It's a shame you didn't use this
word instead of "during" in that one sentence I correctly gigged you on.
Um... Because "during" WW2, while we were spending all that money, and tax rates were so high, our debt skyrocketed. Then
(meaning at the point we were in 1945) we made a decision to cut taxes and reduce spending. If you'd bothered to read the link you'd have understood what I was talking about. What part of "we made a decision to lower taxes and spending" made you think I was talking about the time period in which we had high taxes and spending?
I was making a point about the two different approaches dummy. You seriously couldn't figure that out?
You wouldn't look like a putz that doesn't know what happened during World War II. It's just a greater shame that you're going to continue to tap dance around trying to explain how your saying that "during World War II" was the same as saying "after World War II."
You misread it, didn't bother to read the link I provided, and completely failed to grasp what I was talking about even after I clearly explained it several times. Don't blame me for this.
And I'm sure by your saying "technically winding down," what you're saying is that the amount of increases in spending and tax rates were reduced year to year and weren't "actually" reduced until 1946. And spending started to rise again slightly in 1949.
Huh? No. Spending and taxes (and debt) were high all during the time period we were fighting WW2. Arguably, those things increased during that period of time (I could look up the exact numbers if you want, but it really doesn't matter for the point I'm making). The point, as I have stated at least 4 times now, is that as WW2 was winding down (that's in 1945 in case you are historically challenged), FDR intended to replace the war spending with domestic jobs and social program spending. Then he died (did you read the link?). 6 months later (after FDRs death, since you apparently can't follow a logical train of thought and have to have such details spelled out to you), Truman attempted to get congress to pass the plan FDR had laid out. They rejected it soundly. Then (as in after that point in time, in case you're still being stupid), they embarked on a plan to lower taxes across the board, massively lower corporate taxes, and massively cut spending. That plan phased in over a few years, but the point is that they chose to go in the exact opposite direction that FDR had wanted.
And, despite the conventional wisdom that the free market would not be able to employ all those people, and there would be massive poverty and whatnot, instead, the exact opposite happened and we had a major economic boom. This is relevant because the liberals of today are making the same assumptions the liberals of that time did. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. But instead of facing that they were wrong, they instead ignore the actions made after 1945 and the effect they had on the economy, and pretend that the economy recovered in the lead up to and during WW2 and that the post war boom was just a continuation of their own policies coming to fruition.
Maybe you should get back on the cocaine and morphine Sherlock, because I have to spell this out for you and pretty much any normal person could figure it out (which is a shame, since you're such a superior intellect), but my argument has nothing to do with the debt argument you're in. I simply don't like that faulty data you were trying to sling around.
I didn't sling any faulty data around. You misread what I wrote, made a frankly bizarre conclusion, and then tried to make the whole argument about something completely stupid. It's almost like you don't want to look at the actual series of events during that time period because it might just disprove some of your hard held assumptions.