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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (31341)	6/3/2005 8:59:40 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 116555

However, you could quote just about anything Ron Paul says and he has a voting record to back it up. It's hard to believe that his district borders Tom DeLay's. <G>

To: zonder who wrote (31341)	6/3/2005 9:03:27 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

stupid question: Aren't deficits themselves proof Congress is spending more? (to much?) Mish

To: zonder who wrote (31341)	6/3/2005 9:12:27 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

In real terms, Congress is spending less. Under Reagan and George HW Bush, we spent 22% of GDP. Under Clinton and Dubya, we spent 20% of GDP. However, under Bush, Revenue declined to 17% of GDP from a previous rate of 20%.

To: zonder who wrote (31341)	6/3/2005 10:26:31 AM
From: PAST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Zonder - Not QED. Your proof for the following quote: >>Friedman's statement I called demonstrably false is: "Deficits are the only thing that keeps this Congress from spending more".<< has the flaw of narrowness of vision. Friedman's use of the word, "more", has no reference to the past. Your logic only considers a comparison to what was spent in the past, but Friedman made no such reference. While no doubt exists that Congress has spent more than it did in the past, that does not refute the possibility that Congress COULD have spent MORE than it has at this point, but did not for some reason. Possibly, that reason is because of existing deficits? Your logic has not denied that possibility. eom