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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (211190)	12/19/2001 4:11:21 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I see, there is no evidence of economic harm tied to the increase in the national debt, so you just assert that growth would have been higher, and voila, harm. Nice fantasy, lousy argument. As with a corporation, the issue is debt service, and we have kept it at a fiscally responsible level. The fact is that every liberal Sovietologist predicted that Reagan would increase the strength of the Kremlin hardliners. Instead, we got Gorby, and kept him long enough for it to make a difference. If it had not been for Reagan's resolve to vigorously compete with the Soviet Union, there would have been no peace offensive, no reform, no dissolution of the Soviet Empire.......

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (211190)	12/19/2001 4:17:33 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

That is the perfect magicians' slight of hand - keep the rubes focused on the wrong hand. The debt is the decoy, to keep your mind of the real trick - massive spending increases. Get the spending under control the debt will take care of itself.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (211190)	12/19/2001 8:08:26 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Reagan's debt was nothing compared to Roosevelt's. Reagan certainly won the cold war and recovered from the economic problems of the 1970's a lot more efficiently (from a budget perspective) than Roosevelt dealt with WW2 and the Depression of the 1930's. So, if debt is so dangerous, why is there no criticism of the TREMENDOUS debt that Roosevelt racked up in the 1930's and 1940's??? perspicuity.net Roosevelt ran up the total federal debt to over 120% of annual GDP. No other president has ever come close to that amount, yet somehow Reagan is singled out and characterized as reckless??? What about Roosevelt's HUGE and HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED debt that we are still paying off after 60+ years??? Why no criticism of that??? tcf.org

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (211190)	12/19/2001 8:34:31 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

>As to 'winning the Cold War', I'd say that Communism had been failing as >an economic system for over 50 years. Some things just die when the >stench gets too bad. Oh, I see, you give Reagan absolutely no credit for winning the Cold War... But, let me guess, you probably give Roosevelt huge credit for winning WW2. Well, if we had some competent leadership in the 1930's and 1940's (instead of Roosevelt), maybe, just maybe things would have been different... Maybe we wouldn't have been surprised at Pearl Harbor... Maybe we wouldn't have meddled with the economy so much during the 1930's... Maybe another leader could have gotten us safely through that dangerous period AND SPENT A LOT LESS MONEY DOING SO... (kind of like Reagan did in the 1980's...)