04-21-2017, 11:05 AM
(04-20-2017, 09:57 PM)John J. Xenakis responding to Cynic Hero Wrote: 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.
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.
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.
Generally correct. Some of the additional expenses for the Iraq War, unlike Afghanistan, required a supplementary appropriation, so there was a small increase in spending - small by federal budget standards, anyway - and if you look carefully, there is an appropriately sized uptick in 2003. However, it's tiny compared to the size of the revenue plunge starting in 2000, supporting your underlying point that it was the business cycle that drove the surplus or deficit.