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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Smith who wrote (41754)	11/20/2000 4:20:04 AM
From: Mark Konrad	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 57584

OTThank you, Joe. As a more Libertarian-leaning Republican (for philosophical reasons) I share some of your concerns or fears regarding tyranny...from the right or left (both are totalitarian). But I don't find Bush an extreme rightist in any of his policies; if anything, Nader and Buchanan and Browne are correct that the actual policies of the two major parties are generally similar in many ways. One example comes to mind: during the debates Gore repeatedly said he'd spend X amount of dollars shoring up public schools with oversight from Washington. Bush said he'd spend about the same amount but do it a little differently and also with oversight from Washington. I personally don't think the Federal Government should be involved in education at all and given the proper forum (this isn't it), I can make a very strong case for that position on economic and social grounds. In this one example, both candidates are much closer to each other than to me. The candidates themselves generally reflect the mainstreams of their respective parties: the Democrats favoring an increasingly activist government and the Republicans one that is less activist. There are significant differences in policy "direction" with regards to tax cuts and public expenditures but very little debate over whether some of those policies should exist at all. This military vote situation is extremely interesting. I think Rush Limbaugh had the best answer today on Tim Russert's interview program (MSNBC). When asked by Tim whether the "rule of law" should be followed strictly with the military votes, Rush said yes as long as the same "rule of law" would be applied equally across the board to all Florida votes. Otherwise, one set of disallowed votes is simply being held hostage to others (imo). The rhetoric on both sides in Florida is understandably high but the evidence continues to mount in favor of the arguments made by the Republicans. There are numerous reports from all the media: the voting machine in the trunk of a car, the votes put in "wrong" piles, continually changing methods and standards for the handcounts, etc., and of course the infamous falling chads now numbering in the thousands. I think the initial arguments against any handcounts are being proved as each day passes. The Montana Governor's (can't remember his name) summary statements today are hard to refute. You made an interesting comment regarding the Reagan budget policy and the huge deficits which I largely agree with. Although Congress was "supposed" to reign in its domestic spending (and didn't), many economists believe it was the tax cuts that saved the day: new investments grew so fast, along with employment and earnings, that tax receipts actually increased during subsequent years. Once the House Republicans were able to limit more spending from '94 on, budget surpluses skyrocketed. I can make a pretty fair argument that our economic health is largely due to the government taking less of our money and spending less of our money (thanks largely to Reagan and House Republicans not Clinton/Gore). I appreciate your perspectives as well, Joe. Good luck in the markets this week. I am now bracing for our initial wave of out-of-town wedding guests! Best Regards, Mark