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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (37104)	3/6/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Gee, I found that so refreshing that I thought we deserved another: On average, Congress spent 2.8% more than Reagan asked for, while the cumulative (yearly compounding rate) was a whopping 24.5% more. If the budget in 1989 had been 24.5% smaller (i.e., 280 billion dollars) there could have been a surplus of about 130 billion dollars instead of a deficit. This is equivalent to a constant compounding increase of 2.8% every year during the 8 budgets above and beyond the previous year's spending. Whomever thinks that is not a significant amount should ask themselves whether a balanced budget in 1989 would have been significant.

To: Neocon who wrote (37104)	3/6/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Reagan's web site is always good for a laugh, Neocon. Like Les's favorite analysis of the "cumulative difference" between Reagan's proposed budget and congress's. Add up 3% a year over 8 years, you get 24%! What's wrong with this picture?