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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sig who wrote (113081)	8/27/2003 4:36:12 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"...the surplus or deficit is rather immaterial...." That sounds like a new economist talking. Those are the ones who insisted that the Nasdaq would go to 10,000, the Dow to 1 zillion, P/E ratios of 200 or more are OK, and one didn't have to report honestly(Enron et al). The deficit is important(it has to be covered at some time), the consumer debt is important(it has to be paid back at some time), and the price of energy is important(industry depends on it). Bush is ignoring the first two and trying to control the third.

To: Sig who wrote (113081)	8/27/2003 5:25:52 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

The problem with what you just said, is that Iraq is only a terrorist threat now, because we made it into one. We could have put the money into real, bona fide terrorist protection measures, now we really can't. We can put other money into that, but will we have it? Endless deficit spending is not generally advisable. Further, if our government is going to spend money to actually increase our exposure to terrorism, I would say that the cost of the adventure is really incalculable.