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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (103809)	4/11/2000 2:25:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570450

Scumbria, OT The Soviet Union went bankrupt due to 70 years of stifling economic policies and corruption. Gorbachev presided over the end of that particular chapter of Russian madness. The Cold War was waged on a different level, not on the quantity of platform shoes and polyester pants sold. It was waged by (successfull) intimidation, covert and overt military operations, and propaganda. What finished off Comunism was moral strength of the leaders of the West (Reagan, Thacher, Kohl, Mitterand (sp?) and majority of the citizens of these countries. Notice I say "majority", because there was a minority - a part of the Democratic party - that was ready to waive the white flag when the going got tough in the early 80s. This moment of strength of the west was paired with a momentary lack of confidence on the Soviet leadership to continue their reign of terror. I lived behind the Iron curtain. I can tell you that it was nowhere near bankrupt. Economically inefficient? Yes. But militarily strong, with clearly stated ideological and propaganda goals ("on message" in campaign speak). At the time I came to the United states in 1983, having seem both sides, it was clear to me that the Reagan's chosen direction of confrontation, rather than the leaky containment would bring about a resolution of this conflict within my lifetime. But I wasn't sure who the winner would be, even though I have lived this conflict. I find it somewhat amusing when someone in year 2000 says that he knew what the outcome was going to be. Or when you count pennies of the cost of victory. How much money was spent to defeat Nazis? Do you think the US should have stayed within budgetary constraints to fight the war? How would a half a trillion dollars of military spending per year influence this years budget, in case the resolution was not achieved by Reagan and this wimp George Bush? Joe

To: Scumbria who wrote (103809)	4/11/2000 2:34:00 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570450

Dear Scumbria: You should blame the hero, The Democratic Senate and Congress. They SPENT the money faster than the tax cuts brought it in. Blame the $4 Trillion on the right people. Also the deficit has been reduced by cutting the growth of spending. The Democrats have you believing that a "cut" comes from spending less than you plan and not by the ordinary definition of spending less than last year. Check the revenue growth against the expenditure growth. During that debt increase, spending grew faster than revenue but revenue grew. Remember Reagan inherited a lousy economy from Carter (really the Democratic House and Senate) years in the late 70's. I think that Gore will stop putting the brake on expenditures and start increasing the debt faster than you realize. He then will say "we need to raise your taxes to fix Social Security, etc.". The way most of his programs that he lays out (if he does that at all) work, they leave large unfunded liabilities in the far future (sometimes not so far). Social Security is an example. If it was set up like it was sold to the public, it would not be in the straits it is now. For the first 30 to 40 years, it looked like a great program but, the large unfunded liability was beginning to come home to roost. It should never have been a "Pay as you go" plan. It back loads the costs (something the Democrats seem to favor in their various plans) while front loading the benefits. The best plan I have seen so far to fix this, is the very successful 401k type plans. A portion of the money goes to fund an insurance that promises to pay a barely above poverty benefit (in case all goes wrong in the rest of the plan) while the majority is invested in higher paying securities (stocks, bonds, and / or mutual funds). This provides for higher growth for the economy while still providing for a safety net when things go wrong (if the rate of people falling into the first half is low, the benefit level could be increased until the rate of outgo is roughly the same as the revenue thus trending higher during times of plenty and trending lower during lean times). This is much better than the current program, it should be a "No Brainier". Pete