Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Put it to you this way, the money that we were spending on the wars that we were borrowing, we will no longer need to be borrowing. Money that is spent on military spending that was part of the war could then be applied to the debt rather than war. Seriously do some actual research on what the president meant.
ALL of it was BORROWED!!!!
The BEST he COULD have meant was that we won't need to BORROW MORE!!!!
You can't use LESS BORROWING to actually pay down ANYTHING!!!
Put it to you this way, the money that we were spending on the wars that we were borrowing, we will no longer need to be borrowing. Money that is spent on military spending that was part of the war could then be applied to the debt rather than war. Seriously do some actual research on what the president meant.
Sounds to me OBoy doesn't know what he meant, either.
Reagan and Bush One called this a peace dividend - a decrease in Cold War military spending allowing a shift to social programs and/or lower taxes. OMG. Are you dissing Reagan and Bush?
Reagan and Bush One called this a peace dividend - a decrease in Cold War military spending allowing a shift to social programs and/or lower taxes. OMG. Are you dissing Reagan and Bush?
Sounds like it Bush Sr and Reagan were such libertards.
Yes, then were were in a mini-recession and shortly later 911 happened.
Then, Bush's Tax Cuts took effect and the Federal Revenue skyrocketed which allowed the debt to start being paid down quite quickly.
As I repeatedly explained, federal revenue did not skyrocket under Bush. What seemed like revenue growth was simply due to inflation and population increases. When one facts out those two, there was no growth at all.
Reagan and Bush One called this a peace dividend - a decrease in Cold War military spending allowing a shift to social programs and/or lower taxes. OMG. Are you dissing Reagan and Bush?
Except that we weren't borrowing the money for the Cold War.
As I repeatedly explained, federal revenue did not skyrocket under Bush.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Except that we weren't borrowing the money for the Cold War.
Sorry, you fail.
Reagan and Bush Sr tripled the deficit. You can't do that without borrowing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
