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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (360975)	12/2/2007 9:17:28 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576180

We had a recovery in the 1990s under Clinton and the deficit and the debt both decreased. First, the debt level didn't decrease. The budget deficit did. Second, you aren't distinguishing in your questions between the budget and trade deficits which are different things. The trade deficit has more to do with the value of the dollar. Our debt levels are smaller as a % of GDP than most major industrial countries. Not true: According to the CIA, public debt as a percent of GDP for the US is 65%; only Germany exceeds that number at 67%[their debt results from reunification]; France comes close at 64%. However, most other industrial nations are below 50% with Denmark coming in at 30%; the UK at 42%; Sweden at 48%; Spain at 40%. cia.gov; Public debt as a % of GDP: Japan 176.2% Italy 107.8% Germany 66.8% Canada 65.4% France 64.7$ US 64.7% UK 42.2% en.wikipedia.org Japan and Germany are major industrial countries are they not? We had a trade deficit under Clinton, and yet, the dollar was much stronger. We've had a trade deficit for decades. The dollar has fallen and risen and fallen over that time. Nevertheless, the trade deficit has more to do with the dollar than the budget deficit. Our national debt simply isn't out of line with other major industrial nations. Its silly? Tell the people on planes who have to endure third world conditions when they fly. Your defense of Reagan is what's silly. Reagan has nothing to do with conditions on planes. First you bashed Reagan for firing the striking air controllers, though that has nothing to do with conditions on airplanes. Next you blamed deregulation and attributed that to Reagan, even though it was Carter who deregulated the airline industry. Face it, your just a partisan willing to throw anything out there to smear Reagan. Maybe the liberals in MN divert too much to their mass transit system. Nice try but no. The feds have cut back due to the war effort and tax cuts......and it shows. i don't believe it. What highway bills were cut to pay for hte war or tax cuts? Your credibility is getting pretty low now.