The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part II of III: The Reagan and Bush Administrations)

  Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989

 

Ronald Reagan ran for President calling for a balance budget, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and reduced federal spending.  He failed to initiate any of those policies and accomplished none of those goals, even though the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate his first six years in office.

 

When Reagan left office after 8 years, he was not only the biggest spender of all Presidents before him, but he was also the record holder of deficit spending, by far.  Reagan’s pronouncements about being a fiscal conservative turned out to be nothing more than an extension of his acting profession.

 

The facts show just how reckless Reagan was with the American people's money.  He never had the courage nor character to submit one balanced budget to Congress in the 8 years he served.  No President can balance the budget and cut unnecessary spending if he does not show leadership on the subject in dealing with Congress.  The range of the deficits and increase in the national debt on Reagan’s watch was unprecedented at the time and reversed the history of all previous Presidents.

 

On Reagan’s watch the U.S. moved from being the world's largest international creditor, to the worlds largest debtor nation.  Deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry caused their collapse, resulting in a federal bail out that cost the taxpayers $100 billion Dollars.  Increase in the national debt during Reagan’s two terms was also greater than all the Presidents before him. 

 

 

 George H.W. Bush, 1989-1993

 

President George Bush was Reagan’s Vice President for 8 years.  He ran against Reagan in the primaries of 1980 and called Reagan’s economic pronouncements "voodoo economics".  Reagan’s deed in office proved Bush was right.  However, like Reagan, Bush never developed a true economic policy.  His famous pledge of “read my lips, no new taxes” was to satisfy his base.  Many believe breaking that pledge cost him reelection.  However unemployment went up during his term and he failed to address the massive deficits of Reagan, continued to add to the national debt with deficit spending and failed to balance the budget during his term in office.  His four years of deficit spending was in fact greater than any 4 year term of Reagan.

 

Job creation during Bush’s term was the weakest since Eisenhower’s last term in office 1957-1961.  Neither Reagan nor Bush had a real economic policy.  They had a tax policy for the most wealthy that depended on the theory of “trickle down economics".  Voodoo economics took center stage in both administrations.  Bush, to his credit, weakly tried to change that late in his administration, but the devastating scope of fiscal irresponsibility for 12 straight years could not save his Presidency.

 

The below numbers will show just how reckless  Reagan-Bush were with tax payers money.  Any notion of either one being fiscal conservatives is pure myth.  And if anyone thinks that the massive deficits and national debt they created were necessary to get our economy in good shape, they are living a fairytale.  President Clinton’s economic policies and results proved that.

 

                                                   

Budget Deficit or Surplus            

 

         Reagan                                                                                                    

 

1982 -----$128 Billion Deficit                                                               

1983 -----207.8 Billion Deficit                                                          

1984 -----185.4 Billion Deficit                                                          

1985 ------212.3 Billion Deficit                                                             

1986 ------221.2 Billion Deficit

1987-------149.7 Billion Deficit                                                        

1988-------155.2 Billion Deficit  

1989 -------152.5 Billion Deficit

______________________                

Totals---$ 1.412 Trillion Deficit                                                                     

 

Bush

1990---- $221 Billion Deficit

1991---- 269.2 Billion Deficit

1992---- 290.3 Billion Deficit

1993----- 255.1 Billion Deficit

______________________

Totals----$1.035 Trillion Deficit

National Debt

 

When Reagan Left Office -------$2,857,430 Trillion                  

When Reagan Took Office ----------997,855 Billion                    

_____________________________________            

Total increase of debt: $1,859,575 Trillion or 186%      

                                                                                                 

 

When Bush left Office--------- $4,411,488 Trillion

When Bush took Office ---------2,857,430 Trillion

____________________________________

Total Increase of debt: $1,554,058 Trillion or 54%

Spending vs. Previous Administration

 

Reagan  1st. Term -------$3,352.4 Trillion                                     

Carter     1st. Term--------2,232.8 Trillion                                   

______________________________                                

Increase of  $1,119.6 Trillion or 50%                          

 

Reagan 2nd. Term------$4,202.8 Trillion

Reagan 1st. Term-------3,352.4 Trillion

______________________________                       

Increase of  $849.4 Billion or 25%                                                                                                                               

 

Bush 1st. Term------$5,368.5 Trillion 

Reagan Last term ----4,202.8 Trillion  

___________________________

Increase of  $1,162.7 Trillion or 27.6%

Public Debt

 

When Reagan Left Office          1989    $2,190.7 Trillion         

When Reagan Took Office        1981            789.4 Billion           

Increase of 177% -----------------------$1,401.3 Trillion                                       

 

When Bush Left Office             1993    $3,248.4 Trillion

When Bush Took Office           1989      2,190.7 Trillion

Increase of 48%------------------------$1057.7 Billion

 

Update: original data was inaccurate, newly posted information show correct totals

Public Debt as Percentage of GDP

 

When Reagan Left  Office                   40.6%

When Bush Left Office                         49.4%

 

 

 Job Creation

 

Reagan 1st Term                               5,322,000 Million

Reagan 2nd Term                           10,780,000 Million

Total Jobs Created                        16,102,000 Million

Bush Term                                           2,592,000 Million

 

Note:  Last 3 digits shown as zero’s.

 

 

 

Unemployment

 

The unemployment rate when Reagan took office in January 1981 was 7.5%  at months end.  When Reagan left office in 1989, it stood at 5.4%, a decrease of 2.1% while he was in office.  The unemployment rate went up to 10.8% on his watch.

 

The unemployment rate when Bush took office in January 1993 was 5.4%.  When he left office 4 years later, it was 7.3%, an increase of 1.9%.  The unemployment rate went up to 7.8% during Bush’s term in office.

 

After looking at the numbers, one can tell both Reagan and Bush had no real economic policy to deal with the economy.  During their 12 straight years at the helm, the yearly deficits fluctuated back and forth with no real steady movement downward.  The same goes with the national debt.  When Part III is examined, you will find all of those negative items moved in a positive downward position consistently on President Clinton’s watch.  Stay tuned.  

Information shown taken from Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Whitehouse.gov and Treasury Department.

Bill Stumps In Wisconsin

With Hillary and Barack being the two candidates running for President, many often overlook Bill Clinton's stumping for his wife across the country.  But as these two videos demonstrate, Bill is still the greatest politician and best speaker (as far as connecting with an audience) this country has:

The Daily Dose---2/16 (Part II)

Sexism At Play?

I'm a Clinton supporter, and I've got to be honest, I don't think Barack Obama is sexist, but then again I didn't think the Clintons were ever racist, but many did.  Many, mainly African Americans, said they could pick up "code words" in President Clinton's language that blacks knew to be racially offensive. Well if the media is going to overly play the race card, they should at least be fair and investigate Obama's use of words that could be seen as sexist.  ABC News did and here are some of their findings, which I wish were getting more attention:

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton's latest attack ad, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

That prompted some female TV reporters to question the language he was using.  Language such as "when she's feeling down" "periodically" she "launches attacks."----

(the following is from MSNBC)

Nora O'Donnel: "It's getting a little personal."

Andrea Mitchell: "It's getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being 'down' and 'striking back,'  I don't know, that's a little edgy, don't you think?"

Nora O'Donnell: "Yeah."--------

(Taylor Marsh also commented on the choice of words being used by the Obama campaign)...words like this, in her view, indicate "a way of thinking about women. A way of demeaning women in power; even saying we're not up to the job. Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she's depressed she broke a nail".  "Claws"…"feeling down"...I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC."

_________________________________________________

Making Calls

Little do many casual voters know, one of the biggest ways they can help their candidate of choice is by making phone calls to encourage others to support your choice candidate.  Sen. Clinton has launched an effort to try to get a million plus calls out in the next few days.  I encourage all of her supporters to pick up a phone and make a call or two.  Seriously, just one or two calls can make a difference.  All you have to do is follow the instructions on this page here.  The campaign produces a phone number for you to call and all you do is follow the script.  _________________________________________________

Rep. Clyburn Agrees With Clinton on Super Delegates

As reported by The State:

"While Clyburn said he'd prefer superdelegates not announce their support until much later in the nominating process, he said he also doesn't agree with superdelegates shifting support from one candidate to another based on how their constituents vote in a primary or caucus.

He addressed the issue several days after a former Clinton supporter announced his intent to vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Georgia Rep. David Scott said he felt compelled to change his allegiance after more than 80 percent of his district voted for the Illinois senator in the Feb. 5 Georgia primary.

Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote. "I don't think people are really thinking through what they're saying," he said.... He said the historical role of a superdelegate is in part to be ready to act in case of an emergency, like to throw support behind a runner-up in case a front-runner cannot continue after the convention."

____________________________________________________

Obama Not as Pure on NAFTA as He Says

Obama has been hammering Sen. Clinton on her support for NAFTA, but as several sources have reported, Obama is just as big of a supporter of free trade as Sen. Clinton, if not more:

-"Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." (AP, 9/8/04)

-"Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade." (Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04)

-Obama, just recently, has been one of the biggest advocates of a new free trade deal with Peru.  

For The Girls...

Here's a video I found on YouTube that has to be truly inspirational to girls everywhere.

The Daily Dose---2/16

Strength to Fight the Tough Fights---A Follow Up

NBC Nightly News had this story last night on Sen. Obama and his "watering down" of a bill that was originally intended to fight nuclear waste, but ended up helping big corporations like Exelon, a major Obama contributor.  

New Politics or More of the Same?

Sen. Obama has long been saying that we need to turn the page on politics of the past.  In his own book, Obama claimed that many politicians have their words distorted and their motives mischaracterized.  I strongly agree with the junior Illinois Senator on these issues, however, I would appreciate if he would practice what he preaches.  

Why do I say this?  Because, the Obama campaign has sent out a mailer to Ohio voters that quotes Sen. Clinton as saying that NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy.  As it turns out, Sen. Clinton never said this.   The following is from Newsday:

"In an effort to score points, Barack Obama has been dropping a mail-piece that repeats a charge he has made several other times during the campaign -- that "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to the economy."  This attack has attracted a flurry of attention, from Clinton's campaign and some reporters. As it turns out, the primary source is us...

In it, we did not have the Clinton campaign using the word "boon" in describing NAFTA. The word was our characterization...We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy...

Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office."

My Letter To Keith Olbermann

This is a letter that I am emailing to Keith Olbermann, asking him to end his bias reporting and commentary in favor of Sen. Obama and against Sen. Clinton.  I encourage all of you who read this and feel the same way to also write Keith.  

_____________________________________________

Mr. Olbermann,

I have, for a long while now, been a huge fan and supporter of Countdown and your political commentary, but you have, as of late, been taking it too far, and I'm getting sick of watching.  Could your bias in favor of Sen. Obama be any clearer?  Could your disdain for Sen. Clinton and President Clinton be any more obvious?  

By coming as close to endorsing Obama as one can without actually doing it (obviously NBC wouldn't allow that),  you are hurting not only your audience, whom many are Clinton supporters, but you are also damaging the Democratic Party.

I myself am for Sen. Clinton, but I don't consider myself against Sen. Obama.  On the other hand, you are for Sen. Obama, but overly against Sen. Clinton.  You and your show were best when you stood up as a voice for the progressive movement; when you stood up to and challenged the warped ideology of neoconservatism.  Your show is at its worst currently, as you misrepresent and demonize Sen. Clinton, who has done more for the progressive movement than many would like to admit.  

Night after night now, I see you only give one side of the story----Obama's side.  I wouldn't be surprise if you're paraphrasing lines straight off Obama's website.  It truly is uncalled for, sir.  You and other journalists would do a great deal of good, both to your own reputations and on behalf of your viewers, if you look at this race objectively.  Sen. Obama has become the media-darling; you all can't get enough of him, and in the end, that's not good for America.    

As of late, you have made the target of your criticism Sen. Clinton and her campaign.  I don't think that you believe Sen. Clinton is the real enemy, more so than the Republicans, but that is sure how you've been reporting it.  So, what I'm asking for, Mr. Olbermann, is an apology for the mischaracterizations of Sen. Clinton and the one-sidedness of your recent commentary.  But first and foremost, I'm asking for a return to the old Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  The one which unites the Democratic party and progressive movement and challenges the lies and hypocrisy of the right.  

Thanks and I hope to see the old Keith back on Monday,

J. Patrick

The Debate About Debating

This follow-up ad pretty much says it all:

The Daily Dose---2/14

Just a few of my thoughts on this Valentine's Day concerning the world of politics:

Scared?

The above video is an ad that the Clinton campaign is currently airing in Wisconsin, which holds its primary this coming Tuesday.  And while many have criticized this ad as negative, and Obama himself has dismissed it as "the politics of the past", it does raise important questions.  There was a scheduled debate in Wisconsin in which Sen. Clinton agreed to take part in; Obama did not.  Here's the problem I have with Obama on this issue---Obama consistently says there have been enough debates and there need be no more.  I disagree.  There has only been one other debate with Clinton and Obama facing each other one-on-one.  Americans still do not know where Obama stands in contrast to Clinton on the key problems facing our country.  There are policy differences and the people of Wisconsin, and America, deserve to know these issues in order to cast an informed vote.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are issues, there can never be enough debates.  And with the stakes this high, and the problems this deep, there needs to be more debates.

New Mexico Finally Decided

A week and half after Super Tuesday, we finally know the winner in the New Mexico caucus---Sen. Hillary Clinton, who defeated Barack Obama by just 1.1%.  How important is this?  Probably not much, because no matter who won, both would and will split the delegates just about even.  But what it does show is that Clinton can win in caucus states.  They're certainly not her strong-suit, considering they disenfranchise voters and, in my opinion are completely undemocratic, but she did win and that says something.  With the Texas primary being part caucus-esque, is this a foreshadowing of things to come on March 4?  We'll just have to wait and see.

Texas and Ohio

And speaking of Texas and Ohio....they are shaping up to be the decisive battleground for the Democratic nomination.  Obama is, without a doubt, the frontrunner, but with two wins in these states, Clinton can make a comeback.  It's hard to be a frontrunner when you can't win the two biggest states after nearly a month of being the frontrunner, in every sense of the word.  That's why it's equally important that Obama do well here as well.  How do I see these contests shaping up?  Hard to say just yet, but I'm sure both will be extremely close.  Ohio is probably a better state for Clinton.  She does, after all, have the support of the very popular governor, Ted Strickland, and former Senator John Glenn.  Texas will be tougher.  As I mentioned, the part of the primary that is similar to a caucus (Texas has a very complicated process), will heavily favor Obama.  Texas also has, surprisingly, a high number of African American voters, who usually outweigh the Latinos.  Both are doable for both Clinton and Obama.  But, as of right now, Clinton has the edge in Ohio, while Obama has the edge in Texas.  

A Fair Point to Make

Hillary Clinton has been ratcheting up the contrasts between herself and Obama.  She has rightfully pointed out that talk does not equal action.  Rhetoric does not equal solutions.  It's one thing to inspire hope; it's another to bring bring it about.  These are all fair criticisms of Obama.  And what is really telling is when you question voters and Obama supporters on what exactly are Obama's accomplishments.  For example, about a week ago there was a segment on television in which Obama supporters were asked to name a single Obama accomplishment or achievement.  No one, not one, could name a single accomplishment.  Today on Hardball, Wisconsin governor and Obama-backer, Jim Doyle, was asked what has Obama has done to help Wisconsin.  He literally was dumbfounded and, in essence, said that he wasn't sure.  What has Hillary done for Wisconsin?  She worked with Ted Kennedy to get thousands of kids health insurance.  She reached across the isle and worked with Republicans to get health care for thousands of Reserves and National Guard troops in Wisconsin.  I like and respect Sen. Obama, and would surely support him over McCain, but these are real questions Americans need to ask themselves.  We are, after all, electing a President, a Commander-in-Chief.  Accomplishments and records do matter.  

Strength to Fight the Tough Fight?

Does Obama have it?  Some think so, but maybe he doesn't.  It appears that in the Senate, Obama continually watered down an important bill until the special interests got their way.  The New York Times reports:

"A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

…“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

… The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill…"  

I encourage you to read this very interesting article, here.

A Never Ending Debacle

The war and occupation of Iraq will be 5 years in March, less a month away.  George Bush, the President who started this mess, and Senator McCain, the man who would like to be President and supported this mess, are still living the same lie.  Both told the American people and the world that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD ready to use against America or transferred to terrorists.  However those weapons never existed at any time during this presidents's administration.

 

Our men and women in uniform won the war before it ever got started.  So why are we still there nearly 5 years later?  Well Bush and McCain give the same excuse as a reason.  After no WMD were found, it was the insurgency that everyone knew would happen except Bush and McCain; then it was the civil war between the Sunnis and Shiite, but no one wanted to call it a civil war; then it was al Qaeda in Iraq (Note: Saddam would not let Al Qaeda operate in any part of Iraq that he controlled while he governed the country); then it was Iran sending people across the border into Iraq; then it was the Saddam loyalists; and now, get this, it's the son of Moammar Gadhafi of Lybia, who was responsible for the devastating explosion in Northern Iraq that killed 38 and wounded over 225 people according to the Associated Press.  This attack occurred just last week.

 

These Republicans can not admit they were and are still wrong.  They continue making up excuses as they go along and are still in denial.  Neither one have character where it counts, in the heart or in their person.  Our men and women in uniform deserve better.  They won the war they were sent over there for, WMD.  This unnecessary war should be ended tomorrow and our troops should be brought home.  Bush and McCain like to use our troops to support their macho talk and all the while our troops are still paying the ultimate price with their lives over WMD that did not exist. 

 

Senator McCain likes to talk about being a Veteran and having that experience.  Well, McCain needs to look to President Eisenhower for some advice.  He was a career veteran, but was not afraid to speak out against the Military Industrial Complex and he warned the country about that problem.  The Military Industrial Complex has flexed its muscle in Iraq with the so called rebuilding of that country.  And now we all know, Congress has documented the billion dollars of waste with the no bid contracts of the Military Industrial Complex.  Much of the wasted money can not and will not ever be accounted for. 

 

Tomorrow and the next day and the next day and each day after that will bring more and more excuses as to why we are still in Iraq.  Our people knew why we were involved in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War; the reasons never changed.  The reason we are in Iraq was a lie and the reason we are still there almost 5 years later keeps changing.  And the man who wants to be our next President, Senator John McCain, keeps following along in Bush's footsteps.  Are we supposed to believe Senator McCain can really be a leader?  He has already failed that test by thinking that Bush was one.

Bush, Cheney, And McCain

The three blind mice, Bush, Cheney and McCain, are at it again.  With shades of 2004, they are warning America that Democrats are ill suited and ill equipped to protect the nation.  Senator McCain says Senator Clinton and Obama want to surrender to al Qaida.

 

It was those conservatives who abdicated their responsibility in fighting terror with the continuation of war in Iraq.  Bush and company failed to protect our country and its people on 9-11 from the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil.  And now our latest intelligence reports say al Qaida is growing and the threat is even greater now.  Why?  We took our eye off the ball and invaded Iraq.  

 

The president and McCain will try to push their phony scam right up to election time.  They are a sad chapter in American history.  McCain's big problem with the war in Iraq is that many high ranking military people want to end this unnecessary war now because they understand what is really at stake.  Does any one think McCain has the character to tell those veterans they want to surrender?  We already know how Bush acted during his generation's war.

 

The three blind mice with their pronouncements are a stark reminder to the people how those who are elected to high office can betray the trust of America and what our country stands for.  No past American President, Vice-President, or Senator, who presided during war time, stooped so low as these 3 elected officials.