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 (211227)	12/19/2001 5:23:31 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If we were a business, it would be considered sound policy to go into debt for capital expenditures, rather than trying to pay as you go. If higher deficits allowed lower taxes, it was a worthwhile trade- off, just as it would be worthwhile for a company to borrow to build a plant, rather than raise prices. If we are spending on things we should not be, by all means, cut. But to let a concern over deficits dominate the budget process is stupid. You are misinformed. The economic decline of the Soviet Union was not well- documented from the '50s on. In fact, growth rates were consistently inflated, due to difficulty of getting sound data from the Soviet Union, or making comparisons between systems. And though they did not magically decline in the '80s, there was no substantial consumer movement, and the extensive black market helped to stave off crisis. The main problem was that about a quarter of GDP was dedicated to the military, instead of consumer goods. If you think that the economic situation mandated the collapse of the system, look at China. The Party and the Army are firmly in control, even with market reforms.