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 (140814)	7/18/2004 12:05:53 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see only one number definitely quoted for 2000, but if you are disputing it all, it hardly matters. I used a textbook from Prentice Hall, but it may be shaky, I cannot say. It's sort of too bad that you're not actually looking at the links you posted or the ones I gave you. If you actually read them you would be able to say. The debt burden remained relatively high until the seventies, as a percentage of GDP, yet the '60s remained a boom period, and the '70s brought recession and stagflation. This has nothing to do with the stimulative effects of WWII. I have a vague recollection of a war during the 60's along with the Great Society and War on Poverty. True it wasn't call WWII. During the 70's .... wasn't there something happening about inordinately high interest rates and oil prices that might have had a minor negative effect on the economy. No, there is no strict linear correlation, but the more national income grows, the more means we have to pay the debt without raising tax rates. Sure, as long as pretend that SS won't become a net liability, interest rates won't rise above their current levels, the interest on the debt won't continue to take a larger percentage of the Federal budget, and the trade deficit doesn't matter. [The mention of the trade deficit puts this post on topic] jttmab