SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (43271)5/18/2010 11:04:49 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I wouldn't say Reaganomics really got us in to this mess. To the extent that we are in a mess (or multiple messes) there are a lot of different sources. To the extent spending under Republican presidents is a problem Bush II spent the most and increased spending the most, not Reagan. If we still had 70% marginal rates (in other words if we didn't have Reaganomics) the mess might be different but would probably be worse. The spending probably would have increased at least as much (unless perhaps the reason why we didn't get tax cuts was that Reagan used his political capital to enact serious entitlement reform, but there is a good chance he would have failed in the effort, in fact absent the tax cuts he may have had less political capital to use), while the economy to support the spending would be smaller.



To: RMF who wrote (43271)6/4/2010 8:55:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Republicans are in as much jeopardy as the Democrats.

You seem to be the only one saying that. Pundits on both sides agree that being a democrat incumbent is a huge negative in 2010. Being a RINO incumbent is also deleterious to one's chances.

I think we can agree that Tip O'Neilanomics is what caused this huge mess. I see you continue to play partisanship in trying to blame Tip's partisanship on his President.