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 (69109)	2/17/2014 8:25:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Excluding everything ELSE Which doesn't make much sense. and just looking at the the absolute $ deficit There was a large increase, and there had been large increases before. Sure never anywhere near as big in nominal dollar terms, but nominal dollar terms aren't very meaningful. The dollars further in the past were worth more each, and the economy at Reagan's time was larger so most overall national figures were larger in nominal or even real dollars than in the past. As a portion of the economy there had been an overall upward trend towards the deficit increasing for some time before Reagan. Reagan's deficits represent a continuation of that trend, not a serious change in it. Again, continuing a bad trend is hardly praiseworthy (esp. if one of the major themes of your campaign had been about how that trend was such a huge problem), but its not the same as a decisive break in the trend in a bad direction.