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 (211259)	12/20/2001 7:52:30 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

The question is one of the relative trade- off of tax cuts vs. borrowing. I take it for granted that not all expenditure was well- justified, although I mainly blame the Congress of the time. In that trade- off, were we better off with the cuts, or was the balanced budget more important? We were better off with the cuts. Yes, they under- performed. However, they mostly grew during that period, and, as I said, the big trade- off was military expenditures (roughly a quarter of GDP) and consumer items. The prospect of renewed strategic competition, due to SDI, was what led to glasnost. They didn't, by the way, per se collapse, economically, only politically, and after a drawn out process. Besides, as I said, the Chinese situation is definitive proof that economic reform need not entail political reform, certainly in the near term.....