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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (433067)	7/24/2003 8:43:52 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Nixon over McGovern, 1972...

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (433067)	7/25/2003 10:45:09 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

...fiscal prudence, balanced budgets Always? In recession and depression too? Keynesian economics says surpluses in good times, deficits in bad. I have seen no evidence that that actually works, though. The gov't props up the economy with its money, then the economy collapses when the gov't doesn't keep pouring its money in. Fiscal sanity seems the best policy. No deficits except in time of declared war. That's DECLARED war. One of those things we haven't seen since WW2. >>> We agree on this point. I too have seen no evidence that whatever 'good' results are claimed for the constant governmental meddling with the money supply are not outweighed by the harm that meddling causes. So we both seem to be Monetarists, not liberal Keynesians. low and fair taxes, strong national defense Define "fair taxes". Flat. Period. >>> I included flat in my definition of 'fair taxes' as well... with the single proviso that our corrupt, market-distorting welter of special interest loopholes and tax give-away programs must bite the dust for the overall tax program to be 'fair'. >>> With one possible difference between us: I would consider carefully a tax system that allowed for a modest (less than we have now) amount of graduation in the rates, based on income, if that were the only way politically to get rid of all those destructive special interest loopholes (and allowing for the fact that as a percentage of income, the poor & middle classes pay higher effective rates in some consumption-type local taxes). Still, flat & loophole free is FAIR. >>> Either would be far superior to what we have now. And you see no conflict between "low taxes" and "strong national defense"? Except in time of war, pay as you go. >>> Agreed. Fiscal prudence does not imply a death wish :) Free Markets and trade What about all the AMerican workers who imports put out of work? Or who are put out of work because jobs are exported? What are your proposals in regard to them? Life is tough. Americans are tougher. Given a bit of adjustment, we'll survive and thrive. >>> Agreed. But much in both our trade and tax policies are slanted against job creation.... Free Trade is not the problem - corrupt and distructive tax and trade policies are. small government I assume you oppose welfare then. Except in case of TRUE mental or physical disability. >>> Agreed. But also note my observation that 'corporate welfare' easily amounts to $500 B. a year... far in excess of the costs of the puny transfer policy that 'welfare' is. >>> Certainly, if we ran balanced budgets, and the government sector took a smaller slice, and our tax codes weren't slanted against production (and toward paper shuffling to gain loophole advantages), then our economy would be stronger, wealth would accrue faster and spread further, and there would be less need for social transfer payments. strong individual rights Which ones? The Bill of Rights is a good start. It coulds stand some beefing up. >>> Agreed, agreed. And gov't officials should face personal criminal liability for violating those rights. >>> Interesting idea. (How about recall provisions a la California?) And Patriot I is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights and has to go. Patriot II should be DOA. >>> Agreed again. The fact that Patriot I was already written, and sitting on a shelf at least one YEAR before 9-11, waiting for an opportune time to force the legislation through - should tell you an awfull lot about the bureaucratic motivations for it's enactment. Does "affirmative action" increase or decrease them? Should it be stopped? Yes. Racism is racism. When the civil rights movement started (which I initially supported), the supposedly were after EQUAL rights regardless of race or skin color. I have no problem with that. Then they slipped the mickey in: preferences and quotas based on race. That's when I went over the side. >>> We seem to agree on discrimination as well: discrimination can't be eliminated with more racial discrimination. >>> As I said: I believe the best way to achieve the goals of achieving racial harmony, equity and fairness... is to: 1). Have strong anti-discrimination laws, promoting equality before the courts, equality of opportunity, etc., and 2). To overcome the after-effects of past slavery and discrimination - in-so-far as areas such as college admissions may be helpful in achieving true equality of opportunity - if preferences in admissions are needed... then they should be based only on TWO factors: intellectual achievement, potential (grades, test scores, etc.), and character & economic deprivation. Skin color or ethnicity should not be a factor at all. We should be a 'color-blind society', judging people by their achievements and the 'content of their character'. To hell with them and the horse they rode in on. >>> Eh? GWB vs Al Gore? >>> Admittedly, with near zero enthusiasm, I voted against the Bush. (The 'lesser of two evils' as it were. Bush I was so disasterous, and Bush II seemed potentially worse.) I figured at least the 'devil I knew' and, worried about potential problems, I figured at least Gore would be up-to-speed on economic and science & technology matters, and with a Republican Congress there would be strong opposition. I feverently HOPED for a strongly divided government this last go around. Seriously considered a Libertarian vote... then at the last minute - because of the closeness of the election - decided against it... though Libertarian remained my desired outcome. Dole vs Clinton (1996)? >>> Libertarian (much disaffected with Clinton on a number of privacy rights issues... 'Clipper chip', etc.) Bush I vs Clinton (1992)? >>> Clinton, I believe (as memory serves, I was impressed with his talk about the economy and deficits... figured it would be hard for anyone to be much worse than Bush I on the economy). George Bush I vs. Michael Dukakis? (1988) >>> Didn't vote for either... so I either voted Libertarian, or cast no vote. Reagan vs Mondale? (1984) >>> Libertarian, or no vote, as memory serves. Reagan vs. Carter? (1980) >>> Reagan (though I was somewhat concerned about the suspicious timing of the hostage releases... I figured the R.R. folks had Carter strategically on the run at all points). Carter vs Ford (1976)? >>> Carter (Ford lost it with the pardon... otherwise, I generally liked Ford. Carter's overt religiousity made me nervous.) Nixon vs. McGovern (1972)? >>> Neither. (LOL, likely I wrote-in someone as a mark of disaffection with the choice.) Nixon vs. Humphrey (1968)? >>> Too young. Johnson vs. Goldwater (1964)? >>> Too young. >>> Et tu, LL?