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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (54615)	7/16/2004 10:59:38 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Kyrosi, Bush had a recession on his hands when 9/11 hit. In order to both fight a war or 3 wars, and prevent the recession from turning into a deflation driven depression, he had no choice but to forgo fiscal discipline or else the democrats would have fought him on the essential spending for homeland defense, military, and economic stimulus not to mention tax cuts which were probably the most import piece in defeating deflation/depresssion. Was his policy perfect? No! It couldnt have been because he had to overspend to counter the dems desire for no real tax cuts vis a vis rates. Kudlow is right and if we can keep the econoomy growing, deficits will be sopped up like gravy just as they were in the 90s. And if the politics continues on its present course Kerry will be able to take credit, just as clinton did. Mike

To: KyrosL who wrote (54615)	7/16/2004 11:04:39 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Kyros, are you aware of any economic research that supports the proposition that paying off the deficit is beneficial, economically? Logic tells me that it isn't. For example, most people buy their homes putting down 10% or 20%, and mortgage the rest. That's a large deficit. But the alternative is to rent housing until they can pay cash, which is probably never. Another example, businesses which are expanding generally have long term loans for capital expansion, and short term loans for day to day expenses, and they are constantly paying loans off simultaneously with borrowing more money. It would be ridiculous to tell them, "pay for long term capital expenditures out of cash flow, or don't expand." What's the diff?