Politics

Reagan's average spending is four and half times more than liberal spending; moreover, conservatives and/or Republicans spend five and half times more than liberals, on average.

The difference between conservatism and liberalism is that conservatives create big government (spend more) for corporations and the military, while liberals spend more for the poor and middle class. The problem is that the media, which are owned by a few corporate entities, have tricked the public into believing that spending that benefits the public is socialism and is bad, while passing off spending for corporations and the military-industrial complex as necessary, fine and good.

Read this very interesting article, from 2003, quoting members of Reagan's administration.

Spending Records of Recent Conservative and Liberal Presidents

Name	Year	Revenue	Spending	+Surplus/ -Deficit	Public Debt
James Earl Carter, Jr., 39th President of the United States	1977	355.6	409.2	-53.7	549.1
	1978	399.6	458.7	-59.2	607.1
	1979	463.3	504.0	-40.7	640.3
	1980	517.1	590.9	-73.8	711.9
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States	1981	599.3	678.2	-79.0	789.4
	1982	617.8	745.7	-128.0	924.6
	1983	600.6	808.4	-207.8	1,137.3
	1984	666.5	851.9	-185.4	1,307.0
	1985	734.1	946.4	-212.3	1,507.3
	1986	769.2	990.4	-221.2	1,740.6
	1987	854.4	1,004.1	-149.7	1,889.8
	1988	909.3	1,064.5	-155.2	2,051.6
George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States	1989	991.2	1,143.8	-152.6	2,190.7
	1990	1,032.1	1,253.1	-221.0	2,411.6
	1991	1,055.1	1,324.3	-269.2	2,689.0
	1992	1,091.3	1,381.6	-290.3	2,999.7
William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States	1993	1,154.5	1,409.5	-255.1	3,248.4
	1994	1,258.7	1,461.9	-203.2	3,433.1
	1995	1,351.9	1,515.9	-164.0	3,604.4
	1996	1,453.2	1,560.6	-107.4	3,734.1
	1997	1,579.4	1,601.3	-21.9	3,772.3
	1998	1,722.0	1,652.7	+69.3	3,721.1
	1999	1,827.6	1,702.0	+125.6	3,632.4
	2000	2,025.5	1,789.2	+236.2	3,409.8
George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States	2001	1,991.4	1,863.2	+128.2	3,319.6
	2002	1,853.4	2,011.2	-157.8	3,540.4
	2003	1,782.5	2,160.1	-377.6	3,913.4
	2004	1,880.3	2,293.0	-412.7	4,295.5
	2005	2,153.9	2,472.2	-318.3	4,592.2
	2006	2,407.3	2,655.4	-248.2	4,829.0
	2007
	2008

* data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget and represent billions of dollars
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

Name	Total Government Spending	Comment
James Earl Carter, Jr.	-227.4 billion
Ronald Wilson Reagan	-1,338.6 billion (1.3 trillion)
George Herbert Walker Bush	-933.1 billion
William Jefferson Clinton	-192.3 billion
George Walker Bush	-1,386.4 (1.4 trillion)	*2 years remaining

Label	Total Spending	Average Annual Spending
Liberal	-419.7	-35 billion/year
Conservative	-3,658.1	-203.22 billion/year

I would like the reader to be aware that both parties spend our money (tax dollars), but also to consider which party spends in our interest and which party spends the most--is the least fiscally responsible--despite what the corporate media says. The corporate media has tricked most of us into believing that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility (the adults). Just think of the things that conservatives have spent trillions of dollars on, while cutting social programs for the poor and the middle class. Do you remember when Reagan wanted to designate ketchup as a vegetable in school lunch programs, so he could cut educational funding?

The list of big spending ticket items includes Star Wars, tax cuts that benefited mainly the rich and a preemptive war against a small and beaten country, who during 12 years of American bombing raids was unable to even shoot one of our planes from their skies. How adult is that? The Conservatives spend on average over five and half times as much as liberals, but cut social programs that help the middle class and poor.

"Trickle-down economics," "Reaganomics," supply-side economics

The first goal of the conservative theory "trickle-down economics," "Reaganomics" or supply-side economics is to pass or increase the financial fortune of the rich in the hopes that they will eventually share this wealth with the rest of the public via investments that they again will profit from.

Conservatives have broken our unions; they've moved the balance of the tax burden from corporations and heaped it on the backs of the people and they've crippled the middle class by moving jobs offshore to countries with lower wages without any consideration for the flag, loyalty or the American way.

When confronted with these facts, the corporate media will decry this as being class warfare. But the next time Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or anyone else in corporate media beseech you on the grounds of the flag, America or even religion to vote for something that is not in your best interest, first, remember what your bottom line interests are and don't be fooled by the smoked mirror rhetoric that they spew.

The color problem and divide and conquer

Conservatives have used the tactic of divide and conquer to pit whites against blacks and vice versa, while they run away with the wealth created by our sweat and the freedom born of our blood. We die in the wars they create, so this country can be free. The least they can do is divide the wealth, so that everyone can have a living wage. This they will call socialism. Don't be fooled. The rich own the corporate media. And it is not a coincidence that the American media has made you believe that Ronald Reagan was a great conservative president, despite his actual spending record.

When asked about class warfare, billionaire Warren Buffett said: "It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be."

Click to subscribe to my RSS feed .