Why Must We Lie About The Past To Make Present Deficiencies More Palatable

Many articles are being written about President Ronald Reagan directed to degrade his leadership and greatness as a President of the United States. Articles written on liberal websites tend to pick out what they believe are the lows of his Presidency.

During this election cycle, much information presented may be viewed as fact when in reality it is not! Many political statements and accusations are meant to mislead, demean, and in many instances attempt to ruin reputations through false statements and innuendo.

Statements such as;

"President Regan tripled the debt and added trillions to the debt."

Here are the true figures on Presidential debt increase and unemployment figures from Reagan to Obama.

Increased Debt and Unemployment

REAGAN in 8 years increased the debt 1.6 trillion and unemployment from 1981 7.5% to 1989 5.4% for a Change of -2.1%

BUSH in 4 years increased the debt 1.5 trillion and unemployment from 1989 5.4% to 1993 7.3% for a Change of +1.9%

CLINTON in 8 years increased the debt 1.1 trillion and unemployment from 1993 7.3% to 2001 4.2% for a Change of -3.1%

BUSH in 8 years increased the debt 5.1 trillion and unemployment from 2001 4.2% to 2009 7.6% for a Change of +3.4%

OBAMA in 4 years increased the debt 5.2 trillion and unemployment from 2009 7.6% to 2012 8.3% for a Change of +0.7%

These are the numbers from the US Treasury and The Labor Department compared with several on-line sources verifying the above is true.

Future projection based on available information, place the National Debt at over 20 trillion dollars by 2016. Obviously, we should be more worried about President Obama and the state of the nation if he is re-elected for another four years, than trying to use President Reagan as an example of poor Republican leadership. In fact, in comparison with George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, The increase in debt is comparable.

Currently, the Labor Department reports an unemployment rate of 8.1%. Their numbers do not include the discouraged, underemployed, students who cannot find jobs and other factors. According to CNBC, The New York Post, Forbes, Townhall, and other reputable sources, the true Unemployment Rate is close to 15%. This is something all the media should be concerned and reporting... most are not!

Ronald Reagan was a great man and President who served twenty-three years ago. Liberals, really, can you not find someone more recent who you can quote with your usual twisting of the truth, rather than a man whose greatness has already been defined.

Admittedly, he did almost triple the debt at the time from 1.1 trillion when he took office to 2.7 trillion when he left, however, by any standard in government raising the debt 1.6 trillion over eight years does not raise the debt by trillions. Writing comments meant to deceive the reader into thinking by today's standard set by President Obama of 1.3 trillion per year, equates to President Reagan raising the debt by trillions is sadly pathetic.

According to a 1996 study by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore at the CATO Institute, Stephen Moore stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth.

Ronald Reagan increased the debt 200 billion per year over eight years for a 1.6 trillion increase. The debt when he took office in January 1981 was 1.1 trillion; when he left office in January 1989, it was 2.7 trillion. He increased the deficit 2.5 times... I guess according to Liberal calculations he did triple the deficit.

Barrack Obama increased the debt 1.3 trillion per year over four years for a 5.2 trillion increase. The debt when he took office in January 2009 was 10.7 trillion; after four years in office, it is 15.9 trillion. He has increased the deficit 1.5 times... I guess according to Liberals these are much better numbers than those of President Reagan. President Obama has, using Liberal math, only doubled the deficit; all in only four years. Can they really believe and chastise President Reagan for increasing the debt by trillions, when it is President Obama who has increased the debt by trillions?

Although they have equal increase in the deficit of 2.5 time increase, this is not an equal comparison. The spending rate of President Reagan, a paltry 200 billion per year is today pocket change for an Obama Administration spending 1.3 trillion or 6.5 times more than President Reagan per annum.

This article could be thousands of pages representative of the Reagan Period and his true genius. He was and is still one of the greatest Presidents. We cannot seek to destroy great men of the past to make a man of today look greater than he is; or ever will be.

The legacy of President Reagan will continue to be a shining moment in our history... I wonder what they will say about President Obama in 20 years; will his legacy be, the first President to suffer the indignity of having our nations Credit Rating reduced or maybe, the President who bankrupted America.

"No matter what you write, someone will love it."

Mac McGovern writes poetry, ezine articles, and blogs, visit his personal website at: http://www.allpoetry.com/mac_mcgovern

Copyright Information: You may republish this article, provided the text, author credit, active links and this copyright notice remain intact.

View the original article here

Convex or Concave, You Have to Choose - You Can't Choose Both or Vote Present

It is very interesting when you look at economic theory in times of global chaos. Do you push forward to reduce the budget through austerity, or do you work hard with a pro-growth strategy? This is a big debate in Europe right now, and one that we often have here the United States based on Keynesian economic theory. Might I add, that sometimes some of both makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense for governments to spend money unnecessarily, unwisely, and in an inefficient fashion only to tell the people they need more money, and raise taxes. Raising taxes of course takes money out of people's pockets which they would have spent in a very efficient manner, only buying those things they need, want, or desire.

That is the brilliance of free markets of course, and Milton Friedman surely would agree in his book "Free to Choose" because nothing is more efficient than individual buyers and sellers deciding what's in their own best interest and making a deal amongst themselves. Anytime a government, authority, taxing agency, or anyone else comes along to rearrange the flow of those transactions, all they do is distort them. Now then back to the idea of convex or a pro-growth strategy as opposed to concave or an austerity plan - we should philosophically be asking ourselves; do we vote for contraction and continued economic distortion and distraction or solid growth using free-market fundamentals which created this great nation.

Many people are tax adverse, and they don't want the government taking any more money from them. Still, most Americans believe that they should pay their fair share towards the common good, but they disagree on how the government is spending the money. If the government only spent exactly what it needed to provide the services that we desire and want we'd all be okay with it, there wouldn't be anyone complaining at nearly the level they are today. However the reason we have riots in Europe, and why they could actually end up here in the states is because there are philosophical differences in political opinions on how the money should be spent.

In the first presidential debate in October of 2012 President Obama said that Mitt Romney's economic strategy couldn't work because he couldn't do all he said if he didn't raise taxes. Mitt Romney rightfully responded that he wanted to broaden the base, and therefore there would be more people paying in which would make up the difference. The Obama Campaign supporters immediately called him a liar. That's absolutely ridiculous, because it is exactly what has been done in the past, and about the only thing that works.

If you own a company you surely want to make more sales, but you also need to control your expenses. There is no difference between what Romney is saying about broadening the base than a business going out to get more customers first, while controlling expenses, and allowing everything to grow from there. Please consider all this and think on it, because we've got to get the socialists out of their mental blockade on this very easy basic economic theory which is no longer taught in schools.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politcs and Economics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here