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: greenspirit who wrote (278290)	7/20/2002 1:57:33 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Well i see you've avoided most all my points and instead have attempted to explain to me something i obviously know. I've already stated that using the SS surplus as general revenue is dishonest. You've already given Bush a pass on preventing pilots from having guns in the cockpit while lambasting other politicians for taking the exact same position, and now you're giving him a pass for counting the SS surplus as general revenue while calling it Enron style accounting. Where's the intellectual integrity in that? Furthermore, what difference does it make where the federal government borrows its money from? (If you have 50k in the bank, is it better to borrow from a bank to buy a new car, or borrow from yourself? What difference does it make as long as you pay yourself back?) Saying that SS is in trouble as soon as it needs to cash in those IOU's (as Bush's SS panel did in their report) is like telling all of our nation's creditor that they can't count on the full faith and good credit of the US government. Can you think of a more irresponsible, confidence defeating message to send financial markets? So did the deficit go up every year under Clinton as you claim or not? Even if you meant debt, you're still wrong. According to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0) the publicly held debt has gone down for three years in a row, form 1999 to 2001. Guess what, it's about to start going back up. You seem to be very selective when in comes to holding politicians to certain standards. You hold strong opinions yet don't seem to have a solid grasp of the underlying facts. Normally that doesn't lead to a convincing argument. Steve