SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Analog Kid who wrote (5098)10/24/2000 8:30:29 AM
From: willcousa  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
On not cutting spending you have to blame both parties.

I suppose we will never know the truth of it but my guess is that Reagan had to take the domestic spending increases to get his defense increases.

Art Laffer has a piece in today's WSJ editorial page on the history of revenue increases which have resulted from tax cuts. The first of these was the brilliant (at that time) JFK tax cuts.



To: Analog Kid who wrote (5098)10/24/2000 10:15:05 PM
From: surfbaron  Respond to of 5853
 
Analog: Yeah I get it now, it's kind of like the congress in 94 that gave us a balanced budget and welfare reform.



To: Analog Kid who wrote (5098)10/25/2000 8:16:30 PM
From: nxbrooke  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5853
 
OT: I respectfully beg to differ with you . . . we CAN have it both ways. Reagan proposed spending cuts in conjunction with his tax cuts. The Democrats jumped all over the tax cuts but wouldn't go along with the spending cuts and, since the President doesn't have line item veto capability, the Democrats certainly CAN be blamed for the deficit.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News