NP Rank:
The truth about Reagan and Bush Republicans
The American political debate has become more and more vicious, and in all the noise it is the message that tends to get lost. Others may have more slyness, more aggressiveness, more experience, and more skill as bullies. I have less of these things than Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh. What I have on the matters discussed is the truth.
In 1980, before Ronald Reagan came to power, America's federal debt was $1 trillion. At the end of his second administration, it was $3 trillion. His Republican successor George Bush Sr. added another $1.5 trillion to the debt.
In 1993, President Clinton passed the deficit reduction package, and every consequent year the deficit declined until in 1999 and 2000 America ran a surplus. For this good act the Democrats were severely punished and lost the control of Congress in 1994. Over the next eight years, American economy added 23 million new jobs in the greatest peacetime economic expansion in American history. The surplus in year 2000 stood at $236 billion.
When Bush Jr. took over American government - first by spreading lies about his Republican opponent John McCain during the Republican primary, then by using fraud and corruption in Florida to manufacture a false electoral majority when in fact minority voted for him both in Florida and in the rest of America - his first major act in power was cutting the taxes on highest incomes. The results were immediate. The budget recorded a tiny surplus in 2001 and, for the next seven years, ran vast deficits. All in all, Bush administration added $5 trillion to American debt. Meanwhile job growth stood at zero before collapsing in 2008 in the worst economic crisis America has had since the Great Depression.
The federal debt is therefore a creation of the Reagan and Bush Republicans. It is not, as they like to claim, a result of "spending" by "liberal government"; it is a direct result of choices made by Reagan and Bush administrations. The only President who actually successfully overhauled government to make it more efficient, more competent and less wasteful was President Clinton. Under Bush Jr, the annual government budget grew by over $1 trillion from $1.8 trillion in 2000 to $2.9 trillion in 2008.
Of course the Republicans did not cut down the government spending - neither Reagan with split Congress nor Bush with the fully Republican Congress. What they did is replace tax-and-spend with far more irresponsible borrow-and-spend and bequeathed to their children and grandchildren a $10 trillion debt. All the public sentiment against "spending" by "liberal" government is nothing more than a way to hide tracks and misplace blame. The government existed with tax-and-spend; it continues to exist with borrow-and-spend. Only now, the younger generations are $10 trillion in the hole thanks to the borrow-and-spend policies of Republican administrations.
To the people who want to do away with the government, is needed a dose of reality. The biggest government bureaucracy of all is the military, which vastly grew under Bush to cost $700 billion in 2008 and which is the most wasteful branch of the government, throwing away perfectly good tools after a week in use, buying $600 toilets, and spending billions of dollars on weapon systems that never get used. Another wasteful government bureaucracy is the prisons, whose population quadrupled since 1980 as people were being put away for victimless crimes thanks to Reagan's War on Drugs and which population remains vast as the Republican-initiated, Republican-maintained War on Drugs keeps dragging on. These prisons have now become America's fastest growth of recruitment into Islam, and at taxpayer expense is being created a vast threat to internal security, as people who are already dangerous, lawless and have a grudge against the system are being turned into militant Islamists. In both cases, it has been the policies of Reagan and Bush Republicans that saw the vast growth in these bureaucracies even as they were promising to get the government off people's backs.
Other areas of government spending that are not there as a result of the Reagan and Bush policies - the roads and the Interstate that are the backbone of America's commerce; the science that is at the root of all products sold by American businesses; schools that make people employable; and of course the Internet that has made possible vast expansion of business and commerce as much as it makes possible for anti-government groups to spread their propaganda - produce vast benefits for American economy, and without them American people would have very little of what they have now. So the problem is not with "spending" and it is certainly not with "liberals". The problem is with the borrow-and-spend Republicans who keep dangling before people the promise of smaller government while dragging them deeper and deeper into debt.
With government, as with all things, it's not the matter of pay or not pay. It is the matter of pay now or pay later. It should be perhaps not surprising that the people who expect an end of the world in our lifetime would not care about the future; but this stance comes at a vast price. And since these people claim to have family values as they force this vast debt on their children; since they claim American patriotism as they bankrupt their country and put it at mercy of such creditors as People's Republic of China; and since they claim responsibility as they act in such a grossly myopic manner; it is time that these people be scrutinized not only to the extent to which they fail to embody these virtues they claim to possess, but also as to their extremely low levels of honesty and integrity and fitness to rule America or to take credit therefor.
So that while the Clinton administration had been hounded, attacked and falsely accused of all kinds of abuses, it was the only administration in recent history that created a budget surplus and a working government, and was the author of the biggest peaceful prosperity in the history of the United States. As for Reagan and Bush Republicans, their most obvious legacy to their children is a $10 trillion debt. And then the people who have done this claim moral superiority of themselves and moral inferiority of the Democrats when they are in fact the most deceitful political force in the United States.
Not only have the Reagan and Bush Republicans bequeathed to their children a $10 trillion debt, but they've bequeathed to them also a ruined planet. Scientists knew what was happening as early as early 80s; the Reagan government would hear none of it, and Republican conmen from Paul Wyerich to Pat Robertson to Rush Limbaugh claimed that scientists were fools and sinners, so who cares what they think. The stance of denial of global warming has prevented real solutions from being put in place while the situation was still easily correctable. Now, the solutions will be more difficult and more expensive, and irreversible damage has been done already and is becoming worse every year. And as Maldives and Kiribati are sinking into the sea, oceans are turning to acid, Jakarta is being flooded, and disastrous climate events are costing more and more lives, remember that it has been the Reagan and Bush Republicans that have given this to you. And know from this what is their character and what is the validity of the lies that they want you to believe.
From perspective of sustainability and benefit toward the future, it means nothing whether clean energy technologies are put into place by government or by business, for as long as it's done. And from perspective of sustainability and continuity, it means very little to what extent the hole in the budget is fixed by cuts in spending or by tax rises, likewise for as long as it's done. What is not acceptable is that either problem is denied or is blamed on people who have had nothing to do with it. And since this is the direction of Republican approach to these matters, it is likewise rightful that they lose all credibility and their power to make people believe destructive fictions that keep these great wrongs going on.
NowPublic on Facebook
Most Recommended Comment
Recommendations (10)
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States -
Albert Milliron
Columbia, South Carolina, United States -
Susan Marie Kovalinsky
Ledgewood, New Jersey, United States -
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (20)
at 05:58 on May 20th, 2010
PRESIDENTS. DON'T. WRITE. BUDGETS. Got that? PRESIDENTS. SIGN. BUDGETS. Stop with your irrational debt timeline with the avatars of presidents over the dips and valleys and replace those avatars with pictures of the Speakers of the House who actually WROTE those budgets. Then -- whatever you do -- don't mention 1995 when the Republicans refused to pass a deficit budget... and Government offices came to a screeching halt for three days... And Democrats screamed and whined and pointed at the Republicans until they relented and passed the budget... and that was the last time our books were balanced.This is the WORST of inductive reasoning. Start with your belief structure and work your way backwards, ignoring the facts that don't support your beliefs. RONALD REAGAN DIDN'T WRITE THE DEFICIT BUDGETS. Tip O'Neill did. BILL CLINTON DID NOT CRAFT SURPLUS BUDGETS. Newt Gingrich did.And YES, during 3 of GWB's eight years Republican Speakers of the House wrote suck-ass deficit budgets in an attempt to buy votes with someone else's money --- the same way Democrats have been doing for 70 years.
at 16:36 on May 20th, 2010
"PRESIDENTS. DON'T. WRITE. BUDGETS. "
Yeah. Anything to pass on the blame.
at 06:03 on May 20th, 2010
Conversely, during the periods you speak of, Democrats controlled the purse string in Congress during the deficit period. In 1994 Congress changed hands to a Republican, the contract with America was adopted, and the reductions in the deficit occurred. To giver President Clinton all the credit for that reversal is misguided. He does deserve a good deal of credit for adopting parts of the GOP Contract with America. The Internet bubble burst when bush took Office, then 911 occurred, Then War. This costs money, lots of money. The democrats regained Congress and they had the option to stop funding for the war, but did not. Now there is a Democratic President, and both Houses of Congress have large majorities. While complaining about Bush doubling the deficit they now have tripled it in 2 years.
Folks wrongly give credit to or criticism to the President when the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse and spending.
at 16:39 on May 20th, 2010
"Conversely, during the periods you speak of, Democrats controlled the purse string in Congress during the deficit period."
Totally untrue. Bush had a fully Republican Congress
" In 1994 Congress changed hands to a Republican, the contract with America was adopted, and the reductions in the deficit occurred. "
Nonsense. Deficit reduction happened because of the 1993 deficit reduction bill that Clinton passed through Congress, and for which the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994.
"The Internet bubble burst when bush took Office, then 911 occurred, Then War. This costs money, lots of money."
Bush's tax cuts happened before 9-11 and before the war. And the results were immediate.
at 20:37 on May 20th, 2010
"The Internet bubble burst when bush took Office, then 911 occurred, Then War. This costs money, lots of money."
The war spending was a fraction of the yearly deficits under Bush. Instead they were the direct result of his Reagan-inspired borrow-and-spend policies.
at 06:12 on May 20th, 2010
The author is from Astrailia and clearly doesn't understand how the American political system works. The "truth" about his guy is that he is completely ignerent of the facts.
at 16:41 on May 20th, 2010
I lived in America for 18 years from 1988 until 2006, when I moved to Australia to marry my wife. I know more about American political system than do most Americans.
at 06:18 on May 20th, 2010
It is disingenuous to make it seem like the democrats are the cure to the problem. While I fully agree with you that under both Regan and Bush administrations we have plunged our country into obscene debt I fully disagree with you that democrats have an answer. Clinton did not reduce the national debt. While he certainly was much more conservative in spending than his predecessor or successor he did not achieve the financial stability you claim he did. www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Also, it is ridiculous to position that somehow democrats are financial stewards when the Obama administration has kept the Bush tax cuts, run even larger deficits and continued the policing of the world policies. True change will occur when Americans turn off the TV, do their homework on the candidates and vote for people and not parties.
at 16:45 on May 20th, 2010
" Clinton did not reduce the national debt. While he certainly was much more conservative in spending than his predecessor or successor he did not achieve the financial stability you claim he did. "
The last year of Clinton, the government had a $236 surplus.
" Also, it is ridiculous to position that somehow democrats are financial stewards when the Obama administration has kept the Bush tax cuts, run even larger deficits and continued the policing of the world policies."
I'm unhappy about his choices in this matter as well, but then again he was facing an emergency. We'll see what he does with the budget as the crisis abates.
"True change will occur when Americans turn off the TV, do their homework on the candidates and vote for people and not parties. "
A friend of mine actually runs a nonpartisan voter information site at http://www.vote-usa.orgI'm not sure if doing away with parties is a likely solution. America's founders never wanted parties, but they formed anyway.
at 08:43 on May 20th, 2010
Every evil human mind could conceive of,recorded in the annals of human history,Ronald Wretched Regan was an embodiment of.Surplus or deficit budgets apart,it was Regan who introduced Talibans to the press in 1984 as 'Moral Equivalents of Founding Fathers',bribed Iranian fanatics not to release American hostages so that he could win against Carter on the issue of hostages held by Iranian fanatics.Wasn't that an act of treason?In my opinion he should have been publicly hanged.This guy supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussain which could be used against Iranians and Kurds.There are hundreds of crimes he committed.And what else could be expected of a morally debased person like Regan.
Bush was a Luciferian.The only American president who could handle drug dealing and smuggling more effectively than a drug mafia.
at 04:02 on May 21st, 2010
I had no idea that Reagan had an involvement in the Iranian hostage crisis. He keeps getting good reviews as a president, but him starting the vast deficits and ignoring the global warming will not be viewed positively by future voters.
at 07:07 on May 21st, 2010
t k: You're consistent too! All Republicans are evil! lmao!
at 08:45 on May 20th, 2010
The American political debate is tame today in light of what has transpired in years past. Read some American political history books if you don't believe me. The assertions and contentions that you've put forth in this story are highly questionable and it would really help your credibility if you were to cite some sources for your claims. For example: On what basis do you make the claim that, "Not only have the Reagan and Bush Republicans bequeathed to their children a $10 trillion debt, but they've bequeathed to them also a ruined planet." ?
A "ruined planet"? How the hell did Reagan and Bush accomplish that within the short time that they were in office?
at 16:49 on May 20th, 2010
The scientists knew what was happening as early as early 80s. The Reagan government wanted nothing to do with it, and people like Pat Robertson were saying that scientists are fools and sinners, so who cares what they think.
Because of this stance the carbon emissions crisis wasn't fixed when the situation was still easily solvable, and the situation kept getting worse and worse until now we are facing a major disaster. Solving this now will take a lot more than it would have taken to solve this in the 80s when it was first found out.
The stance of denying global warming has created this crisis, and this stance has been led by Republicans.
at 06:43 on May 21st, 2010
ishambat: Because a bunch of left wing alarmists say that there's a "carbon emissions crisis" and that scientists became aware of it in the 1980s when Reagan was in office, it's all Reagan's fault that we are now facing a major disaster? When you bring up Pat Robertson, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. In other words Robertson often speaks of the "end times". So do environmental alarmists. The only difference is that Pat Robertson worships Jesus Christ and the alarmists worship rocks and trees and various inanimate objects. The terminology is different, but it all amounts to the same thing: namely we're all going to die, because mankind is evil and will destroy the world.
I'll say one thing about your posts: They are consistent and they leave no doubt about where you stand on issues.
at 19:35 on May 21st, 2010
"Left-wing alarmists?" You obviously have no training in science, otherwise you would not be saying such a stupid thing.
The scientists are not predicting the end of the world. They are giving precise projections of what will happen if uncontrolled carbon emissions and deforestation of rainforest continue. And their predictions have been proven right.
at 08:55 on May 21st, 2010
"How the hell did Regan and Bush accomplish that within the short time that they were in office".
My question was in relation to the last para of your above comment.You have answered my question.Don't set a time frame for any happening,that is the bottom line.
at 09:51 on May 20th, 2010
Rory,I have a question:how much time is required to accomplish destruction?
at 06:54 on May 21st, 2010
t k: How the hell do I know? JEEZ! A nano-second, an eternity? Depends on what's being destroyed. I can walk out of my house right this minute and step on a frog and squish it to death. That would probably take a few seconds. The question is however: Does the mere act of squishing a frog or blowing up the world for that matter necessarily mean that the frog or the world is destroyed? Perhaps the frog and the world are merely transformed into another state and that they can never be destroyed. Merely transformed. And while we're at it. How do you really know if a frog or the world does, in fact, exist? I couldn't begin to answer that one . . .can you? :)
at 01:49 on May 22nd, 2010
One definition of reality is what refuses to go away when you stop believing in it. It's not a complete definition of reality, but in matters of frogs and world it is a useful definition to go by.