Replies

The point of the post was to show that the conclusions reached there are incorrect. And they are: one cannot even entiertain a thought presented there as a result of an error:
If the budget in 1989 had been 24.5% smaller
The point I made was this is invalidated.

You're right -- a mere $197,300,000,000. That, too, is an altogether different issue. The article perported to show that, had Reagan gotted what he had wanted, things would have been different. The sum you wrote out is significant, but not in terms of policy: a change of 2-3% is not a drastically different policy.

A mere $197,300,000,000 that was borrowed and remains unpaid. How do you know that is is that very portion that remains unpaid? This difference may well have been financed with 10-year bonds (or shorter), which are paid up.

>>> The point of the post was to show that the conclusions reached there are incorrect. <<<

You are absolutely right. I didn't mean to denigrate your post and probably should not post "tongue-in-cheek" replies without the appropriate labels.

The sad fact is that the budget shenanigans and debt problems we've amassed over the last 30 years are subject to much rhetoric and distortion -- on both sides. We'll be slaving a long time to pay the debt.