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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ecommerceman who wrote (51301)	10/24/2000 8:27:22 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Actually you are wrong, Bush's numbers add up but AlGore the Junior's do not. Independent budget groups note that AlGore spends the surplus and then some - AlGore's numbers do not add up. But AlGore never really tries to make any sense - he just does what he always does - he lies. That's how Dems "motivate their base". Too bad for AlGore that - and as the debates showed - it turns off thinking people. What is clear is that AlGore the Junior wants to "grow" government by the greatest degree since LBJ's failed "Great Society", despite the numbers.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (51301)	10/24/2000 9:42:52 AM
From: Knight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree that Bush probably can't do everything he's talking about and still balance the budget (in the sort term) and I hope he doesn't try to do it. (I'd rather see an incremental approach that doesn't risk a deficit.) My point, though, is that Bush's social security plan (if looked at independently) allows us to give up some of our future benefits in order to get the opportunity to invest some of our Social Security money on our own. When discussing long-term viability of Social Security, it seems that folks never point out that Bush's plan reduces future obligations. A major issue for me is that I don't trust the government (especially the Democrats) to actually use the surplus money to pay down the debt. Also, if we add government programs, they get "locked in" and are hard to reverse (as I pointed out yesterday). By comparison, a tax cut is relatively easy (politically) to reverse if necessary to prevent a deficit. As far as paying down the debt is concerned, the interest payments on the debt are already part of the budget. They will always be paid (when's the last time the federal government defaulted on a debt payment?). I think it's very unlikely that either Democrats or Republicans will ever use the budget surpluses to accelerate paying down the debt (over an above the required payments). Instead, they will use the extra money for pork or pet programs. I think the best scenario we can hope for is to have a balanced budget, but keep the surplus as small as possible in order to keep government from growing too fast.