Welcome...This site is still inder construction please be patient...

here is a little insight on some economic facts...(bush's career under the microscope) courtesy of

emogame

in the 80'sand the early 90's president regan and Bush Sr. claimed that supply-side economics would lead to a boost in the economy that would elinimate the record deficits"in two maybe three years."

They believed that by granting tax cuts (most of thich went to rich people and corporations) the economy would drastically gow and expand

Even people within these administrations called these policies "trojan HOrse" scams to funnel more money to the rich.

By the time the "Regan Revolution" was over. George Bush Sr. was running a record annual deficit of $290 billion per year. The United States wasin recession and the future genorations would be paying back the debt of our leader's failed ecenomic policies.

Is there anything to compare this to? Is there any reasonable. successful plan we can follow in order to improve our economy?

When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, he intentionally reserved the regan and bush I formulas, raising taxes on the wealthy and reducing them on the lowest wage earners.

Many republicans predicted th arrival of the Apocalypse. Bob Dole said the stock market would colapse. Newt Gingrich said the world would fall into another great depression...

What actually what happined durring clintons two terms?

Between 1992 and 2000 the U.S sustianed the longest sustained ecenomic expansion in U.S. history.It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded and at the end of his presidency the U.S was booming with a $236 billion surplus. So it would make sense to learn from history, to follow the ecenomic policies of the past that have worked and to learn from mistakes that did not.

When Bush Jr. assumed presidency in 2001 he brought back the supply side ecenomic principles of his father giving tax cut after tax cut to the rich.And in just one term bush managed to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $500 billion deficit; the largest in the history of the United States.

Debt would pile up for future genorations, health care costs would sky rocket, and social security would descriminate while the wealthy, and those involved in energy and drug industries would prosper like never before

Bush denied his policies and blamed "the Clinton recession," Al qaeda, and the war in iraq for his record high deficite.

but who was really to blame?

At the end of Clintons presidency it was estimated that the ten year projection would yield a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus. The future looked bright, our country seemed to be headed in the right direction.

so what happined? where did all that money go? And what did our future look like after four years of bush?

In his first days as president Bush skimmed 1.3 trillion off this surplus and gave it back to "the people"... and when I say the people I mean America's wealthiest people. Much like in the past this little to boost the economy.

In 2000 when George W. Bush was running for president, he made a speech in Chicago in which he promised not to touch the $2.5 trillion that Clinton had set aside to fix the grave Social Security problems looming in the future.

Within the first yearof his presidency. Bush had broken his promise.

And within another,the entire Social Security "lock box" had been depleated and it was apparent that deficites would run into the future

...but Bush didnt intentionally raid the Social security "lock box", which would likely lead to privatization of Social Security...or did he?

ok what about the wars we fought? Isn't that where all the money went?

Economists belive most of the growing deficites can be simply atributed by a slump in the economy...And the fact that Bush's only way of dealing with a slump wasto throw more money at the rich people and enacting unhelpful tax cuts to achive political gain.

Bush's second round of major tax cuts in 2003 ran up even more debt to our country. Most of the money went to the pockets of the rich, and even Bush's secretary of treasury Paul O'Neil said that the money could have been better spent and that this tax cut served as means of political gain.At the same time Bush never failed to sign a single spending bill that he was approached with. While Republicans have traditionaly griped over tax and spend and Democrats, spending increased almost twice as much as it would under clinton.

With our nation going further into debt, and the economy in a slump. Bush was approving spending on silly programs such as missile defense and missions to Mars. Ultimately the debt incurred to pay off rich people would be picked by you average middle class family that would pay more as a result of soaring health care costs, depleted retirment funds, record unemployment levels, lower saleries, and an overall weak economy.

In the end, Bush's ecenomic policies have left us with a future that carries $5.6 trillion of extra debt in the next ten years...a turn around of nearly $11 trillion in just one term.