Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (130814)	1/26/2001 1:32:11 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1583867

If there is a deficit under Bush it will have more to do with increased social spending then his aproximatly 1% tax cut or small to moderate increases in defense programs. Bush is not pushing for a buildup like Reagan's. (or a tax cut like Reagan's either although I personally would like to see one that big) Tim

To: Scumbria who wrote (130814)	1/26/2001 1:41:16 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1583867

"During the 80's we went $5 trillion in debt, and it was described as Reagan's economic miracle. " I was amused at one point during the Reagan administration they were crowing about the job creation that had occurred up to that point. I calculated that if they had taken the money that the went into the deficit, they could have just paid that money out to each of the jobs created and it would have amounted to payments of $20k per year per job. And that would have been the case only if those people had been paid the day Reagan took office, in reality it was more or less an linear ramp and thus, would have cost half of that. Since a fair percentage of the jobs created were low-wage service jobs, $20k per year would have been an improvement. With that kind of money, it should have stimulated the economy, it would have been a serious problem if it had not.

To: Scumbria who wrote (130814)	1/26/2001 5:32:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583867

Dear Scumbria: The Congress has more to do with deficits and surpluses. It only took 6 years of a Republican House to go from "300 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see" (from a commentary on Clinton's 94 budget) to "going to zero debt faster than anyone could have expected" (from yesterday's AG testimony). It took over 40 years of a Democratic House to generate that 5 trillion in debt you refer to. Only one year during that span, when Nixon refused to fully spend money allocated from Congress, did there exist a surplus (and they fixed it so that he would have to spend all the money for every subsequent year). Kind of hard to admit it was your side at fault, isn't it? Pete