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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (508854)	12/13/2003 1:12:02 PM
From: jackhach	Respond to of 769669

babesagainstbush.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (508854)	12/13/2003 1:20:27 PM
From: jackhach	Respond to of 769669

Lizzie, When the deficit WILL be at $550 to $600 billion in no time -- it'll then exceed Reagan's nightmare deficits -- that we are still paying. Right now its running in/around 3.8 to 4.2% of GDP based on who you listen to. This time next year we will be well over 5%. Meanwhile the combination of consumer, corporate, & federal/state/municipal debt has reached an ALL TIME HIGH (inflation adjusted) -- wherein it exceeds GDP by 3+ times. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT in that DEBT (financing of it) plays a far more serious/critical role in personal/biz/gov finance. When Greenspan raises rates he will stifle the economy in no time -- there is little/no margin for error. The country is addicted to borrowing as a source of stimulation and survival. That is why when AG raised rates at the end of Clinton's term (to cool it off) -- it had far more fast/drastic results that he/they did not anticipate. Keep in mind that banks don't make money anymore on servicing loans -- they just turn em' round and sell them back to Freddie. The money is in the application process now. Points and fees tied to application of credit now exceeds the value of servicing. It is that competitive and saturated with liquidity. Point is that banks can't survive unless they have continual, ongoing applications coming through for them. Yes again -- the country's combined debt is about $30 to $35 trillion and growing whacky <---again depending on the source. ...ya' wanna' know why consumer confidence dropped despite the "blockbuster" GDP numbers? Its simple -- people are starting to realize that they can't refinance anymore and benefit with a lower possible payment (without credit check on a cash out.) They have alreday borrowed nearly everything they can at these low rates before they would have to see ongoing monthly pays & longer terms kick in. Also, you have the added factor of most states RAISING taxes to make up for lost revenuie from consumers and from the fed. Additional borrowing, for vast majority of folks, would now actually raise their monthly payments -- or force them to lengthen the notes term to reduce. <--- combine tyhis fact with the very high liklihood that property values are starting to flatten and will head south within the next 6 to 9 months and the banks won't be able to lend anyway. -JH

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (508854)	12/13/2003 3:02:59 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Well, I take issue with a few things along the lines of this argument.(Defecit spending) Thanks Lizzie. Since I made my post, I read yours and quite a few other good posts making a case against George's defecit spending. By the way, I think the defecit spending during the Reagan years was a combination of the Democratic controlled congress and Reagan. And timing of when you are in office has a lot to do with the question of defecit or surplus. Reagan was originally famous in California for reducing Jerry Brown's Califoria government debt and turning this in to a surplus. But his record in Washington, combined with a Democratic controlled Congress in Washington, was not the same. Even so, many would argue that Reagan's defense spending, which contributed to these defecits, overwhelmed the Russians and ended the cold war---yielding a significant savings to us in the long run. With regard to Clinton, the Clinton and Republican controlled Congress surplus was benefited by an unsustainable, bubble economy that was already beginning to crumble before Clinton left office. Finally, regarding pork, all these politicians, regardless of party, are for sale to some extent imo, and will support pork to some extent if it brings them votes or more power. Nevertheless, it appears to me that Bush's Iraq war will continue to go way over budget and is costing much more than it would have had we attained more international cooperation. I voted for Bush last time, but this time I am hoping the Demos will put up a candidate with significant, national and international experience like Liebermann, Kerry or Gephardt. Along the same lines, I think Dole would have been better than Bush last time. The voters don't seem to give much weight to national and international experience, although some Presidents from local backgrounds have shown an ability to "grow" in to their new broader role once elected. JMHO, Huey