Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NorthernCross
I'll post political bullshit when I have something new to say, for now, lets get back to the penis jokes and making fun of hex.
|
When Ronald Reagan took over the presidency in the early 80s, he proposed that supply side economics would give america a huge boost in economy and provide enough momentum to repay debts within, "1 to 2 years", what actually happened? The plan failed, by giving the largest tax breaks to the rich and working against the underclass pay structure, he cost the american people and average of 250 billion a year.
When Bush sr, took over in the late 80s', following the same suit as his predesesor, he amplified the effect, leading to an annual deficiet of nearly 350 billion a year.
When Clinton took over, he intentionally reversed these formulas bush and reagan used and from 1992 to 2000, caused the largest sustained economic growth in US history. Mostly due to reduced taxes to the lower and middle class and higher taxes to the wealthy. It created 18 million new jobs, the largest growth ever recorded, and the US economy was booming with a 236 billion surplus.
Taken from those experiences, one would lean towards the economic policy that actually worked and learn from the mistakes that did not.
But when Bush jr took over in 2001, what happened was markedly different; he took back to supply side economics and gave GENEROUS multiple tax cuts to the rich. And in just ONE term managed to turn a 236 billion dollar surplus into a 500 billion dollar deficiet! The largest economic plummet recorded in history.
Bush defended his plan by blaming the "Clinton Ressesion" and The war on terror for his record loss. But economic projections revealed that if the clinton plan had continued, the surplus after ten years would have been close to 5.6 TRILLION dollars.
But what did the future look like for the Bush plan? Well, I'll tell you, not bright, in the first days of his taking office, Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion off the top of the 5 trillion dollar budget and gave it back to "the american people" but most went to the wealthy, while the middle class saw only about a 600 dollar increase in income. Like in the past of supply side economics, this did not boost the economy.
In his 2000 speech in chicago, bush promised not to touch the 2.5 trillion clinton set aside to repair the stark problems in the social security system. But in his first year of taking office, he broke that promise and spent all but nearly 1 trillion dollars, and within another year the social security budget was gone. Debt would run into the future and would lead to privitisation of the Social Security system, but not before it made most people already 20-30 years into the system penniless for all their labor.
One would like to believe that it was all these wars we are fighting that is vacuuming up the american peoples money, but a bipartisan congressional commitee revealed that bushes tax cuts and homeland security spendetures are actually THREE times the amount of money we are spending at war.
Economists believe that most of the deficiets can be attributed toward a slump in the economy and the bush family way of dealing with problems... Throw money at it.
By 2003, our national budget had fallen to almost negative 3.1 trillion dollars. Thats right, we have less than nothing, we wish we had no money in the bank. And while most republicans whine over Tax and Spend democrats, spending increased 3x as much as when clinton was in power. (on line items like missle defense systems that dont work and missions to mars.)
Overall Bush has left us within one term a 5 trillion dollar debt and a complete turn around of the economy of about 11 trillion dollars in just ONE term.
My point is not to dwell on it, although I dont see a problem with griping over it considering that if I merely hold a one dollar bill, I'm richer than the united states, and that the social security cash I'm puting into the system will do absolutly nothing for me when I retire.
My point is that several million people made a huge mistake in november.