- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The ND was 3-400 billion during the time period of that war. Pocket change compared to the Reagan disaster.
Anything to prevent you from admitting you are wrong, 300-400 billion dollars paid for out of SS and Medicare doesn't bother you? The Reagan "disaster" gave us a peace dividend and 17 million jobs along with doubling the GDP. You call that a disaster? Show how little credibility you have
What the hell is wrong with you man. Did you forget your meds this morning. First of all the entire ND during the period of the Vietnam conflict was 3-400 billion. For a war that I just finished telling you was completely unnecessary, and as such that there was no proper way to pay for it. That's number one. Secondly, I'm no advocate of taking money out of our social programs to pay for war, ever!! That would be something you war mongers would support. As for credibility, that ended with our chief lender status, destroyed by the fantastic sum of money that that old fart borrowed and strapped upon the backs of Americans, setting an example before all presidents that followed him to just whip out the MasterCard. Good grief, I believe your getting senile.
You are the one that stated the 1.7 trillion dollar Reagan debt was outrageous. The results of that spending didn't matter, nor does it apparently matter that LBJ paid for the Vietnam War out of SS and Medicare to reduce the deficits and debt. You have no understanding of return on investment nor apparently the role of the Federal Govt. which isn't to run a surplus. If there is a surplus we are taxed too much which will never happen with bureaucrats who will always spend every dime they are given.
Yet it was paid for by SS and Medicare funds which of course made the deficit and debt look better just like all Presidents EXCEPT Reagan did afterwards. Reagan would have done it too but Carter left it almost broke thus the increase in FICA taxes, another tax you don't understand
And why doesn't it matter that LBJ used moneys from SS and Medicare to pay for an unnecessary war. How many times have I got to drill you with that, hmm? And another thing, 39 presidents ran the United States federal government over a period of 200 years at an accumulated debt of 900 billion dollars, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and in 8 short years single handedly borrows 2 trillion ****ing dollars, and you've got the freak on a pedestal praised as the best president in history. You make ZERO sense dude!!
It appears that all the victories last week have boosted Obama's approval rating to 50% for the 1st time since 2013. I guess more of us are proud to be an American.
Obama's approval rating grows following memorable week - CNNPolitics.com
Funniest thing, after the Kennedy/Johnson years, the debt had only gone up $57b (that's billion) but after the Reagan/Bush years it had gone up $3.4T (that's trillion). What're you gonna claim, con, that that was all due to inflation? IOW, it went up 60x faster in those 12 years than it had in that earlier 8 year period. And that's what rightwinger, Reagan apologists call "success."
Very easy not to have a deficit or debt when you use trust fund money from SS and Medicare to pay for it.
You don't get it and never will, SS and Medicare are unfunded liabilities because the money was used for everything other than SS and Medicare thus are part of the debt which you refuse to acknowledge or apparently understand. I dare you to research SS and the unified budget under LBJ
Now we are trillions in unfunded liabilities which you don't understand on top of the 18.2 trillion dollar debt.
First a future program expense only gets added to the debt if it remains unfunded. It only remains unfunded because one party refuses to fund it. That party hopes that tactic is the way to destroy that program instead of just voting it out of existence which would be the end of that party's existence if it tried to do so. That's the sort of cowardice, sneakery and general scumminess that the party you support is based entirely on.
So you think WWI and WWII as well as the Korean War didn't run a deficit and add to the debt? Amazingly you simply don't have a clue
You mean how Reagan funded his massive, MASSIVE miiitary spending. Diffference is, Johnson paid for his with taxes the way we've always managed to finance our excess military spending. Reagan and Bush II just let it pile up and pile up. Bush II even had his republican control Congress keep the massive spending off-budget by having the money provided always by "emergency appropriations." That's where most at least half of his massive $1.4T 2009 deficit came from when one of the first things President Obama did after taking office is order all that spending be shown.
Your ignorance knows no limits. The SS trust fund is fully funded from two sources: contributions (FICA and SE taxes) and interest income from the "intragovernmental" borrowing in the form of T-bills bought by the the SS trust fund. Medicare is about 80% funded from taxes and the rest made up out of general revenues. You've even used the term intergovernmental borrowing and it's now obvious you didn't even know what that meant.
The most classic strawman. Whenever did I say that.
Just as I thought, you have no idea what you post and forget you are the one claiming that deficits and debt only occurred from Carter on.
Now you're ****ing lying. God damn it dude, I have pointed out a dozen times if once in this thread that 39 president over a period of 200 years accumulated 900 billion dollars of debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That includes the wars and every other thing those fellows spent money on. Really man, what's wrong with you. And then your decrepit, Alzheimer's patient came along and in a period of 8 years, borrowed a couple trillion dollars, and now it seems that every president thinks he can do likewise. Thee biggest colossal failure that B movie actor was.
Funniest thing, after the Kennedy/Johnson years, the debt had only gone up $57b (that's billion) but after the Reagan/Bush years it had gone up $3.4T (that's trillion). What're you gonna claim, con, that that was all due to inflation? IOW, it went up 60x faster in those 12 years than it had in that earlier 8 year period. And that's what rightwinger, Reagan apologists call "success." This is why economists talk about the transition of the US from a creditor to a chronic debtor nation. Meanwhile our capitalist overlords saw their wealth skyrocket while the middle class shrank. MORE RIGHTWING SUCCESS!!! Orwell had nothing on the neo-cons and supply-siders and their enablers for perversion of the language.
Do you realize the cost of the Federal Govt. back then? Any idea? JFK had a budget of 250 billion dollars in 1965 with 175 million Americans. The last Reagan budget was 1.2 trillion dollars over 23 years later and today Obama wants 3.9 trillion dollars. You have no idea what liberalism has cost the govt. in terms of entitlement spending and what happened when LBJ put SS on budget. Before I started blaming someone else, I would look in the mirror at someone who is wrong more than right. I feel bad for people like you especially since you ought to know better
Reagan is the author of the runaway national debt. That freak owns it.
You really have a serious problem, seek help.
Well that's strong rebuttal, Lol.
Strong rebuttals are ignored. I gave you the Reagan successes and you ignored them because you are hung up on the debt number which was extremely low as a percentage of GDP, extremely beneficial to restoring America to a leadership position in the world, and making our economy strong and robust again. It was debt that was manageable and generated incredibly positive results.
Oh I didn't ignore it, I rejected it as false. He's the emperor of runaway US debt!! Period
Again, your opinion but you cannot explain how defeating the Soviet Union, winning the cold war, creating a peace dividend generated runaway spending in the future. Looks to me like the peace dividend gave future Presidents the opportunity to cut spending but no, future Presidents and Congresses catered to the will of the liberals and created larger and greater entitlement programs.
Reagan showed leadership, generated GDP growth, job creation, and a peace dividend so that is hardly setting the standards for higher debt
That Reagan was the first president to operate our nation on debt is no opinion. And he set the stage for every president that followed to borrow massively as he did. A colossal failure. The architect of runaway debt!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?