Bartlett somehow fails to mention that Johnson got the bill passed by including a 10 percent cut in discretionary spending, or that the full title of the legislation was "the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968."
Here's the fiscal history of the time:
Not a lot of curve-bending there, is there?
More stupid economic crap went on during that time. Both parties. "Guns and Butter" Johnson not only dragged us further into the war, he loaded us with a new set of entitlements that currently has something like $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Nixon actually tried wage and price controls. There was Ford's "Whip Inflation Now." Carter's "Misery Index" and "Stagflation."
I'll tell you what I told Buck: All the Democrats have to do this year, controlling the White House and Senate until next January, is just sit on their hands and block any attempt at stopping the over $400 billion in automatic tax increases of 2013. Then they'll have the tax increases they say are essential with zero Republican input.
Why don't they do this? I know. Do you?
Current Events » in reply to The whole story? "In 1968 a 10% surtax was added to pay for the war".
I give you hard numbers, and you give me Bartlett?
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Latest poll on conservatism and liberalism
- What Conservatives say always sounds good. Everyone agrees. What they do is exactly the opposite.
- Where the heck do you get a "trillion"?
- Here's a pretty good reference.
- Tax cuts. The facts.
- Tax cuts. In wartime. First ever. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
- There's different ways to interpret those numbers. But tell me, regardless of the of the economy, does a tax cut increase or decrease the deficit? n/t
- Where the heck do you get a "trillion"?
- The graph nicely illustrates the radicalization of the right
- Do you have a link to the poll questions? n/t
- What Conservatives say always sounds good. Everyone agrees. What they do is exactly the opposite.