I see Gbaji still doesn't understand the difference between something not being the total cause of something, and something not having any effect on something. Not surprising really.
I do understand that difference. Do you understand that the prevailing argument from the left right now isn't that the wars and tax cuts were just a small part and "had an effect", but are arguing that they're the primary cause
And as before, the lion's share of the problem comes from ongoing George W. Bush-era policies -- particularly deficit-financed tax cuts, which eliminated Clinton-era surpluses and left the Treasury poised for a huge hit when the financial crisis and economic downturn further eroded federal revenues.
By the end of the decade, CBPP projects that, on the current trajectory, the Bush tax cuts, exacerbated by the economic downturn, combined with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for the significant majority of public debt as a share of GDP.
This is the sort of BS being repeated over and over by pundits and politicians on the left. It's false. You see that it's false, right?
Has defense spending gone up since 2007? Sure. Does that increase represent more than a tiny portion of the deficit increase? No. Same deal with tax cuts.
You'd have a point if all the left was saying was that those things were small parts of the problem. But they aren't, are they?