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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (718429)	12/15/2005 6:56:59 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Good analysis of the exchange. Why do you think that Buddy cannot understand my fairly simple point? My guess is that he really does.

To: TideGlider who wrote (718429)	12/15/2005 7:23:07 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "an acknowledgement of special circumstances that affected the nation at the time recession started and were compounded severely on 9/11 and after." When he posted that, I DID NOT DENY IT. (Even though I could have. The GAO and the CBO have reported that ALL the war and 9-11 expenses combined account for LESS then 50% of the national debt increase. The private econometrics firm hired by the WH prior to Bush's last State of the Union address, tasked with conducting a 'dynamic' [i.e., 'Laffer curve' style analysis that ALWAYS assumes that tax cuts RAISE growth rates, and SPENDING INCREASES do too] analysis of the Bush team's budget proposals came up with a very similar result: they showed that, war or no war, without significant spending cuts then by mid-decade --- where we are now --- the recovery would start to reverse itself, and growth would enter a declining growth phase.) Even so, I DID NOT argue against the factors that Scott put forth (9-11, war). In fact, I included them along with some other factors just as soon as he asked me to post some reasons to explain why the present recovery is below average. I think you are 'seeing' an exchange that never happened... you might want to go back and read my first post: Message 21973916 This is ALL I SAID (and no one has disagreed with the truth of the post. Not you, not Scott): "The economy made a miraculous recovery." Actually, by historical standards, looking at other recoveries after recessions... this recovery is sub-par. Below the average.