The Six Presidents Causing U.S. Bankruptcy

O

OddTrader


The Six Presidents Causing U.S. Bankruptcy


By Egon von Greyerz
Posted October 4, 2016

Since Reagan came to power in 1981, the U.S. has had a total of five presidents who have spent ever increasing amounts of money to hang on to power and buy votes.

https://dailyreckoning.com/six-presidents-causing-u-s-bankruptcy/


The U.S. economy showed natural growth without deficit spending until 1960. At that point, heavier involvement by the U.S. in the Vietnam war created the initial deficits. As Eisenhower handed over to Kennedy in 1961, U.S. debt was only $286 billion. Then 20 years later during the first year of Reagan’s presidency, U.S. debt reached the staggering sum of $1 trillion.

Reagan was hailed as a superb president primarily because he (like Thatcher in the U.K.) assumed power at the bottom of the economic and stock market cycles. So they were lucky to get in at the right time. But few people realise that Reagan achieved this by almost tripling debt from $0.9 trillion to $2,6T.

So in eight years Reagan incurred $1.7T of debt which is almost twice what all the presidents before him had incurred since 1789. And from then on every single president continued on the neck braking deficit course. Most people believed that Clinton managed the U.S. economy particularly well and created surpluses for the first time in 35 years.

But what the Clinton administration succeeded particularly well with was to cook the books rather than to create surpluses. Because in every single year of the Clinton administration, federal debt increased in spite of the fact that budget surpluses were shown. And by the time Clinton left in 2001, he had managed to add another $1.6T debt to make the total $5.7T.
More...
 
OddTrader said:
Reagan was hailed as a superb president primarily because he (like Thatcher in the U.K.) assumed power at the bottom of the economic and stock market cycles. So they were lucky to get in at the right time. But few people realise that Reagan achieved this by almost tripling debt from $0.9 trillion to $2,6T.
More...
FALSE
 
The Reagan Years are often lauded as the economic boom times of Reaganomics. But that's HOGWASH! Much as I liked him, he's the one who espoused the notion... "we don't need to parse the budget for 'guns-or-butter'... we can have both. Just borrow what we don't have and spend it".

Ever since, exploding national debt and deficits. (One dumbass Senator even remarked, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".)

:(
 
Last edited:
Scataphagos said:
The Reagan Years are often lauded as the economic boom times of Reaganomics. But that's HOGWASH! Much as I liked him, he's the one who got the notion... "we don't need to parse the budget for 'guns-or-butter'... we can have both. Just borrow what we don't have and spend it".

Ever since, exploding national debt and deficits. (One dumbass Senator even remarked, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".)

:(
More...
Your posting is false and misinformed. All Reagan budgets were DOA. Reagan attempted to initiate growth and curb spending, but it was to no avail. Congress spends what it wants to. Moderator--I suggest this be moved to politics forum.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
Your posting is false and misinformed. All Reagan budgets were DOA. Reagan attempted to initiate growth and curb spending, but it was to no avail. Congress spends what it wants to. Moderator--I suggest this be moved to politics forum.
More...
"there are no solutions only trade-offs"

President Reagan's choice was to focus on destroying the USSR, the evil empire.
 
TRUE ...as much as I like Reagan the total debt exploded under Reagans Administration and has been climbing climbing climbing..ever since

"During Reagan's presidency, the national debt grew from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency." Wikipedia
 
Who cares, those in the power and prestige do not do anything about it so only thing common citizens can do is to guard their interests and play it safe.
 
Can you honestly say that the national debt matters to the single mom on the south side of Chicago just barely getting by?
No, it doesn't.

The relationship between the government and the Fed is mutually beneficial.
The Fed cannot exist without the government, but under our current situation, the government cannot exist without the Fed.
Many people have guessed why our government doesn't print its own money without cost? You know what happens to them? They die.

Seriously, I understand your point but you don't know the lengths they will go to keep that power. Leave it alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top