Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

[Bryan Venable <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

whoops.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-06-10-reagan-impact_x.htm

The national debt is an interesting thing.  One of the big things that
seems to have cost Bush 1.0 his reelection in '92 was Perot's run, but
not only because he took some of his votes.  It was also because he
made the national debt a big campaign issue.  He may or may not have
been the first to try to do so, but by all accounts I know of he was
the first to do so with as much success.  And he made people realize
that national debt is not some imaginary thing that we can ignore
forever.  Just making interest payments on our debut consumes
significant amounts of government money - our money - that could be
going to other things, or staying in our pockets for that matter.  And
for a while there it seemed like Republicans were fiscal conservatives
again, and Democrats became more fiscally conservative too.  And we
were talking about things like balancing the budget.

When Clinton left office it looked like we were on the way to possibly
paying down the national debt, and one thing he may have done wrong is
to make it seem like we weren't going to have to worry about the debt
anymore.  Because now we seem to have forgotten it.  We're more
interested in terrorism.  But of course if we don't take care of our
economy we're not going to be much of a problem for the terrorists in
another 50 years or so.  At this rate all they have to do is be
patient and we'll eventually have to pull our troops out of Saudi
Arabia because we won't be able to afford it anymore.  All the oil
will be gone by then anyway so the price/performance ratio on that
investment will be pretty low.


On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:37:37 -0500 (CDT), Mike Miller
<EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Bryan Venable wrote:
> 
> > Oh by the way here's an interesting story on Reagan's legacy.  It's from
> > USA TODAY which admittedly doesn't have the best reputation, but it does
> > have some quotes and such that underscore the point that Reagan really
> > changed the "dominant personality" of the Republican party from fiscal
> > conservatism to "debt-and-spend".
> 
> Do you have a URL for that article?
> 
> I'd rather be a "tax and spend" liberal than a "debt and spend"
> conservative!  Isn't it better to keep a balanced ledger?
> 
> I like fiscal conservatism.  Unfortunately, it seems to be unavailable at
> this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion