Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

(04-20-2017, 09:57 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-20-2017, 04:15 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   LOL, Here John X is outright denying that a Budget surplus surplus
>   existed from the late 1990s until 9/11. It was the refusal to fund
>   the war effort with actual spending that caused the return of the
>   deficit. This began immediately after 9/11, 18 months prior to the
>   start of the Iraq war. Also regarding Iraq the political class'
>   delusion that Iraqis valued western "freedom" just like Americans
>   do, insured that we would get bogged down in nation-building and
>   made the insurgency inevitable (had the former Baathists been
>   allowed to keep their posts and allowed to continue administering
>   local government, there wouldn't have been an insurgency). Without
>   that delusion we would have entered Iraq with 500,000 troops
>   rather than the 200,000 that ended up being committed.

You really are an idiot.

First, the graph that I posted is from the St. Louis Fed, not
something that I made up.  This is in contrast to the fake facts that
you make up all the time in your weird rants.

Second, the graph that I posted shows a surplus from 1998 to 2001.
Apparently you're unable to read a graph.  If you knew how to read a
graph, then you would know that not only did I not deny that there was
a surplus, but in fact the graph I posted clearly depicts a surplus.

You shouldn't be commenting on anything with a number if you can't
read a graph.  Just stick to subjects you learned in your sociology
and women's studies courses.

Third, what's even more confusing to you is that I wasn't talking
about the size of the deficit.  I was talking the change in the size
of the deficit.  Specifically, I was showing you that the deficit
started surging in the year 2000.  There was still a surplus in 2000,
but the size of that surplus was plummetting (which means the same
thing as saying that the size of the deficit was surging).

So do you understand that concept?  There was a surplus in 2000, but
it started FALLING in 2000, because of the Nasdaq crash and the
recession.  The Iraq war had nothing to do with it.

I realize that all this math is taxing for you.  If you have any
friends that know how to read a graph, perhaps you can ask them to
explain it to you.

Finally, once again, if you look at the blue line on that graph, which
shows government outlays, you'll see that it didn't bulge in 2003.
The reason for that is that the Bush administration did not incur
additional expenses for the Iraq war, which would have implied
something like a draft.  Instead, they reassigned existing resources
on other projects to the Iraq war, thus keeping costs level.

The Global war on terror started on 9/11 well before the Iraq war. The changes in defense spending began immediately after the attacks so the fact that we went into Iraq would not have changed the fundamental direction of the spending. The mistake that Bush made was trying to borrow money to spend due to the neocon ideology that "hard money" spending is considered evil and the route to tyranny? The above spending policy created the deficit and those decisions were made shortly after 9/11.