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: Neocon who wrote (114260)	9/9/2003 4:29:18 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you are comparing this current economic period with the great depression? Interesting, and quite odd, imo. On top of that there is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam was planning to destroy American cities. Clever that you threw it in there, but it is hooey.

To: Neocon who wrote (114260)	9/9/2003 6:36:02 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"If there were a $304 billion deficit in the $2.23 trillion budget the percentage the 2004 Budget deficit will be 13.6%. During the entire 12 years of Roosevelt’s administration he NEVER brought the budget that low! The closest he ever came to getting the deficit that low was a 17% deficit in 1938, when supposedly the Depression was “over” and war had not started in Europe. In 1943, at the height of World War II, Roosevelt spent three times the money that was raised in taxes." Pity. The budget deficit is greater than 455 billion or greater than 20.4% You really should do your homework. It's amusing that your source never mentioned Reagan's deficit. It also used the typical ruse of claiming that the Democrats were far worse than the Republicans as far as fiscal responsibility goes. "The White House predicted Tuesday that the federal budget deficit would reach $455 billion this year - a dramatic widening over even recent estimates - because of slow economic growth, war costs in Iraq and the effects of tax cuts. The number far exceeds in dollar terms the previous record shortfall of $290 billion in 1992, though it is smaller, compared with the size of the economy, than the Reagan-era deficits." iht.com

To: Neocon who wrote (114260)	9/9/2003 7:50:23 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And this is an argument for what? Dems are more fiscally irresponsible than Reps? I notice your source failed to include an upfront comparison between the Reagan/Bush I years and the Clinton years. I gather your source thinks it's fiscally irresponsible to employ deficits in a time of depression. I seemed to recall the Bush folk invoked that argument (using recession rather than depression language) as one of the rather large number of sort of random justifications they offered for tax cuts the bulk of which won't come online until 08. Please.