cawacko
Well-known member
Those numbers don't include the war costs.
Liberals and One Party Rule
- Thread starter Boris The Animal
- Start date
Those numbers don't include the war costs.
I believe they do; you see, it doesn't matter if it was off budget or on budget, this data as I understand it is the TOTAL revenue and TOTAL outlays by year.
Please provide your data; it won't change the FACT that Bush's spending was due to 9-11 and fighting two wars.
I will ask you the same thing; what war was ever fought without a deficit?
As you can see by the actual data, the deficits were heading downward before Democrats fooled the American sheeple into giving them the power they so desperately craved built upon the lie that Republicans were the spendthrifts and that THEY, Democrats, would be fiscally responsible.
We see where that has led us don't we? To suggest that Bush was spending like a drunken sailor is like claiming Obama hates deficits.
It’s really hard to take your prattle serious when you make incredibly stupid comments like this one. This is illustrative of someone stuck on DNC talking points rather than thinking for themselves and doing some easy research for the facts.
Historical marginal tax rates were unchanged through WWII, Korea and Vietnam Wars. Perhaps you have some made up data arguing otherwise?
Another inconvenient fact for parrots of DNC talking points; regardless of tax reductions or increases, revenue has always gone up. I will leave it to your imagination why that is.
So now you wish to change your rhetoric and engage in the circle of stupidity? How typical.
US involvement in Vietnam began in 1960; regular combat troops deployed in 1965.
Marginal tax rates from 1964 to 1965 dropped from 77% to 70%. Democrats controlled both houses.
If we take the data back to 1960, marginal tax rates dropped from 91% to 77%. Democrats controlled both houses.
Any questions?
maineman
Banned
so you are saying we were at war with Vietnam for five years before we deployed any troops? interesting.
There never, and I mean never, was a surplus. And the reality is the war spending was outside the budgets, the spending was high before the war spending. Every year he made a budget.
I don't have "talking points", it is simple observation.
Year 1, that budget was passed by Clinton.
Year 2, that spending was almost all proposed and promoted by Bush before the war ever ramped up and wasn't due to the war.
So on...
Bush projected, on average, $150 Billion deficits in each budget, then had continuing resolutions for the war spending. He never made an effort to balance a budget.
His actions tell me he was no conservative.
Tell me his conservative "bonafides" that are somewhere listed in your fantasy. If the list consists of "was against abortion and stem cell research"... well, that's simply not enough. One isn't conservative solely because they believe in an invisible sky magician and think the book of spells tells them not to kill a zygote. Constitutionally limited government is what makes a conservative, and that man made no effort to protect the constitution from draconian power grabs in the name of the "War on Terrorism".
Correct. Those are Bush's projected budgets pre-war spending. He spent like a drunken idiot, never even once tried to balance the budget, promoted his stupid pill bill and amnesty at the first opportunity, and outspent almost every President before him.
He was not a conservative by any measure that counts. His only claim to the description was his stance on the protection of Zygotes, and there are many religious lefties who have that same stance.
You read, yet you do not comprehend; go back to the post and read it CAREFULLY again dimwit.
God you're dumb.
So in other words, you don't care what the FACTS are; you are sticking to your talking points.
The budget deficit/surplus numbers were for ALL spending, on and off budget.
Wrong; that came from the budget numbers readily available that included ALL spending and revenue for those years.
Do you need a link to the OMB?
maineman
Banned
and, from the moment we sent combat troops into Vietnam (i.e. when we went to WAR), the marginal tax rate did NOT go down, as it did during Iraq. How fucking dumb are YOU?You read, yet you do not comprehend; go back to the post and read it CAREFULLY again dimwit.
God you're dumb.
No, I point out the facts and you ignore them, then have no argument that shows the opposite side. So, in other words, you've been owned in my barely accessible free time.
Tell me again exactly what Bush actually did that was conservative. So far you have nothing at all.
Again, Bush kept the budget spending separate from the CR spending on the war. Bush never included war spending in budgets, yet he increased non-discretionary/non-defense spending by a huge margin...
Anyway, non-discretionary and non-defense spending increased during Bush's terms, they did not decrease. It wasn't the war, it was his policy that point out that he was not a conservative and that he had a spending problem (increased under this guy, but I don't expect a person who actually runs on redistribution to be a conservative).
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
We were though...
maineman
Banned
No. We weren't. We had sent a few military advisors to assist the government of South Vietnam. It was not until the Tonkin Gulf resolution that we began actually fighting a war.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Uh huh. Yeah, no. Our "ADVISORS" were just as engaged in military operations as they were in 1965. Hell, we had covert ops guys there from 1945 on.
maineman
Banned
we weren't fighting a ground war with conventional infantry troops until after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. We did not fully enforce the draft lottery to fulfill the burgeoning needs of the military that that resolution created until 1969.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Ah, so now the metric has changed. Noted.