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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (26560)	1/17/2005 1:09:24 AM
From: Follies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

You agree that all presidents are the same caliber of flim flam artist or are you playing politics?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (26560)	1/17/2005 1:23:11 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Rather than cutting spending to pay for tax cuts, Reagan simply increased spending his spending spree and the tax cuts to the national credit card. As President he didn't have the final say on spending. That being the result of a Congressional act during the Nixon Administration, the result of which compels Presidents to spend all the money that Congress appropriates. Prior to this a President could 'impound' money that Congress had appropriated. The old option was similar in effect to a line item veto. Tip O'Neil had agreed to a dollar for dollar reduction in spending for each dollar of rate cuts. O'Neil reneged, and he did have the final say on spending. Reagan's sole option would have been to veto the entire budget, not a practical solution. Had O'Neil honored his dollar for dollar agreement the Treasury might well have run a sizable and unexpected surplus, since each dollar cut ended up costing the Treasury around 35% instead of a full dollar.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (26560)	1/17/2005 1:38:48 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I think Reagan has earned a historical pass for his profligacy, since the current mantra is that "sure, he ran huge deficits, but he spent the Soviet Union into collapse". Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and the facts are known, it's pretty obvious that it would have collapsed in any case, even without the Reagan deficits. Since apparently we only get one Clinton a lifetime, the question is, how to we get our leaders to stop spending our money like drunken sailors? This is a non-partisan statement, since electing one party over the other seems to make no difference.