Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
So then I assume by that account Bush and the neo-con policies are completely responsible for the mess we're currently in, right?
|
The financial deregulation everyone was up in arms about (not me) was signed into law under Clinton.
Bush's legacy is going to be defined by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If Iraq (primary) turns out to be a worthy cause, Bush's administration should be looked at favorably. The investment of life and treasury in that war far exceeds anything else he did. If the effort proves to have been a waste, he should be measured accordingly. Bush, mostly had a singular focus, and it was the "war on terror". Only time will tell what the impact will be.
---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
The irony about the current debate about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is that the party who is currently demanding that everything be "paid for" has yet to explain how keeping the tax cuts will be paid for (when they are projected to add $800 billion to the deficit)
|
Look at it this way - taxes are like a price. Just like we pay a price for a computer or a cell phone, reducing the price doesn't mean a company makes less money - it doesn't mean a company will go into debt. When the price is cut, the desire is that more volume will off-set the price cut - increasing revenues. Debt has nothing to do with price, and everything to do with spending or finding the proper balance between price and volume.
---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
So how about debating the facts of the article instead of trying to tar and feather the author?
|
I can not find the fortune article written by Krugman on Enron, do you have a link to it?