I Dont like posting political stuff but this is kinda funny...
- Thread starter BuellyBagger
- Start date
Help Support Buellxb Forum:
BuddhaBuell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,094
Even though most Americans have become very frustrated with this economy, the reality is that the vast majority of them still have no idea just how bad our economic decline has been or how much trouble we are going to be in if we don't make dramatic changes immediately. If we do not educate the American people about how deathly ill the U.S. economy has become, then they will just keep falling for the same old lies that our politicians keep telling them. Just "tweaking" things here and there is not going to fix this economy. We truly do need a fundamental change in direction. America is consuming far more wealth than it is producing and our debt is absolutely exploding. If we stay on this current path, an economic collapse is inevitable. Hopefully the crazy economic numbers from 2011 that I have included in this article will be shocking enough to wake some people up.
The following are 50 economic numbers from 2011 that are almost too crazy to believe....
#1 A staggering 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.
#2 Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be "low income" or impoverished.
#3 If the number of Americans that "wanted jobs" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.
#4 The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now over 40 weeks.
#5 One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.
#6 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.
#7 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.
#8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.
#9 A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.
#10 According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.
#11 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
#12 Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.
#13 One recent survey found that one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.
#14 The Federal Reserve recently announced that the total net worth of U.S. households declined by 4.1 percent in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone.
#15 According to a recent study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.
#16 As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.
#17 The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than 5 billion dollars over the past year.
#18 In Stockton, California home prices have declined 64 percent from where they were at when the housing market peaked.
#19 Nevada has had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 59 months in a row.
#20 If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6000.
#21 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant. That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.
#22 New home construction in the United States is on pace to set a brand new all-time record low in 2011.
#23 As I have written about previously, 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 are now living with their parents.
#24 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.
#25 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.
#26 One study found that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.
#27 If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.
#28 The United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
#29 It is being projected that the U.S. trade deficit for 2011 will be 558.2 billion dollars.
#30 The retirement crisis in the United States just continues to get worse. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.
#31 Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.
#32 According to a study that was just released, CEO pay at America's biggest companies rose by 36.5% in just one recent 12 month period.
#33 Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.
#34 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.
#35 According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.
#36 If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.
#37 A higher percentage of Americans is living in extreme poverty (6.7%) than has ever been measured before.
#38 Child homelessness in the United States is now 33 percent higher than it was back in 2007.
#39 Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.
#40 Sadly, child poverty is absolutely exploding all over America. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4% of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1% of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6% of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6% of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.
#41 Today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.
#42 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.
#43 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#44 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.
#45 For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. federal government had a budget deficit of nearly 1.3 trillion dollars. That was the third year in a row that our budget deficit has topped one trillion dollars.
#46 If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for about 15 days.
#47 Amazingly, the U.S. government has now accumulated a total debt of 15 trillion dollars. When Barack Obama first took office the national debt was just 10.6 trillion dollars.
#48 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.
#49 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.
#50 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
Of course the heart of the economic problems is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, it has almost completely destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and it has an absolutely nightmarish track record of incompetence. If the Federal Reserve system had never been created, the U.S. economy would be in far better shape. The federal government needs to shut down the Federal Reserve and start issuing currency that is not debt-based. That would be a very significant step toward restoring prosperity to America.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28268
The following are 50 economic numbers from 2011 that are almost too crazy to believe....
#1 A staggering 48 percent of all Americans are either considered to be "low income" or are living in poverty.
#2 Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be "low income" or impoverished.
#3 If the number of Americans that "wanted jobs" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.
#4 The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now over 40 weeks.
#5 One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plan to hire any more workers.
#6 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.
#7 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.
#8 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.
#9 A Gallup poll from earlier this year found that approximately one out of every five Americans that do have a job consider themselves to be underemployed.
#10 According to author Paul Osterman, about 20 percent of all U.S. adults are currently working jobs that pay poverty-level wages.
#11 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.
#12 Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.
#13 One recent survey found that one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.
#14 The Federal Reserve recently announced that the total net worth of U.S. households declined by 4.1 percent in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone.
#15 According to a recent study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.
#16 As the economy has slowed down, so has the number of marriages. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married. Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.
#17 The U.S. Postal Service has lost more than 5 billion dollars over the past year.
#18 In Stockton, California home prices have declined 64 percent from where they were at when the housing market peaked.
#19 Nevada has had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 59 months in a row.
#20 If you can believe it, the median price of a home in Detroit is now just $6000.
#21 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant. That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.
#22 New home construction in the United States is on pace to set a brand new all-time record low in 2011.
#23 As I have written about previously, 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 are now living with their parents.
#24 Electricity bills in the United States have risen faster than the overall rate of inflation for five years in a row.
#25 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.
#26 One study found that approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.
#27 If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.
#28 The United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
#29 It is being projected that the U.S. trade deficit for 2011 will be 558.2 billion dollars.
#30 The retirement crisis in the United States just continues to get worse. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.
#31 Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.
#32 According to a study that was just released, CEO pay at America's biggest companies rose by 36.5% in just one recent 12 month period.
#33 Today, the "too big to fail" banks are larger than ever. The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.
#34 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.
#35 According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.
#36 If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.
#37 A higher percentage of Americans is living in extreme poverty (6.7%) than has ever been measured before.
#38 Child homelessness in the United States is now 33 percent higher than it was back in 2007.
#39 Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.
#40 Sadly, child poverty is absolutely exploding all over America. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4% of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1% of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6% of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6% of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.
#41 Today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.
#42 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.
#43 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#44 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP. Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.
#45 For fiscal year 2011, the U.S. federal government had a budget deficit of nearly 1.3 trillion dollars. That was the third year in a row that our budget deficit has topped one trillion dollars.
#46 If Bill Gates gave every single penny of his fortune to the U.S. government, it would only cover the U.S. budget deficit for about 15 days.
#47 Amazingly, the U.S. government has now accumulated a total debt of 15 trillion dollars. When Barack Obama first took office the national debt was just 10.6 trillion dollars.
#48 If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.
#49 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.
#50 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
Of course the heart of the economic problems is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, it has almost completely destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and it has an absolutely nightmarish track record of incompetence. If the Federal Reserve system had never been created, the U.S. economy would be in far better shape. The federal government needs to shut down the Federal Reserve and start issuing currency that is not debt-based. That would be a very significant step toward restoring prosperity to America.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28268
BuellyBagger
Well-known member
wow i just thought the walmart stats were kinda comical and thought i'd share but it would seem i helped everyone vent some of their political and financial gripes. I hate to argue politics but i LOVE to listen to others ( i usually learn something) 
I agree.
And yes we don't have to rewrite the constitution but I would like to see an amendment stating that the constitution is to be applied in whole and not out of context. Meaning you can't accept one part and apply it then completely destroy another. Either accept all of it or none of it. And if you don't accept it all get the F**K out of our country.
And yes we don't have to rewrite the constitution but I would like to see an amendment stating that the constitution is to be applied in whole and not out of context. Meaning you can't accept one part and apply it then completely destroy another. Either accept all of it or none of it. And if you don't accept it all get the F**K out of our country.
BuddhaBuell - Your posting is mainly liberal scare statistics. Take each "one liner" and ask yourself "does this make sense to present this way".
Kid1620 - You will love the 10th Amendment which states the government only has the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Now there's a thought...
Progressives Strategy:
- Be afraid
- Look to the Government to solve your problems
- Let Ivy League Illuminati dictate how you should be living your life and how the economy should run.
Trigger words to really look at are "fair", "justice", "equitable", "disadvantaged",... You will know them when you hear them.
Kid1620 - You will love the 10th Amendment which states the government only has the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Now there's a thought...
Progressives Strategy:
- Be afraid
- Look to the Government to solve your problems
- Let Ivy League Illuminati dictate how you should be living your life and how the economy should run.
Trigger words to really look at are "fair", "justice", "equitable", "disadvantaged",... You will know them when you hear them.
konarider94
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,432
There are 4 parts in total
Cowboy yes it states that powers not granted to the federal government are the soul responsiblity of the individual states, however, it doesn't state that the federal government or state governments has to use the hole document.
For example why is it that the 1st amendment is praised by most in government and the 2nd amendment is always up for debate.
Another example is with the 10th amendment when the states do something the fed. like it's okay but when it come to something the fed. doesn't like then it's thrown out the window.
I'm saying there needs to be a new amendment stating that the constitution can only be applied as a hole document and not be picked apart for what is liked and not liked. Or it needs to be rewritten to were there is no questioning it or point application.
For example why is it that the 1st amendment is praised by most in government and the 2nd amendment is always up for debate.
Another example is with the 10th amendment when the states do something the fed. like it's okay but when it come to something the fed. doesn't like then it's thrown out the window.
I'm saying there needs to be a new amendment stating that the constitution can only be applied as a hole document and not be picked apart for what is liked and not liked. Or it needs to be rewritten to were there is no questioning it or point application.
BuddhaBuell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,094
link to article at bottom has highlighted hyperlinks which provide basis for each of the 50 items on the list
[smirk]
im not a dem or repub i pretty much dislike politicans in general.a friend sent this to me.
I was born in Texas and raised in Oklahoma in a very conservative, Republican household. I was raised believing that Republicans are for small government and low taxes. I was raised to believe that only the Republicans shared my Christian values and they had the safety of our country well in hand. Democrats, by contrast, wanted the government to fix everything, wanted to raise everyone’s taxes, were pro-abortion, and would do nothing to protect our country.
As I got older, I began to question whether the Republican Party has lived up to what it professes. I believe in all the things they profess: I believe in having strong national security, I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe in fiscal responsibility. But what I’ve found in my research is that the Republicans don’t put these values into practice.
I’m writing articles, based on the research I’ve done, that dispel the myths of Republicans. This article focuses on the economic myths: Republicans are fiscally responsible, Republicans believe in less government spending, and Republicans are better for the economy. My references appear at the end of the article.
First, some definitions. Political economists often talk about the national debt and the federal deficit. These two terms mean different things. The national debt refers to the accumulation of all the money the US government has borrowed over all the years that we’re still paying back. By contrast, the federal deficit refers to how much money the US government is spending over and above its budget in a single year. So the deficit reverts to zero at the beginning of each fiscal year whereas the national debt does not.
Now let’s take a look at the facts. We’ll start with national debt and raw numbers. In 2000, when Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today, after seven years of George W. Bush, it is $9.6 trillion. Bush has almost doubled our national debt in eight short years.
But let’s go further back and take a look at the average increases in national debt by president. It is most useful to look at the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let’s summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
Looking further at federal spending, we find that between 1978 and 2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9% while Republicans increased federal spending by 12.1%. Further, in the same period, Democrats increased the national debt by 4.2% whereas the Republicans increased it by 36.4%. It is true that the Republicans held 4 terms during this time while Democrats only held 3. However, looking at each president since 1978, we see that Reagan increased the national debt by a whopping 89.2% during his two terms. You read that right, Reagan nearly doubled the national debt in 8 years.
Now, you might say, “Well, but productivity increased more during that spending.” Using GDP as a measure of productivity (which is standard procedure), you’d be dead wrong. During the years 1978 – 2005, the Democrats increased the GDP by 12.6% while the Republicans only increased it by 10.7%. The president responsible for the largest increase in GDP, or the productivity of our country, during this time was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who increased the GDP by 28.4% during his eight years in office.
Some people argue that GDP is an imperfect measure of productivity. So let’s look at job creation. Of all the presidents since 1933, Bill Clinton has created by far the most jobs. During his tenure, he created 22.7 million jobs, a 4.9% increase. The worst president in terms of job creation is George W. Bush. During his first term, he created only 100,000 jobs, a 0.002% increase. On average, between 1933 and the present day, Republican have increased jobs by 0.21% while Democrats have increased jobs by 3.24%.
(A note about Reagan: All of the economic growth experienced during Reagan’s presidency was subsidized by the federal debt. Our federal debt almost doubled during his presidency. Talk about a big spender! He mortgaged our future, and it is abundantly clear by the widening gap between rich and poor that the policies he enacted, Reaganomics, if you will, are not sustainable.)
We can also get an idea of how “big” government is by looking at the national debt as a percentage of GDP (or, to put it another way, how much the government is spending relative to everyone else). Republicans advocate for small government. They portray the Democrats as people who want big government. Looking at the facts, we see that government spending is biggest when a Republican president is in office. Republicans historically have bigger governments than Democrats. Five out of the eight presidential terms held by Republicans since 1945 have seen an increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, an increase in the size of the government. Zero of the seven presidential terms held by Democrats since that time have seen an increase in the size of the government. In fact, every single Democratic president since 1945 has reduced the size of the government by reducing the amount of national debt as a percentage of GDP.
Looking at Clinton more closely, we see that he presided over the largest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation, and the disappearance of the federal budget deficit. When he came into office in 1993, the federal budget deficit was $290 billion and was projected to be $455 billion by 2000. Clinton made it his number one goal to reduce the national debt. He did so by raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting taxes for the poor. By the end of his presidency, he had eliminated the federal deficit. In 1999, he recorded a federal budget surplus of $122.7 billion. In 2000, he topped his own record with a federal budget surplus of $230 billion. He also made huge gains in the national debt. In May 2000, he made a $216 billion payment on the federal debt, the largest debt paydown in American history. The federal government’s long-term debt in 2000 was $2.4 trillion lower than it was projected to be when Clinton took office in 1992. In September 2000, he explained that the $5.7 trillion national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the previous three years. He reduced it by $223 billion in 2000 alone. At the 2000 rate of debt paydown, the US was expected to have paid off its entire debt by 2010.
Now, near the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, our national debt is $9.6 trillion. We owe $5 trillion of that to China, a communist country we don’t like and who doesn’t like us. We have made absolutely zero payments on our national debt since Bush took office. Instead, Bush has nearly doubled our national debt, and he keeps spending. The economy is weaker, the dollar is weaker, and we’re further in debt than we ever have been before. We continue to pay for the war and reconstruction in Iraq despite the fact that the Iraq government has a $79 billion surplus earning interest in banks in New York. This is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility.
Looking to the future, the spending will continue if John McCain is elected. A quick skim through his website or perusal of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of both candidates’ policies reveals that McCain’s economic policies are merely continuations of George W. Bush’s policies. A continuation of these policies will utterly ruin our economy. Bush has hurt us exponentially in just eight years. We cannot afford even one more year of his policies, let alone four more.
The bottom line: Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They spend more and increase the debt more than Democrats. Economies under Republican presidents are, in general, weaker than economies under Democratic presidents. The Bush administration has squandered the gains made by the Clinton administration, and John McCain promises to keep squandering our money.
References:
“Clinton announces record payment on national debt”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
“President Clinton announces another record budget surplus”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
“An Analysis of the National Debt (1938 to Present): An Analysis of the Presidents who are Responsible for the Borrowing”
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
“Jobs created during US presidential terms – Wikipedia “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
“National Debt by US Presidential Terms – Wikipedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
“Is History Siding with Obama’s Economic Plan?” – NY Times 8/30/2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?8dpc
I was born in Texas and raised in Oklahoma in a very conservative, Republican household. I was raised believing that Republicans are for small government and low taxes. I was raised to believe that only the Republicans shared my Christian values and they had the safety of our country well in hand. Democrats, by contrast, wanted the government to fix everything, wanted to raise everyone’s taxes, were pro-abortion, and would do nothing to protect our country.
As I got older, I began to question whether the Republican Party has lived up to what it professes. I believe in all the things they profess: I believe in having strong national security, I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe in fiscal responsibility. But what I’ve found in my research is that the Republicans don’t put these values into practice.
I’m writing articles, based on the research I’ve done, that dispel the myths of Republicans. This article focuses on the economic myths: Republicans are fiscally responsible, Republicans believe in less government spending, and Republicans are better for the economy. My references appear at the end of the article.
First, some definitions. Political economists often talk about the national debt and the federal deficit. These two terms mean different things. The national debt refers to the accumulation of all the money the US government has borrowed over all the years that we’re still paying back. By contrast, the federal deficit refers to how much money the US government is spending over and above its budget in a single year. So the deficit reverts to zero at the beginning of each fiscal year whereas the national debt does not.
Now let’s take a look at the facts. We’ll start with national debt and raw numbers. In 2000, when Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today, after seven years of George W. Bush, it is $9.6 trillion. Bush has almost doubled our national debt in eight short years.
But let’s go further back and take a look at the average increases in national debt by president. It is most useful to look at the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let’s summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
Looking further at federal spending, we find that between 1978 and 2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9% while Republicans increased federal spending by 12.1%. Further, in the same period, Democrats increased the national debt by 4.2% whereas the Republicans increased it by 36.4%. It is true that the Republicans held 4 terms during this time while Democrats only held 3. However, looking at each president since 1978, we see that Reagan increased the national debt by a whopping 89.2% during his two terms. You read that right, Reagan nearly doubled the national debt in 8 years.
Now, you might say, “Well, but productivity increased more during that spending.” Using GDP as a measure of productivity (which is standard procedure), you’d be dead wrong. During the years 1978 – 2005, the Democrats increased the GDP by 12.6% while the Republicans only increased it by 10.7%. The president responsible for the largest increase in GDP, or the productivity of our country, during this time was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who increased the GDP by 28.4% during his eight years in office.
Some people argue that GDP is an imperfect measure of productivity. So let’s look at job creation. Of all the presidents since 1933, Bill Clinton has created by far the most jobs. During his tenure, he created 22.7 million jobs, a 4.9% increase. The worst president in terms of job creation is George W. Bush. During his first term, he created only 100,000 jobs, a 0.002% increase. On average, between 1933 and the present day, Republican have increased jobs by 0.21% while Democrats have increased jobs by 3.24%.
(A note about Reagan: All of the economic growth experienced during Reagan’s presidency was subsidized by the federal debt. Our federal debt almost doubled during his presidency. Talk about a big spender! He mortgaged our future, and it is abundantly clear by the widening gap between rich and poor that the policies he enacted, Reaganomics, if you will, are not sustainable.)
We can also get an idea of how “big” government is by looking at the national debt as a percentage of GDP (or, to put it another way, how much the government is spending relative to everyone else). Republicans advocate for small government. They portray the Democrats as people who want big government. Looking at the facts, we see that government spending is biggest when a Republican president is in office. Republicans historically have bigger governments than Democrats. Five out of the eight presidential terms held by Republicans since 1945 have seen an increase in government spending as a percentage of GDP, an increase in the size of the government. Zero of the seven presidential terms held by Democrats since that time have seen an increase in the size of the government. In fact, every single Democratic president since 1945 has reduced the size of the government by reducing the amount of national debt as a percentage of GDP.
Looking at Clinton more closely, we see that he presided over the largest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation, and the disappearance of the federal budget deficit. When he came into office in 1993, the federal budget deficit was $290 billion and was projected to be $455 billion by 2000. Clinton made it his number one goal to reduce the national debt. He did so by raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting taxes for the poor. By the end of his presidency, he had eliminated the federal deficit. In 1999, he recorded a federal budget surplus of $122.7 billion. In 2000, he topped his own record with a federal budget surplus of $230 billion. He also made huge gains in the national debt. In May 2000, he made a $216 billion payment on the federal debt, the largest debt paydown in American history. The federal government’s long-term debt in 2000 was $2.4 trillion lower than it was projected to be when Clinton took office in 1992. In September 2000, he explained that the $5.7 trillion national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the previous three years. He reduced it by $223 billion in 2000 alone. At the 2000 rate of debt paydown, the US was expected to have paid off its entire debt by 2010.
Now, near the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, our national debt is $9.6 trillion. We owe $5 trillion of that to China, a communist country we don’t like and who doesn’t like us. We have made absolutely zero payments on our national debt since Bush took office. Instead, Bush has nearly doubled our national debt, and he keeps spending. The economy is weaker, the dollar is weaker, and we’re further in debt than we ever have been before. We continue to pay for the war and reconstruction in Iraq despite the fact that the Iraq government has a $79 billion surplus earning interest in banks in New York. This is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility.
Looking to the future, the spending will continue if John McCain is elected. A quick skim through his website or perusal of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of both candidates’ policies reveals that McCain’s economic policies are merely continuations of George W. Bush’s policies. A continuation of these policies will utterly ruin our economy. Bush has hurt us exponentially in just eight years. We cannot afford even one more year of his policies, let alone four more.
The bottom line: Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. They spend more and increase the debt more than Democrats. Economies under Republican presidents are, in general, weaker than economies under Democratic presidents. The Bush administration has squandered the gains made by the Clinton administration, and John McCain promises to keep squandering our money.
References:
“Clinton announces record payment on national debt”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
“President Clinton announces another record budget surplus”
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
“An Analysis of the National Debt (1938 to Present): An Analysis of the Presidents who are Responsible for the Borrowing”
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
“Jobs created during US presidential terms – Wikipedia “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
“National Debt by US Presidential Terms – Wikipedia” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
“Is History Siding with Obama’s Economic Plan?” – NY Times 8/30/2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?8dpc
My only argument with that arkizm is that you can just look at who the president was during a time period but who had control of the house and senate during those times. And that the sources he sited are CNN and wikipedia. CNN is a strong leftist out look. Wikipedia is done on user submission must are credible but it can't be counted on 25% of the time.
Like you I'm neither I believe in limited government and fiscal sanity.
Like you I'm neither I believe in limited government and fiscal sanity.
[up]
i only read about half of it and didnt check his sources.im not big on blameing partys imo they are both equally to blame.the part i found interesting were the numbers clinton had and imo he was our most embarrassing president.not saying there is anything wrong with a quick bj.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/12/us-walmart-lawsuit-settlement-idUSTRE64B3MG20100512
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-24/news/30436638_1_retailer-fred-meyer-returns
http://consumerist.com/2011/11/walmart-continues-to-short-change-customers-on-gift-receipts.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/TTQ02189/wal_mart.htm
http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=73
http://www.organicconsumers.org/BTC/violations081605.cfm
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-24/news/30436638_1_retailer-fred-meyer-returns
http://consumerist.com/2011/11/walmart-continues-to-short-change-customers-on-gift-receipts.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/TTQ02189/wal_mart.htm
http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=73
http://www.organicconsumers.org/BTC/violations081605.cfm
Similar threads
