PDA

View Full Version : Liberal News Clique...



cheesemouse
09-03-2004, 12:06 PM
...conspires to knock Republican Convention coverage off the front page........In a brilliant move the liberal cabal arranged a hurricane, a terrorist attack on Russian school children, and a heart bypass surgery on a past president of the U.S to effectively remove the RC from the front page......DAMN, THESE GUYS ARE GOOD..........hehehehe....... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
09-03-2004, 01:56 PM
I don't really see the attack on the Russian school as a matter to make jokes about, considering the abhorrent murder of possibly over 100 school children by terrorists.

But now that you mention it, the timing of the hurricane is pretty suspicious....

Seriously, go back and read the major networks'(ABC,NBC,CBS) reviews of Kerry's acceptance speech vs. Bush's. Then tell me with a serious face that there is no bias in the networks.

-CM

pooltchr
09-03-2004, 02:55 PM
I had to laugh at Tim Russert last night trying to find something bad to say about Bush's speech. You could tell it was killing him to keep from admitting that Bush gave a great speach. O-K, maybe not great by convention standards, but certainly the best speech I've ever heard him give. Arnold stole the show!

Qtec
09-03-2004, 07:19 PM
So tell me, what is GW going to do next term and how is he going t do it.?

I think you will find that GW uses a lot of rehtoric but is 100% lacking in details.

"Bigger, better, stronger, etc blah blah blah..........

Q

eg8r
09-03-2004, 07:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Arnold stole the show! <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I think Zell stole the show. A Dem telling the Dems what they are doing wrong. The man was passionate and spoke clearly about the fall of the Dem party. It is quite funny to see all the libs twist this around and completely ignore the fact that Miller is a Democrat that is tired of Kerry. Maybe Bush put him up to it.

Zell's best quote... [ QUOTE ]
I ask which leader it is today that has the vision, the willpower, and yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party."
<hr /></blockquote> Even a Democrat is smart enough to know that Kerry will do nothing to protect the citizens of the US. Kerry was even against protecting the soldiers fighting in Iraq after voting to send them over there. This was one of the couple votes he has made since running for President.

eg8r

pooltchr
09-04-2004, 09:49 AM
That's funny, Q. I was thinking the same thing last night. I keep hearing Kerry and Edwards say "John and I have a plan" for this that and the other, but I have yet to hear what the actual plan is. They "have a plan" to end the war, a plan to create new jobs, a plan to fix the healthcare problem, etc etc....but no details as to how exactly they plan to do it...or how to pay for it....oh wait...I forgot...they will just raise taxes!

Qtec
09-04-2004, 08:21 PM
I never said Kerry was any better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif In fact, I think Kerry has killed his chances by saying he would also have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know now about the lack of WMDs,imminent threat, no conection to 9/11,etc.
I find that incredible to believe because GW wouldnt have got the go-ahead to invade Iraq in the first place ,without showing evidence of any real threat to the US.

Q

Ross
09-05-2004, 12:55 AM
Steve, actually Kerry and Edwards have put forth fairly detailed statements of their plans for improving security, improving the health insurance problems, creating new jobs, improving current jobs, and increasing educational opportunities are very clear. They are outlined on Kerry's website, in a detailed statement of principals and methods (the document is 263 pages):

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf

Interestingly, most of the Republicans claims about the Dems plans turn out to be false. Read the document if you are TRULY interested in what the Dem plan is.

The Republicans plan is no more detailed than the Dems and in fact is more unrealistic. (For example, you will see in their plan support for continued tax cuts, but no corresponding spending cuts except the vague efficiency cost savings that every politician promises. The growing deficit is supposed to disappear magically due to the stimulus of tax cuts. If you think this works, see Reagan, 1980-1988.) But unfortunatley the Dems have not done as good of a job marketing their plan and the Republican charge that they don't have one has been perceived as reality by many.

mred477
09-05-2004, 09:58 AM
You're not going to get anywhere by criticizing Ronald Reagan to the Republicans on this board. Most conservatives love the comparison of Bush to Reagan, for the simple reason that they have both been tough on national defense and were willing to spend whatever it took to win. Turns out Reagan was correct about the cold war, and when you compare him to Bush, the inference is that Bush is correct about this war (especially to conservatives). In addition, economic theory does promote the idea that tax cuts eventually stimulate more tax revenue.

Personally, I think we oughta have a referendum that makes congress go through every law and justify every spending item on it, but that's just a pipe dream. Both politicians will spend too much. Kerry will actually probably spend less just because there's a Republican congress to give him hell. I just don't think Kerry will get the job done in Iraq.

Will

Ross
09-05-2004, 06:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr> You're not going to get anywhere by criticizing Ronald Reagan to the Republicans on this board. Most conservatives love the comparison of Bush to Reagan, for the simple reason that they have both been tough on national defense and were willing to spend whatever it took to win. Turns out Reagan was correct about the cold war, and when you compare him to Bush, the inference is that Bush is correct about this war (especially to conservatives). In addition, economic theory does promote the idea that tax cuts eventually stimulate more tax revenue.

...
Will <hr /></blockquote>

Will, it is sad if people have deified Reagan (or anyone else) to the point that they can't think for themselves. We have the benefit of being able to look at Reagan's 8 years in office and talk about what worked and what didn't work. His idea that you can cut taxes and not cut spending without running up the deficit glaringly didn't work. Reality trumps theory. Reagan left a gigantic deficit and Bush Sr. had to agree to raise taxes to stop the hemmorhaging. Clinton didn't cut taxes, but the economy boomed and we began building a surplus. Bush Jr. has cut taxes and increased spending even beyond Clinton, with the predictable result of creating another big deficit and amassing more debt. This deficit is also predicted to get worse.

The Republican plan for the next 4 years is to cut taxes more with no corresponding real spending cuts - voodoo economics all over again. Not only that, but as baby boomers soon reach retirement age, congress will no longer be able to rob the SS kitty, so the pressure on the federal budget will get worse. So that was the source of my comment that the Republican economic plan is unrealistic.

eg8r
09-06-2004, 08:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton didn't cut taxes, but the economy boomed ( <font color="red"> Are you insinuating this was because of Clinton's policy? </font color>) and we began building a surplus(<font color="red">and left the economy in the toilet for the incoming President. Listen if you want to give Clinton credit for the great economy, you must also give him credit for the tech blowup. Tell the whole story. </font color> ). Bush Jr. has cut taxes and increased spending even beyond Clinton (<font color="red"> Sadly enough, Bush was not able to find one single program to cut, but could you imagine if he started axing programs in which Clinton was paying for?. </font color>) , with the predictable result of creating another big deficit and amassing more debt (<font color="red"> Why are you refusing to mention the good that has happened. You fixate on what you perceive as the bad stuff. What about Bush pulling this country out of a recession? If you give Clinton credit for building a surplus, then give Bush the credit for correcting the wayward ship that Clinton handed him. </font color>) . This deficit is also predicted to get worse. (<font color="red"> LOL, so riddle me this...Will it get better under Kerry's raised taxes and 3 trillion dollar spending spree?) </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

Alfie
09-06-2004, 10:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> So tell me, what is GW going to do next term <hr /></blockquote>Iran, North Korea

Wally_in_Cincy
09-07-2004, 05:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
Will, it is sad if people have deified Reagan (or anyone else) to the point that they can't think for themselves. We have the benefit of being able to look at Reagan's 8 years in office and talk about what worked and what didn't work. His idea that you can cut taxes and not cut spending without running up the deficit glaringly didn't work. Reality trumps theory. Reagan left a gigantic deficit and Bush Sr. had to agree to raise taxes to stop the hemmorhaging. Clinton didn't cut taxes, but the economy boomed and we began building a surplus. Bush Jr. has cut taxes and increased spending even beyond Clinton, with the predictable result of creating another big deficit and amassing more debt. This deficit is also predicted to get worse.

The Republican plan for the next 4 years is to cut taxes more with no corresponding real spending cuts - voodoo economics all over again. Not only that, but as baby boomers soon reach retirement age, congress will no longer be able to rob the SS kitty, so the pressure on the federal budget will get worse. So that was the source of my comment that the Republican economic plan is unrealistic. <hr /></blockquote>

Do you think we are under-taxed?

Ross
09-07-2004, 09:09 AM
Wally, my point was that you can't have it both ways. You can't increase spending and cut taxes without raising the deficit. The Bush plan avoids acknowledging this reality - it promises the moon: lower taxes, continued spending, and cutting the deficit in half. Ain't going to happen.

From today's news:

( http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/07/news/economy/congress_deficit.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes )

CONGRESS' DEFICT FORCAST WORSENS
Analysts say deficit will hit $2.29 trillion in 10 years, earlier forecast was $2.01 trillion.
...

The source also said the CBO confirmed a preliminary forecast it put out in August showing an expected record deficit of $422 billion for the 2004 fiscal year.

That compares to the White House's latest deficit forecast of $445 billion for this year.

The White House no longer provides a 10-year deficit forecast."

Back to your question - are we undertaxed? The question is kind of worded like "Yes, or no: do you still beat your wife?" Of course I want to pay the least amount of tax possible. I also want to protect the environment, have a military capable of keeping us safe, want the medicines I take to be tested for safety, want the elderly in this country to not starve, and so on. Mainly, I think that cutting the effective tax rate for those making $200,000+ a year was a mistake. First, it is fiscally irresponsible - we can't afford it. Second, at this point in history it is morally unjustifiable. Under the previous rate (effective total Federal taxes including income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes = 26.8%), the top quartile was already doing better than the rest of us. Their yearly income was going up faster (with the exception of a 1 year blip when the tech crash occurred) than the rest of the country. Also their accumulated wealth as a percentage of total US wealth was growing, while the accumulated wealth of the bottom 60% was actually decreasing.

So they were going gangbusters under the old tax rate. Then Bush decided they weren't leaving the rest of us in the dust fast enough - he cut their rates. That shortfall has to be made up somehow. It either goes to increasing debt (current situation), cutting spending (not happening), or increased taxes down the line for the rest of us in the middle class (coming in the future).

Thats why I like the Kerry plan to not keep the tax cut for those making more than $200,000/year.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-07-2004, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ...Thats why I like the Kerry plan to not keep the tax cut for those making more than $200,000/year.
<hr /></blockquote>

My point was that we are over-taxed. The gummint spends too much. I would rather see that $200,000 dude buy a boat and create jobs.

I would like to vote for a guy that promised to keep the gummint growth at the rate of inflation. With that plan we could grow our way out of the deficit. I had some hope when the GOP took the Congress and White House but alas, they like to spend our money like water just like the Dems /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Qtec
09-07-2004, 01:13 PM
Congress' deficit forecast worsens
Analysts say deficit will hit $2.29 trillion in 10 years; earlier forecast was $2.01 trillion.
September 7, 2004: 12:25 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit will balloon to $2.29 trillion over the next decade , congressional analysts said Tuesday. This represents a worse outlook than previously forecast and one likely to stir election-year debate about President Bush's economic policies.

The forecast from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office compares to its March outlook for a cumulative deficit of $2.01 trillion for the 2005-2014 period, if current economic policies stay the same.

"The outlook in terms of the deficits in 2004 and 2005 has improved, but the projection of the cumulative deficit over the 2005-2014 period has worsened," the CBO said in a summer update of its budget outlook.

The CBO confirmed a preliminary forecast made in August for a record deficit of $422 billion for the 2004 fiscal year.

That number compares to the White House's latest deficit outlook of $445 billion for this year and was better than earlier estimates. The White House no longer provides a 10-year deficit forecast.

CBO is expecting the deficit to decline to $348 billion in 2005, if current laws and policies do not change.

"This report underscores that our policies are working to create a stronger economy, more jobs and a lower deficit," said House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican. <font color="blue"> a record deficit! </font color>

The economy, particularly the deficit, has become a key theme between the two presidential candidates.

Bush blames the 2001 recession, the costs of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terror for the growing budget shortfall.

Democrats say Bush's tax cuts are responsible for turning the surplus he inherited into a record deficit, which they say threatens the future of Social Security and the Medicare health-care program for the elderly.

"Only George W. Bush could celebrate over a record budget deficit of $422 billion," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in a statement Tuesday.


In the end, everything has to be paid for. You cant cut taxes forever.

Q

highsea
09-07-2004, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>...you can't have it both ways. You can't increase spending and cut taxes without raising the deficit. The Bush plan avoids acknowledging this reality - it promises the moon: lower taxes, continued spending, and cutting the deficit in half. Ain't going to happen.

From today's news:

( http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/07/news/economy/congress_deficit.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes )

CONGRESS' DEFICT FORCAST WORSENS
Analysts say deficit will hit $2.29 trillion in 10 years, earlier forecast was $2.01 trillion.
...
<hr /></blockquote>I would say a couple things here. First, lower tax rates don't necessarily mean lower tax revenues. I'm not an economist, but Bush's tax cuts did have the effect of giving the economy a boost. This can offset the lower rates, by generating more overall revenues from a bigger economy.

I have a little trouble getting too excited over CBO or WH estimates. They rely almost entirely on projections of the economic conditions in the future. There is always a high degree of uncertainty when you do this. Can you point to any CBO 10 year projections that actually were accurate?

While we are currently running a sizeable deficit, it is not anywhere close to the historical high (in relation to the size of the economy, not just dollar amounts). The projected 2.29 Trillion leaves us with a 10 year average of 229 Billion per year. Substantially lower than this year's deficit. The projection also assumes that this year's $87 Billion in war costs for Afghanistan and Iraq will be continued for 10 years, which seems unlikely to me.

The bottom line is that tax increases put more money in the Government's pocket, but at the expense of economic growth. They may be good for the short term, but are harmful in the long run. Tax cuts, of course, have the opposite effect. They increase the short term deficits, but stimulate the economy, which provides long term benefits and higher(tax)revenues over time through economic growth. We can call it Reaganomics, voodoo economics, whatever. It still works.

-CM

highsea
09-07-2004, 01:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>I would like to vote for a guy that promised to keep the gummint growth at the rate of inflation. <hr /></blockquote>I think you mean the rate of economic growth, i.e. GDP. You wouldn't want the Gov't to grow at 10% if inflation was at 10% (ref. Jimmy Carter).

-CM

Ross
09-07-2004, 02:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>...you can't have it both ways. You can't increase spending and cut taxes without raising the deficit. The Bush plan avoids acknowledging this reality - it promises the moon: lower taxes, continued spending, and cutting the deficit in half. Ain't going to happen.

From today's news:

( http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/07/news/economy/congress_deficit.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes )

CONGRESS' DEFICT FORCAST WORSENS
Analysts say deficit will hit $2.29 trillion in 10 years, earlier forecast was $2.01 trillion.
...
<hr /></blockquote>I would say a couple things here. First, lower tax rates don't necessarily mean lower tax revenues. I'm not an economist, but Bush's tax cuts did have the effect of giving the economy a boost. This can offset the lower rates, by generating more overall revenues from a bigger economy.
<font color="blue">
This was the argument used to justify the Reagan tax cuts. Result - largest deficit BY FAR in US history. We are still paying interest on the debt the US incurred from the Reagan years. And it isn't just a matter of giving it more time - the Reagan tax cuts were in place for years and the deficit got bigger and bigger.

Also, if you were giving tax cuts only as a stimulus, you would focus more on the economic middle and lower class. They spend a higher proportion of their income than the rich, who tend to save more. Giving tax breaks to the rich is one of the most inefficient ways of stimulating the economy.

In fact, it is often government spending that gets the economy going again. In previous wars, for example, the government spent a lot of money at home and we had some of our best economic times.

During the Clinton 8 years, we had one of the longest and strongest economic booms in US history. Remember this was after Bush Sr. agreed to raise taxes to lessen our deficits. It is true that was a slowdown toward the end of the term. Cycling in the economy is normal - economic policy can only lessen the extremes and try to get the recoveries going more quickly with monetary policy.

And there is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts did much to help the economy. Our recovery has been much slower than predicted. Interest rate cuts may have been by far the most important stimulus. House buying has been one of the few bright spots in the Bush economy, and those decisions are influenced mainly by interest rates.

</font color>

I have a little trouble getting too excited over CBO or WH estimates. They rely almost entirely on projections of the economic conditions in the future. There is always a high degree of uncertainty when you do this. Can you point to any CBO 10 year projections that actually were accurate?

<font color="blue">You are right that they are only projections and therefore they are sometimes wrong. Just like hurricane path projections are not completely right. But they are our best guess of where things are going and so they help us in our planning. Also the models get better over time. Businesses make 5 year and 10 year projections. Why shouldn't the US? </font color>

While we are currently running a sizeable deficit, it is not anywhere close to the historical high (in relation to the size of the economy, not just dollar amounts). The projected 2.29 Trillion leaves us with a 10 year average of 229 Billion per year. Substantially lower than this year's deficit. The projection also assumes that this year's $87 Billion in war costs for Afghanistan and Iraq will be continued for 10 years, which seems unlikely to me.
<font color="blue">Is that true? I haven't seen the bases of the projections. </font color>
The bottom line is that tax increases put more money in the Government's pocket, but at the expense of economic growth.
<font color="blue">I don't think that is true. It depends what the government does with the money. If it spends it on projects that provide jobs for Americans it may actually help economic growth. Or if it spends money on research it can help keep the US ahead of the rest of the world and help future growth. But Bush cut spending on research, mistakenly arguing that it could be done by the private sector. Many types of research are too long term to be economically viable for a complany without government incentives. A different kind of example -- stem cell research and the benefits that may come from that is moving more and more overseas because Bush cannot separate church (his personal view of same) and state. </font color>

They may be good for the short term, but are harmful in the long run. Tax cuts, of course, have the opposite effect. They increase the short term deficits, but stimulate the economy, which provides long term benefits and higher(tax)revenues over time through economic growth. We can call it Reaganomics, voodoo economics, whatever. It still works.
<font color="blue">It didn't work. You are going to hold onto this theory no matter what the evidence says?

"Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history."
--Ronald Reagan, nationally televised campaign speech, October 24, 1980. (Federal deficits totaled $252 billion under Mr. Carter. By the end of Mr. Reagan's presidency, federal deficits would total over 1.4 trillion.)

"A trillion dollars would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high."
--President Reagan warning in February 1981 that the national debt, accumulated over the United States' 200 year history, is approaching $1 trillion. (Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.)

</font color>
-CM <hr /></blockquote>

highsea
09-07-2004, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>This was the argument used to justify the Reagan tax cuts. Result - largest deficit BY FAR in US history.

By the end of Mr. Reagan's presidency, federal deficits would total over 1.4 trillion.)

(Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.)<hr /></blockquote>When Clinton took office, the National Debt stood at 4.06 Trillion. When he left office, it was over 5.65 Trillion. My math gives a 8 year deficit of 1.6 Trillion for Clinton.

Two important markers for the economy are interest rates and inflation. When Reagan took over, both were in double digits, and the economy was completely stalled. Carter may not have run up huge deficits, but he sure wasn't any good for the economy. Reagan's economics put the economy back in a growth mode, lowered interest rates, increased new construction, manufacturing, and radically reversed inflation.

When Carter took office, the debt was at 576 Billion. At the end of his term it was 930 Billion. That's an increase of about 50%, and the economy was much worse off than when he took office.

As a matter of fact, the only year the US debt decreased (since 1950) was 1950.

SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Tax cuts promote consumer spending. Tax increases don't. The US is running high deficits today, for a combination of reasons.
1. Bush cut taxes to stimulate the economy, which was in a sharp decline when he took office (mainly due to the market crash).
2. 9/11 hit our economy very hard, and new security measures were demanded by the people. The TSA and DHS cost money.
3. We are at war as a result of 9/11, another hit on the economy.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote USA Today (link at bottom of this post):</font><hr>Such a deficit would equal 3.6% of the U.S. economy, well below the 6% peak reached under President Reagan. Many economists consider that ratio to be the most important measure of the deficit's economic impact. <hr /></blockquote>
As far as the $87 Billion,

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote The CNN article:</font><hr>CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eaking said in a press conference Tuesday morning that the upward revision is due mainly to military expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan that were not included in the March analysis.<hr /></blockquote>
And here: [ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, the budget office as legally required assumed that extra money provided last year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be repeated annually throughout the decade. That accounted for more than $1.4 trillion in red ink over the period, including interest, the report said.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-09-07-deficit_x.htm

So I am not necessarily as gloomy as you when it comes to this years deficit. This is a peak, and the CBO estimates say it will decline to zero by 2014, and that is including the 1.4 Trillion in war costs.

-CM

highsea
09-07-2004, 04:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>But Bush cut spending on research, mistakenly arguing that it could be done by the private sector. Many types of research are too long term to be economically viable for a complany without government incentives. A different kind of example -- stem cell research and the benefits that may come from that is moving more and more overseas because Bush cannot separate church (his personal view of same) and state. <hr /></blockquote> People always say Bush cut or banned stem cell research. You know how much government funding Clinton spent on stem-cell research? I'll tell you. zero. Bush is the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research.

Bush did not ban stem-cell research. He limited Federal funding to the existing 60 lines of embryonic stem cells. He did not ban private research of new embryonic cell lines, or Federal funding of adult stem cell lines or umbilical cord lines.

This was a compromise measure, from which he came under fire from both sides. The Christian Right was opposed to any research, period, including privately funded. The Medical community wanted unlimited research. Bush picked a middle ground.

-CM

eg8r
09-08-2004, 09:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And there is no evidence that the Bush tax cuts did much to help the economy. <hr /></blockquote> Not so surprising that you did not mention there is no evidence to refute it either.

[ QUOTE ]
Our recovery has been much slower than predicted. <hr /></blockquote> OK, so what. The predictions were wrong, and they surely were never considered to be law, so they made a mistake. LOL, it is funny that you cover up the great news that we are recovering from the recession with the fact that it is not moving fast enough.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is true. It depends what the government does with the money. If it spends it on projects that provide jobs for Americans it may actually help economic growth. Or if it spends money on research it can help keep the US ahead of the rest of the world and help future growth. <hr /></blockquote> Your what-ifs are lofty and sound great but they never happen. I don't remember ever hearing of a tax increase helping the economy in the long run.

[ QUOTE ]
A different kind of example -- stem cell research and the benefits that may come from that is moving more and more overseas because Bush cannot separate church (his personal view of same) and state.
<hr /></blockquote> He is a great man because of it.

[ QUOTE ]
"Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history."
--Ronald Reagan, nationally televised campaign speech, October 24, 1980. (Federal deficits totaled $252 billion under Mr. Carter. By the end of Mr. Reagan's presidency, federal deficits would total over 1.4 trillion.)

"A trillion dollars would be a stack of $1,000 bills 67 miles high."
--President Reagan warning in February 1981 that the national debt, accumulated over the United States' 200 year history, is approaching $1 trillion. (Under Reagan, the national debt would nearly triple to $2.9 trillion.)

<hr /></blockquote> What was the GDP?

eg8r