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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (78)	8/26/2000 1:50:52 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 10042

It is my understanding that since 1992 the debt has grown something like 1.6 trillion dollars. In percentage terms, the debt has grown less in the Clinton Administration, this is still a VERY admirable achievement. And recently the debt has actually been decreasing, which is an even greater achievement. It is also my understanding that we are running surpluses, though because Social Security Taxes are counted as part of the surplus. I think Social Security taxes have been counted against the debt for several decades. Speaking of Social Security Taxes, you realize of course that for every full time employee who makes like $6.90 / hour (<$280 a week) the government collects $2000 a year in Social Security related taxes.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (78)	8/26/2000 1:57:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Good thing, too, cuz Reagan and Bush quadrupled the debt which took all other presidents 200 years to accumulate. How do you figure? Do you really and truly believe that economic restructuring of overall tax rates yield immediate results, rather than results over time? Reagan cut the overall nominal tax rate by 25% back in the '80s. He attempted to have those tax cuts matched by a 25% reduction in the US govt budget but was stopped by a democratically controlled congress. Thus, deficits grew until such a time as those tax cuts could take effect and the profits from this infusion of capital into the economy could overcome the deficits. We were just beginning to see the benefits at the beginning of the '90s and THAT is what has led to the greatest bull market of all time. Where Clinton has benefitted is from the aspect that he has done little harm, or rather, has been prevented from doing harm, such as forcing the governmental health program upon the nation, and keeping a cap on governmental spending. It can also be said that Clinton has benefitted from the peace dividend, where Reagan challenged the Soviet Union to a military buildup that eventually bankrupted them. The differences are pretty clear to me. Conservatives generally have an economic view that government should not intervene in areas where the private market can provide a solution. Liberals are of the view that government must play a critical and central part in managing the economy, and thus, people's lives. As for Marxists, they are nothing more than Liberals who happen to be in a hurry. As for myself, I'm in the middle; someone who recognizes that public and private market failure exist and that each can provide a unique solution (such as local police and national security being a case where only government is able to most efficiently muster the resources necessary to protect its citizens and conduct foreign policy). Furthermore, it is my opinion that current conservatives are mainly for redirecting an already accumulated centralized Federal power to state and local levels. For one, it places the debate with regard to solutions closer to the actual source of the problems, which spurs a competition of ideas and approaches (like workfare has accomplished in Wisconsin). For the Federal govt to impose a top-down authority and lay it over every community and state is the height of arrogance and inefficiency. It also creates incredible temptations for wholesale abuse, corruption, and structural regidity that resists common sensical change. Redirecting some of these programs back down to the local level, where people actually see and feel the impact of their actions, is what I believe needs to occur at this point. Government has already grown too large and imposed itself inordinately into our lives. And btw, we can now look to Japan as being one of the world's greatest debtor nations, where govt and industry were closely connected and heavily subsidized. It worked great for them for a couple of decades, until they faced a situation where sudden change was required. But then the inertia and structural regidity were so great that it has required 10 years of constant deficit spending and zero interest rates to merely keep their economic heads above water. Japan's national debt is somewhere around 130% of their national GDP, a far higher percentage level than was ever suffered as a result of Reaganomics. I certainly don't desire any such an outcome for this country. Do you? And one other point... given that any number of Clinton scandals will continue to be investigated after his departure, why would you want to elect his vice-president in his place when it is great likely that once those forgotten emails are produced and examined, he may be facing quite of bit of scrutiny himself. The Clinton/Gore administration has stonewalled, obfuscated, purgered itself, and/or fled the very borders of this nation in order to delay the inevitable moment of truth. A good deal of that truth will finally be realized during the next adminstration. I would rather it be news that finds its way to 3rd or 4th page news, rather than capture headlines in the way the Clinton's impeachment hearings did... Or his "wag the dog" bombings of aspirin factories, or his direct and repeated lies to the US people. I certainly don't want to vote for any "father of the internet" who can't even produce a year's worth of government e-mails. No... Clinton was just lucky that Ronald Reagan appointed a very astute and knowledgable Federal Reserve chief, Alan Greenspan. Regards, Ron Regards, Ron