Talk about Voodoo economics. Ronald Reagan left office with a budget deficit larger than the combined total of all of his 39 predecessors. Output fell 2.2% in 1982 while budget deficits soared. When Reagan took office in 1981, the national debt stood at $995 billion. Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion. It was the last black ink America would see for decades, perhaps forever. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton.
2006-12-23 16:57:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
They simply do not know what a dollar or a cent is. They only recognize money when it comes by the billions. War back in the day, did create money surplusses, and products. In today's world the USA's GNP(gross national product), which has dwindled due to the outsourcing of jobs, falls far below what war costs, which in turn bankrupts the nation.
Bush is using outdated formulas, because he personally knows very little about economics.
2006-12-24 05:26:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Schona 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's my job, 20 years now, I started at 18, I went to a huge institution, and was terrified, I also lived in. After a few weeks I realised it was the best job. It was such a rewarding job, and when I say a laugh, I mean it in the best possible way. I can't imagine anything else, as my job matters, and when I think of an office job, I cannot see how that really matters to anybody. It's funny how now I train others to do the job, I really understand the shock and in-trepidation in a young girl, but they are never as young, or as good (lol) as I was back then.
2016-05-23 03:16:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The U.S. is "going into debt" since 1934 when the "Federal Reserve Act" was passed essentialy allowing congress to create money (with no gold or silver backing) through the Federal Reserve. Take some money out of your pocket and look at what itis printed on it. "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE" then consider this.
The Federal Reserve is NOT a branch of the federal government but a consoritum of private banks.
NOW! Who is creating money???
2006-12-24 05:22:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
War is a funny thing. It only makes money when you have capital to gain from it. It boosts the economy most of the time because it creates factory jobs, but because of robots and whatnot, and the fact that this war in particular forces us to use more manpower than ever, we can't help but lose money.
However, this would happen even with a Democrat in office, despite most Democratic presidents being able to give the nation a surplus.
2006-12-23 16:41:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by tahu492 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
the democrats inherited a balanced budget from the republicans. Our debt may be large, but our economy is thriving. The debt is nothing more than a number that can be reduced with the flick of a pen.
So get off of your democrat soapbox. Can't wait for the military to be reduced in size and pay again like when Clinton was in office...tell me, why do democrats hate the military?
2006-12-23 16:54:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Q-burt 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
When a president sets economic pollicy it can take from 2 to 10 years for it to show it's full affect.
Therefore Clinton seemed to have made the economy better, but actualy it was the policy's of Regan/Bush that were affecting the economy when Clinton was in office.
Now that we have another Bush in office, he gets blamed for the ecnomic down turn in the beginning of his turn in office, when actualy it was the policies of Clinton that were affecting the economy and caused the down turn.
And now the economy is getting better becasue of the policies of Clinton that have been changed by Bush.
BTW, I though all the Dems said we went to war for OIL. THe why are we pating $2 to $3 per gallong for gas?
2006-12-23 16:52:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by bubbasmack 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
well the ecomomys working great right now,so your point is?and p.s. Clinton inherited the balanced budget from Reagan and Bush sr.So I wouldnt go tooting very many horns...Merry Christmas
2006-12-23 16:41:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by stygianwolfe 7
·
3⤊
4⤋
if AMERICA is run like the BIG CORPORATIONS? FORD ...... APPLE ........ CHRYSLER ........ PEPSICO ........ MCDONALD'S ........ these IDIOTS would have been fired a long, long time ago
instead these IDIOTS have done an "ENRON" and they're rewarded with a second term
2006-12-23 16:50:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
two words - trickle down.... enough said
2006-12-23 16:54:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by truth seeker 7
·
2⤊
0⤋