Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JohnM who wrote (35365)	7/30/2002 6:42:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

as good analysis in which they took into account the views that said we could afford it. Their analysis more or less said, we're going to drive the deficit to the moon with this war, no one else will pay for this one. While that is definitely a point to be considered, it seems to me that the Times has usually favored Keynsian pump-priming in economic slowdowns, which would usually find them arguing on the side of a burst of government spending, not against it. For some reason, not here. As for it being up to the Bushies, not the Times, to make the pro-war case, does this mean that you feel that the NY Times should function as an advocacy vehicle for the opposition? I've been arguing that it has been functioning as one, and here it seems you agree -g-.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next