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 (43327)	5/20/2010 1:49:21 AM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

I just dislike that he didn't really pursue BALANCING the equation. I would have settled for cutting the deficit rather than increasing it. He had a chance to do that but he didn't. Not much of a chance. Esp. not if he was also going to restore our military to a decent shape. Doing so not only helped end the cold war, but also gave us enough modern weapons that later presidents could have better budget results without crippling our military. Many of those weapons systems are still in use today. Our military would really be facing a deteriorating situation now, without the new procurement. Non-military spending increased more than military spending, but there wasn't much Reagan could have done to stop that except perhaps vetoing budget after budget. I suppose in hindsight that might have been an ok strategy, but I don't fault him for not using it. Still even avoiding that strategy he could have had a positive effect at the margin here. A balanced budget was not in the cards, but he could have had better fiscal results.