- Reagan increased the debt by 11.3% in his first term; he then increased it by 9.3% in his second. George HW Bush increased the debt by 15 %.
- Bill Clinton decreased the debt by -0.7% in his first term; he then decreased it by -9.0% in his second.
- George W. Bush increased the debt by 7.1% in his first term; he then increased it by 20.0% in his second. 1
Can you do the math? In the last 30 years, under Republican President's, the National Debt soared. Only when a Democrat came into office, did it drop. 2 During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, deficits went from almost $74 billion to $2.6 trillion. "In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."3
During the eight years of George Bush II, how often did you hear any murmur about deficits? Once, maybe? Yet, within weeks of a Democrat moving into the White House, suddenly all we hear about is deficits. Now, I'm not suggesting running a huge deficit is a good thing. I'm merely pointing out that, as a critically thinking American, you should ask yourself why. What agenda is at hand that overshadows everything else in the news--let alone in the country? Who benefits when the corporate-owned media and conservatives scream "Lions, tigers, deficits! Oh, my!" The targets? Social and educational programs and social security. Back to who's screaming: corporate-owned media and conservatives.
The government currently spends 39.97% of the US GDP. 4 The number ONE biggest expenditure? Defense. 5 How many in the media or among conservatives are lamenting the fact that we are wasting over $7 billion a month in Iraq (more than $3 Trillion as of last Sept)? 6 You want to reduce the deficit? Get out of Iraq.
Now, let's look at wealth in America. Most Americans don't know or don't understand that the top 1% of Americans own 35% of net worth and 43% of financial worth. 7 In English, only 10% of Americans own the United States. 91. 9% of Americans do not receive any inheritance money. The rich are able to contain and enrich their assets in "dynasty trusts", where they avoid inheritance taxes forever. These rich babies are in the "lucky sperm bank." They did not work for their money, they were fed it with a silver spoon--make that a gold spoon, given today's situation.
Why don't they get to pay their fair share? Instead, they get a tax break under Bush which was just extended last December. If you read historical documents (I know you don't), you'd know that our founding fathers did NOT want a peerage--a country dominated by a rich gentry. That's why we don't have Lords and Ladies, remember? Yet, that's just where we are right now. Welcome to the "Have's"; the "Have Nots" can just look at the Statue of Liberty and turn back.
No comments:
Post a Comment