That is the high cost of trying to limit colateral damage by using precision bombs and rockets.

Sniper can you provide a link with that? That sounds very...interesting....

We don't care cuz our grandkids will pay the bill for us. Deficits don't matter...at least not to so called fiscally responsible Republican Congresses.
What was that thing Clinton did???
Oh yeah...pay as you go.
How about another round of patriotic tax cuts for the rich in war time.

That is the high cost of trying to limit colateral damage by using precision bombs and rockets

Yeah, cause a Hellfire missile costs so much more than a carpet bombing by a squadron of B-52s does.
Is it just a coincidence, but this war is the first war with as many private sector contractors as uniformed troops?

But hey, it's worth it. I mean, the victory parades alone will make the trillions seem cheap.

We've NEVER had tax cuts in a time of war.

Americans were asked to sacrifice in other times. This war has been financed by borrowing - which isn't new - but without sacrifice, especially from the wealthy supporters of Bush, America doesn't feel the sting of this.....yet.

America experienced recession and inflation after Korea and Vietnam. Of course, they want to blame Carter for record inflation when it was a simple matter of things catching up to us.

Some posters will post 'lowest pct. of GDP, blah blah blah', but the point is we're borrowing from Communist China, among others, to pay for it at a time when fiscal responsibility has never been more important. Currently we pay 18 cents of every tax dollar coming into the Treasury in interest on the national debt. THIS is historic.

Also WW2 we had the draft, pretty cheap labour if you ask me. The pay increases, signing bounses and care for all our wounded troops (much more $$$$$ than in WW2)...

I bet that corporations like Haliburton, etc. will use their profits to benefit mankind. That's why they are moving to UAE. The war will end when it is no longer profitable. It will go out of business.

Is there anything that costs less today than it did during the Vietnam or Korean wars?

The fact that we're fighting unorganized enemies without having to face an air force, or armored opposition, (and our subsequent losses) with far fewer troops than either VN or Korea makes you wonder where the money is going, doesn't it?

the fact that we are rebuilding and rebuilding a country single handedly as well as feeding their people and paying the wages of their government, police and clergy, along with the bribes and corruption has something to do with it i do believe

But the oil is going to pay for the war.

Great link CalifChris.

That is the high cost of trying to limit colateral damage by using precision bombs and rockets.

Then Clinton's Balkan and Kosovo wars must have been even more expensive.


Not.

Is there anything that costs less today than it did during the Vietnam or Korean wars?

Computers. calculators.
But the cost comparison used is adjusted for inflation, not simply dollar for dollar.

In what other war did we pay private soldiers called contractors $150,000 per year???
Another great success of privatization.

Funny that we spend more money but our troops still don't get the equipment they need but Haliburton and other companies make billions doing what our troops used to do...like cooking, etc.
They blame production for the shortage of equipment but we've been fighting in Iraq for four years. We build a whole Army, Navy and Air Force in that much time during WWII.
War for profit.

Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy -- about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart. Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.

Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy -- about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart. Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.

But the United States is vastly richer than it was in those days, and the nation's wealth now dwarfs the price of war, economists said. Last year, spending in Iraq amounted to less than 1 percent of the total economy -- about as much as Americans spent shopping online and less than half what they spent at Wal-Mart. Total defense spending is 4 percent of gross domestic product, the figure that measures the nation's economic output. In contrast, defense spending ate up 14 percent of GDP at the height of the Korean War and 9 percent during the Vietnam War.

* * * * *

Any way you want to slice it, this article is bogus. We lost 55,000 troops in Vietnam, another 34,000 in Korea. In he WOT, we're up to what? 4,000 or so? And in dollar terms, it's ten times less expensive. The reason that Americans don't feel as if we're sacrificing for this war, is simple: we aren't. Very few of us know anyone who's been killed or wounded, fewer still notice any impact to their pocketbooks whatsoever. For you libs who say we need to sacrifice more, what exactly do you propose? Rationing? Spending MORE on the war?

teach me about macro economics professor. Under Herr Bush, national debt has increased over 5 trillion dollars. Anual interest on that debt alone is 250 Billion dollars. The goofball still hase a year and a half to grow the 5 number. Are you saying this is trivial? of so, please explain

They blame production for the shortage of equipment but we've been fighting in Iraq for four years. We build a whole Army, Navy and Air Force in that much time during WWII.
War for profit.

Posted by danni

* * * *

Maybe you didn't read the article. The war is being fought more cheaply than at almost any other time in history. If you really think Haliburton is making out in Iraq, maybe you should look into how much money GM, Ford, Hughes Aircraft, Delco, and hundreds of firms made during World War II. In fact, Harry Truman made his mark in the Congress by going after defense contractors, for their overbilling and their cost overruns.
Government overspends on everything. This isn't new. What is new is that we're fighting a war on the relative cheap. For a change.

ROC:
How about this guy? He's got an inkling?

"But Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the United States, which makes him the head auditor for the most important and powerful government in the world. And he's desperately trying to get a message out to anyone who'll listen: the United States of America's public finances are a shambles. They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike anything ever seen before.

Walker's department projects that, under the current tax rates, interest costs on the skyrocketing national debt would be about half of all government tax revenues by 2031. Ten years later, the cost of servicing the debt will exceed all government revenues."

North, he is going to teach us about macro economics. Still waiting to hear from him. I am guessing he is delayed because he only has 8 toes

"Walker's department projects that, under the current tax rates, interest costs on the skyrocketing national debt would be about half of all government tax revenues by 2031"

Is that based on the assumption that the debt will continue to increase at the pace it does while we are at war in Iraq?

"maybe you should look into how much money GM, Ford, Hughes Aircraft, Delco, and hundreds of firms made during World War II."
So the taliban and sunni insurgents are just as big and strong as the combined Japanese, German and Italian military? Wow, no wonder Bush hasn't been able to defeat anybody yet. Tell me again how many more Naval vessels, aircraft and armored vehicles Bush had to build to fight his wars than FDR needed to build to fight his?
Of course, he already had a massively expensive military on hand, unlike FDR who essentially had to build one from scratch, so its really not fair to compare FDR's victories with Bush's failures.

You're right. He didn't have to do those things. Which is another reason this war is being fought a whole lot cheaper than those in times past. And yet another reason why we've been fighting for five years, in the Middle East and in Africa, have destroyed two enemy regimes, and lost fewer men than during the first two hours of the Normandy invasion.

I thought the "tax and spend" dems were going to straighten out the government financal woes. All spending comes from the congress, not the president, and the dems are in control now to cut all that pork anf get things on the straight and narrow again like it was under Clinton.

Damn the luck, who controled congress then?

Drunk and NG3-

I am not saying that the National Debt or the borrowing for Iraq are trivial, but they are manageable. If there is a truly balanced budget or even a slight surplus (without borrowing from the SS trust fund), the entire debt would be paid down in about 15 years. Unfortunately, politicians don't have that much control, and might never unless forced to by a balanced budget amendment.

Don't get me wrong, these wars have been costly, but we have other fiscal problems that are much worse.

Current Wars More Costly Than 'Nam, Korea

Toenail clippers are more expensive now than then, so are cars, sodas, rent, homes, underwear, well, pretty much everything. GREAT READ!

RIR: So chasing the taliban out of Kabul and into Kandahar in 6 years is the same as defeating Japan? Who'd a thunk it. But if you're going to compare the taliban to the German military machine, I guess it makes sense.

Of course, we haven't touched the warlords who run most of afghanistan or created a government in Iraq that functions outside the Green Zone, so I'm guessing Iraq is more of a success than the war in the Pacific.

And if you read the article, Bush's Excellent Adventures are costing more than any war but WW2. Tell me again how the taliban is tougher then the NK, VN, Gulf1 Iraqis or the Serbs?

Geez, even draft dodger Clinton defeated the Serbs cheaper and with less casualties than what would pass as a great day in Iraq.

Toenail clippers are more expensive now than then, so are cars, sodas, rent, homes, underwear, well, pretty much everything. GREAT READ!

Since the costs were adjusted for inflation, I'm assumng "great read" is in the future tense.
Like when your mom has time to read it to you.

Bush has no plans, as he has stated to even come near balancing his budget much less have a surplus during his administration

Well, McLeans was wrong, weren't they? The budget deficit for 2005 was $319 billion. In 2006 it was $247 billion. Which goes to show you how hard it is to predict treasury flows, even though the article is being written in the same year. The experts were 35% off the total figure during the same fiscal year.

For the record, we're looking at something between $150 and $200 billion for 2007.

Drunk-

Even typing with my eleven fingers and eight toes the time it would take to explain the differences between Keynesian, Supply-side, New Keynesian, Post-Keynesian or New Classical economics, Monetarism or the interplay of microeconomics in fiscal or monetary policy wouldn't be worth it.

Suffice it to say that once we stop spending more then we take in, then things will improve.

stop with your game playing and your illusions. you clearly know that the "budget" deficit does not include supplemental spendng. Also, the budget in not realistic. these liars reduced V A expenditures in the budget, knowing full well it was fradulent. Look at the nation debt for full governmental spending and try and put sone honesty in your posting

and when might that be?

And if you read the article, Bush's Excellent Adventures are costing more than any war but WW2. Tell me again how the taliban is tougher then the NK, VN, Gulf1 Iraqis or the Serbs?

* * *
I did read the article. We spend less than 1% of our national income in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Korea the figure was 14%; in Vietnam 9%. In terms of military casualties, the cost is dramatically lower, too--55,000 in VN; 34,000 in Korea; 4,000 in WOT. So in just what respect does it cost more than "any war but World War 2"? Come on, now, and think for yourself, and give me a good answer.

stop with your game playing and your illusions. you clearly know that the "budget" deficit does not include supplemental spendng. Also, the budget in not realistic. these liars reduced V A expenditures in the budget, knowing full well it was fradulent. Look at the nation debt for full governmental spending and try and put sone honesty in your posting

Posted by Georgeisadrunk

* * *

You're wrong about all those things. The final budget deficit includes ALL spending, period. Just because the spending wasn't included in the initial appropriation doesn't mean the Treasury doesn't report it as a cash outflow later in the fiscal year.

Bushto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Iraqis bombed the WTC? Hell no!

Q: What is the difference between the Debt and the Deficit?

A: The National Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government; the federal budget deficit is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. Add up all the deficits (and subtract those few budget surpluses we've had) for the past 200+ years and you'll get the current National Debt.
Politicians love to crow "The deficit is down! The deficit is down!" like it's a great accomplishment. Don't be fooled. Reducing the deficit just means we're adding less to the Debt this year than we did last year. Big deal -- we're still adding to the Debt. When are we going to start seeing the Debt actually go down?


Lets put some truth and honesty into this discussion

Redman-

Thanks for the link, but facts like that are looked upon with suspicion by the DR Left because Bush is President and he lies about everything.

When are we going to start seeing the Debt actually go down?


Lets put some truth and honesty into this discussion


Posted by Georgeisadrunk

* * * *

Hopefully never. Two of the three Great Depressions in American history happened because the government paid off all their bonds, thereby destroying a good chunk of the money supply.
What the government should do maintain deficit spending to about 1% of GDP. That allows for about 1/5 of the new money supply creation to be funded at the lowest possible rates to the nation, while precluding the possibility of a crowding out effect.
I know that everyone from the rabid Limbaugh listener, to those losers who hold up placards saying that their children will be paying Bush's war debts, just got really offended. But that's the way it is. It is almost always preferable for the government to borrow money than to collect more of it through taxes on the productive economy, especially with 30-year rates at 4.75%.

But that's the way it is.

Drunk-

RiR and I are not talking about the Debt and Deficit as if they are the same thing, of course the Deficit adds to the Debt. However, a continually shrinking deficit ultimately leads to a surplus.

The point most people fail to grasp, however, is that the component called "interest" on our budget also includes redemtion costs for out bonds, so if the budget is balanced, then all of our long term debt would ultimately be paid off as the term of those T-Bills and Notes expire.

When is that going to happen? When we require all budgets to be balanced.

The global war on terror, as President Bush calls the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and related military operations, is about to become the second-most-expensive conflict in U.S. history, after World War II.



And might I add, the least casualties.

RiR-

I think that the US will always have to run short term (1-5 year) debt at about 1% of GDP for the reasons that you stated but that is just how cashflow works in general.

Check out your logic.

What the government should do maintain deficit spending to about 1% of GDP. That allows for about 1/5 of the new money supply creation to be funded at the lowest possible rates to the nation, while precluding the possibility of a crowding out effect.

I hope you dont use that logic with your home loan.

Why? What difference would that make?

never mind. i know understand the problem

For that matter, is the author of this piece really going to pretend the cost of THIS war is more expensive than the US Civil War? Hundreds of thousands killed, American industry ravaged, a depression that followed, the nation torn apart?

It's laughable.

In the long run, this could cost the US Treasury more than a trillion dollars, but (IMHO) the cost of bad judgement and the loss of admiration at American integrity and reason is worth a whole lot more than a trillion dollars.

I hope you dont use that logic with your home loan.

Posted by Georgeisadrunk at 2007-05-08 05:14 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be estatic if my home loan was 1% of my total yearly income. Hell, I would even take payments that were 1% of my income.

the cost of bad judgement and the loss of admiration at American integrity and reason is worth a whole lot more than a trillion dollars.

Posted by townncountry at 2007-05-08 05:39 PM

I agree with you on that score.

We build a whole Army, Navy and Air Force in that much time during WWII.
War for profit.

Posted by danni

Fought it and WON it too in that time.

Which is just under what my household pays on debt, AllAm. And I'm in pretty good shape. The credit markets apparently agree that the government is, also, with long-term yields on government debt at historic lows, and dropping lower still.

Also WW2 we had the draft, pretty cheap labour if you ask me. The pay increases, signing bounses and care for all our wounded troops (much more $$$$$ than in WW2)...
Within 1 week of D-Day more US troops came ashore at Normandy than are serving in Iraq.

Comparison to WWII?

By nightfall on June 6th 1944-D-Day, Hitler's Atlantic Wall on the coast of Normandy had been breached. The Allies, at a cost of 9,500 casualties compared with 4-10,000 Germans, were ashore in Fortress Europe.

9,500 casualties in one day.

But how much did it cost? Why did several hundred thousand US troops die on European soil? How was Hitler connected with Pearl Harbor? How did Hitler threaten the US?

And I'm in pretty good shape. The credit markets apparently agree that the government is, also, with long-term yields on government debt at historic lows, and dropping lower still.

The credit markets = Foreign central banks. Everybody owes everybody IOU nothings. RR sees a mirage.

RightO,

I hear you. One of the "inconvenient truths" about these numbers is how the Federal education budget has tripled during the Bush administration.

RIR, isn't the real national debt something like $9 trillion to $11 trillion? That is nearly 80%-90% of GDP, but a government cannot take in GDP as income. It only takes in the portion of GDP that is allotted to taxes and revenue receipts, and that usually goes to pay off obligations and necessary expenses. So in the end, the "net income" of the government is just the remaining "surplus" if one exists.

During WJC's administration, the deficit was erased and a surplus was used to reduce the national debt. This actually led to a very strong economy. During the Dick Cheney administration, the national debt has ballooned, and as predicted by Laffer, there has been an increase in revenues as tax receipts increased. But the necessary ingredient that most people miss is that the revenue side of the equation has been helped by increasing corporate profits (partly driven by very generous government expenditures), increased AMT tax revenues, the fact that there haven't been any further major tax cuts in recent years, and a falling dollar, which has really inflated the value of tangible assets in dollar terms.

So how does one tap the value of GDP to offset the national debt? I'd love to hear any economists provide a rational answer to that. My fear is that Cheney's motto that "Defecits don't matter!" may come back to bite us all.

Close T&C. But let me ask you: what happened to the economy, and the stock markets, the year immediately following Clinton's only balanced budget?

Recession. Collapse in the equity markets. Only bondholders did well, because the Federal Reserve had to create money where the fiscal policies didn't, by forcing down rates to all-time lows. Bondholders were the only ones making money as rates plunged. And there weren't that many takers, even at 1% short rates.

General Electric is widely considered one of the best-managed companies in the world. Do they pay down their debt? Or do they just keep rolling over, growing their company and their brand? Why aren't liberals and conservatives alike lined up outside GE headquarters, asking why their children will be paying off GE debt? It's just as silly.

The idea that deficits don't matter is misleading. It depends on what things the deficits are spent on. There's nothing wrong with government borrowing money--and lots of it--if most of the deficit spending is used to finance long-term capital projects. New highway systems, infrastructural projects, weapons systems, --even alternative energies and things like that, provided they're not of the type that have already proven to be a waste of money, like solar and wind. Those things add to the long-term wealth of the country, and SHOULD be financed with long-term debt. The problem is using deficit financing to prop up entitlement systems and welfare spending.

I follow most of what you say. But the rich uncle can run at that rate forever. As long as his income and assets are compounding faster than his debt, he'll never go bankrupt. Going from $50,000 in debt to $100,000 in debt isn't necessarily bad, is it? You have to know what your income and your assets are doing before you can make an assessment--there are families who are completely broke with only a $50,000 mortgage, and families that do just fine with debts 10 times that.

I also need to straighten out your thinking on trade deficits. The United States has run a trade deficit in every quarter since 1980, yet the economy has boomed throughout. In fact, when the trade gap narrowed the most, it was in the last quarter of 2001, when the economy nearly tipped into recession.

But it didn't. So there is clearly more going on. It's not our appetite for foreign goods that causes foreign investment; it's the other way around. It's foreign investment HERE--seeking higher returns with higher safety than in other markets around the world--that fuels our spending on foreign products and services. The capital account and the trade account always have to be in balance. Look at countries where the reverse is true--very high capital account DEFICITS, and trade SURPLUSES: Japan and Germany being the top two. Lousy economies, low growth, higher unemployment, terrible places for capital investment. The idea that trade deficits are bad and should be reversed is a creation of a press that simply doesn't understand it, and which is too incurious to ask around to see how things are in countries where there is a capital account deficit.

Which is just under what my household pays on debt

RiR

Ya, but you're getting something for it - like equity in your home.

This is throwing money in a toilet.

What is?

What is?

Posted by rightisright

Paying interest on the national debt

RiR

It's analogous to going into debt to buy a 52 inch plasma TV and a new car you can't afford, and borrowing from the Mafia (China) while you're at it.

They sure didn't have any problem outsourcing the war to $150,000 a year Blackwater personnel, or other incredibly irresponsible waste like the Medicare Prescription Plan, which OUTLAWED price negotiations that any company with 30 employess can get.

Reckless fools.

RiR

It's analogous to going into debt to buy a 52 inch plasma TV and a new car you can't afford, and borrowing from the Mafia (China) while you're at it.

They sure didn't have any problem outsourcing the war to $150,000 a year Blackwater personnel, or other incredibly irresponsible waste like the Medicare Prescription Plan, which OUTLAWED price negotiations that any company with 30 employess can get.

Reckless fools.

We don't care cuz our grandkids will pay the bill for us. Deficits don't matter...at least not to so called fiscally responsible Republican Congresses.
What was that thing Clinton did???
Oh yeah...pay as you go.
How about another round of patriotic tax cuts for the rich in war time

The deficit will never be paid off. Clinton did not pay off the national debt in fact, during his years, the social security surplus was being raided to fund the national debt. The economic boom which wasn't created by Clinton, but boomed as a result of the raise of the internet and how businesses used the internet to get business and computers in general. The economic boom paid a tiny portion of the national debt which grew over many Presidents.

A woman whom I worked with has the same tone as this comment I quoted above. She was reading the paper about my state uncollected taxes which added into the millions upon millions of dollars. I believe the total sum was just over a billion dollars. Her first comment was to me, "oh the rich are getting away with not paying taxing, huh..." She began to read and with amazement it wasn't the rich, but the average folks who found loop holes in the law and were avoiding paying their share.

Another woman whom I worked with, was very much for Clinton until one year she got this bonus of 1500 dollars. This was a great sum of money for one who was only making slightly over 10.00 an hour.

Clinton's law of tax was to double on bonuses. This was to prevent those big bad CEO from not paying their fair share...lol...How much did she get when taxes were taken out? 700 dollars was the sum...She was upset as you can imagine and she wasn't rich either...

Bush had eliminated the double tax on bonuses...She would have made more if Bush was President during that time...

The funny part was, she didn't like Clinton anymore...lol

Congress writes the tax laws MIKEWARRIOR

Clinton didn't write a single one

Nice try at deflection though. And I'm sorry you lied to that lady.

Oh, and Congress was Republican for 6 of Clinton's 8 years.

Their priorties were to try to impeach him and commit an American version of a coup de tat.

You guys amaze me.

Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin

""The deficit will never be paid off.""

Certainly not under REpublican, fiscally responsible rule, that is for sure.
Fact is that it has dramatically increased since Bush took office, fact is we are experiencing inflation which the deficit does cause.
Clue: fighting wars costs money.

I remember the inflation following Vietnam which righties love to try to pin on Carter though Ford was president when the problem began to grow out control, remember WIN buttons???
You guys pretend that the tax cuts were beneficial to the nation but the average income of most working Americans has been flat for six years while the wealthiest 10% have gained considerable.
Oh, I know, it's because the other 90% are lazy and stupid.
Why do folks like you hate Americans so much???

We hear how Bush fires the generals who do not agree with him, maybe he got the playbook of this clown.

During his first month in office Carter cut the defense budget by $6 Billion. One of his first acts was to order the unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea and announce his intention to cut back the number of US troops stationed there. Other military men confined intense criticism of the withdrawal to private conversations or testimony before congressional committees, but in 1977 Major General John K. Singlaub, chief of staff of U.S. forces in South Korea, publicly criticized President Carter's decision to lower the U.S. troop level there. On March 21, 1977, Carter relieved him of duty, saying his publicly stated sentiments were "inconsistent with announced national security policy".
Carter planned to remove all but 14,000 U.S. air force personnel and logistics specialists by 1982, but after cutting only 3,600 troops, he was forced to abandon the effort in 1978.

...or other incredibly irresponsible waste like the Medicare Prescription Plan, which OUTLAWED price negotiations that any company with 30 employess can get.

The facts:
AARP Survey Details Public Reaction to Prescription Drug Plans / News Release
April 12, 2006

According to a new survey released today by AARP, nearly eight-in-ten, (78 percent) of those enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug plan say they are satisfied.
...
With her new drug plan, Ms. Dirks is saving about $200 every three months. She is not alone. Only 20 percent of respondents felt like they were not saving money with their plans."

AARP Director of Health Strategy Cheryl Matheis explains, "Before Medicare added a drug benefit, more than half of those in the program either lacked drug coverage or had inadequate coverage that did not protect them from high out-of-pocket costs. The new plans fill a critical need for affordable prescriptions drugs."

Can't have high tech weapons and munitions without high costs.

""According to a new survey released today by AARP, nearly eight-in-ten of the pharmaceutical companies say they are thrilled that the government doesn't negotiate for better prices."

Of course seniors are glad to get the benefit, and they should have it but at the same time we should try to do it as inexpensively as possible.
A BIIIG DUUUUH!!!

so is this yrs cadilac as compared to korean era -prices go up quality goes down
jasman

SLICKSTER

Carter AND Gerald Ford experienced record inflation and interest rates due the the huge outlays for the Vietnam War. Then Reagan increased the national debt to record levels by borrowing to create the illusion of prosperity, and his 'tax cuts' were smoke and mirrors. By cutting state's share of federal revenues they all had to RAISE their tax rates.

But, what use are facts, eh?

so is this yrs cadilac as compared to korean era -prices go up quality goes down
jasman

From the article: "Requests for $145 billion more await congressional action and would raise the cost in inflation-adjusted dollars beyond the cost of the wars in Korea and Vietnam."

Carter AND Gerald Ford experienced record inflation and interest rates due the the huge outlays for the Vietnam War. Then Reagan increased the national debt to record levels by borrowing to create the illusion of prosperity, and his 'tax cuts' were smoke and mirrors. By cutting state's share of federal revenues they all had to RAISE their tax rates.
AllAmerican you have no facts to support your opinion.

But are you saying the economy boom under Reagan was not real? Bawahahah!

SLICKSTERWILLY

Do your own fact finding yourself you lazy mullethead

The public record is there for anyone with half a mind to see. In your case, I'll lower it to 1/4 mind. It's that easy Jethro