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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (15181)	11/5/2003 6:03:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793600

The solution involves stomping on the Terrorists like Roaches when they appear, and helping the rest of the Muslim world to enter the 21st Century so that the Roaches no longer have a place to hide. I don't have a problem with that. But you still haven't connected the dots. You're leaping where your President pointed, not connecting dots. Show me how invading Iraq was the most effective and cost effective way to go about that. I can see Iraq in the sense that Saddam was generally considered to be a monster so we could be expected to get a pass from the world when we invaded there. But for some reason the world didn't give us a pass. So, then, why Iraq? Seems to me that taking over Saudi Arabia would have been more consistent with our objective of getting the terrorists who would do us harm. After all, that's the Wahhabi homeland. That's the country that all Muslims visit. And they have bunches of oil, to boot. If we want to model democracy in the ME, that's a better choice. How is invading Iraq the best use of our time, effort, and money in terms of protecting ourselves from terrorists? That is my question. Can't get an answer, I think, because there isn't a good one. You can wax poetic about weakness and multiculturalism and the glories of our system. You'll get no argument from me. We're on the same side. But none of that speaks to why it makes sense to have put most of our eggs in the Iraq basket. Mexico is moving in, and saying, "Whats for Breakfast, Amigo?" I don't see any reason to believe we can stop it. Maybe we should invade Iraq. That seems to be our strategy du administrtion. I'll bet the PR boyz could have millions of Americans believing that, too. <ggggggg>

To: LindyBill who wrote (15181)	11/5/2003 6:50:48 AM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793600

>>>The Deficit? We never did get out from under it during Clinton. It kept going up each year even while it was claimed we were balancing the budget.<<< Look at table 1 in the following document from the Congressional Budget Office. cbo.gov From fiscal year 1993 through 1998, the federal budget "on-budget" was reduced. In fiscal year 1999 and 2000, there was an actual surplus in the "on-budget" amount. You can see for yourself what the funds were bringing in on their own. Now go to table 2. You can see the rate of growth in the outlays decreased as a part of GDP from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2000. However, you will see that revenues as a percent of GDP also grew from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2000. By fiscal year 2000, revenue as a percent of GDP was excessive and we needed some type of tax cut to bring the budget in balance. Some could argue that we needed to reduce our debt. Take a look at the outlays as a part of GDP for fiscal year 2002. It is growing. There is no reduction. The spigot is turned on all the way. Now go back to the numbers in Table 1. Look at the Social Security surplus from fiscal year 1999 forward. We are now spending the surplus in its entirety. You don't have to worry about social security in the future. There won't be any. Look at the preliminary numbers for fiscal year 2003 in the following document. cbo.gov Go down to the last table called "Total Outlays." You will see defense increased by over 17 percent. However, you will see that everything else is steaming ahead also. While you are thinking about that, think about the political "prescritpion drug program." That is estimated to cost $40 billion a year for the next 10 years. So, add that baby on to our spending. We are practicing "Johnsonian-Reaganomics." Spend taxes and cut taxes. Its just a matter of time before the flames meet at the center of this fiscal candle.