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 (68780)	1/22/2014 6:59:30 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

but I'm positive that the deficit would have been LOWER. I'm not. And even if it was the trade off probably wouldn't have been worth it, esp. as the extra spending would have been of the type that's harder to cut later. He set a PRECEDENT. He made deficits ACCEPTABLE. No, they where common, and widely accepted before him. Don't get me wrong, spending and deficits where too high back then, I'm not challenging that, just your specific statements about them.