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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (42702)	4/13/2010 11:59:46 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Tripled is Meaningless"???? NO, NOT after you RUN on how IMPORTANT that debt is. If the current debt is the most important issue in the history of the universe, and will never be surpassed by any issue anywhere in the remaining time this universe still has usable energy to sustain life an civilization; than tripped is till meaningless. The importance of the debt would only be relevant if tripped was meaningful in the first place, and it isn't. And nothing in your post even attempts to argue against that point. Points about deficits in general or arguments for not cutting taxes without cutting spending are irrelevant to the point. They may be important, they may even be more important than the point we are discussing; but they aren't relevant to the point your trying to pretend they are relevant to. We would NEVER have been in this position if Reagan hadn't gone for the EASY way out of "cutting taxes" without EVER "cutting spending". If Reagan had not cut taxes (and no one after him did), we would probably be in a much worse point. The early 80s recession was very bad but would have likely been significantly worse. Then going forward with 70% top personal income tax rates, and higher rates on investment, economic growth would have been slower. By now the difference in growth would have been enough for revenue to also be lower (a less important point, but a point that leaves pretty much nothing to the argument that leaving the higher tax rates would have been a good idea). If ANYBODY ever had a chance to run SURPLUSES it was Reagan. With breaking the high inflation leading to one of the most severe post WWII recessions, and with Democratic big spenders control of congress, he wasn't in a good position to balance the budget let alone run surpluses. Reagan was the WORST President of the last 100 years Perhaps the best in the last 100 years, certainly the best of my lifetime.