that has the most power.

Now, for the 40 straight years that the democrats held Congress (six years they didn't hold the Senate as GOP had 53 Senators) they passed bad policy after bad policy where they spent out of recessions instead of letting them play out and cleanse the system of what was bad. They also passed social spending programs that would bankrupt the nation, not because they passed the programs but how they funded them. The systems of funding were unsustainable. Take social security which President FDR wanted to be personal accounts with annuities that workers could leave the remaining money in them to heirs. They instead funded it in a way that was totally irresponsible causing 11 short falls and 22 tax increases to try and keep it funded and now it is negative cash flow again and getting worse as wages fall and unemployment is high, causing fewer payroll tax revenues needed for funding.

Had the GOP been in control for those 40 years, you would have got the same thing because the people who advise both parties would have told them the same things they told the democrats. We have based our policies on flawed economic, monetary and tax theory for almost 100 years. It isn't the parties as much as the advice they get from the CFR, Trilateral Commission, IMF, World Bank, etc. that has caused both parties to destroy the nation. We elect politicians, not economists or businessmen that understand what it takes to have a healthy economy. They, in turn, appoint the non-partisan people from those organizations to the cabinet and as advisers. Both parties use the same source for their advisers.

While the two parties have different agendas, they base what they pass on the advice of those same organizations whether it is how to fund a war or a social program or what tax policy is or isn't going to work because the goal is to get both parties to centralize power. It is easier to control one government than 50 state governments. So, no matter what the policy a party wants they are not given good advice that actually helps the people or the nation survive in the long term. They believe debt and inflation will let the nation grow at above normal rates. This chart on the diminishing return on debt from the 60's on, shows how no matter which party is in control of Congress, they have made things worse and now this Congress has gone negative where we now lose money on each dollar we borrow.

http://www.leap2020.eu/photo/2028982-2806916.jpg?v=1271440965
==================

That is from this article that has this interesting tidbit from the international think tank that advises several nations.

quote
Winter 2010 will, equally, be the stage for another destabilised event in the United States: the first major elections since the beginning of the crisis (17) when millions of Americans will probably express their feelings that they have had a « belly-full » of a continuing crisis (18), which doesn’t affect Washington and Wall Street (19), and which creates US public debt which is now counter-productive: a borrowed Dollar now causes a loss of 40 cents (see chart below).

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-44-is-available-Global-systemic-crisis-USA-UK-The-explosive-duo-of-the-second-half-of-2010-Summer-2010-The-Bank_a4531.html
=================

One reason that the ranks of independents keep growing and are now the largest voting block is the growing awareness of how bad both parties are, yet, you still only have two choices and both are using the same advisers.

That is why that chart or this comment is not a slam on either party as much as a slam on who they get their advice from. Getting the advice from only organizations created by the international banking cartel is the same as asking a fox to guard the chickens.

Also, the FED, not Congress had most of the impact on the economy and it wasn't good. They created more boom/bust cycles that have decreased stability and instability drives business, jobs and investment dollars out of the U.S. more than any other thing. What business can plan or know what to expect when policies change with every election. You need decades of stable policy if you want companies to trust a government not to make things worse