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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (279438)	3/21/2006 5:58:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572767

So what made the world and the US better? Economic growth and technological improvements. Also I wish to clarify my earlier comment. I think governments have gotten worse in North America and Western Europe, not all over the world. And even in North America and Western Europe the picture has been mixed, not a steady or unmitigated decline. OK, but if you can't give him credit, at least you can't BLAME Clinton for making it better... like you can Bush. Baby steps. Yup. I can't blame Clinton for a massive spending increase. Lets just make it simple. Clinton has a better record on the deficit and on spending than Bush. We both agree on that. We might disagree about the size of the difference, and the cause of the difference, or the circumstances of the difference, but we both agree about the difference, and that this is one measure where Clinton came out ahead of Bush. Bush over Clinton, even though Clinton's results were closer to your ideology. Your taking one linear scale, just looking at the results rather than the results and the circumstances (Clinton might have done a better job here even considering the circumstances but considering them makes the issue more complex and at least reduces the extent that Clinton did better), and saying that Clinton's results where closer to my ideology. The problems with that are 1 - While a balanced budget is something that would probably have support from a lot of libertarians it isn't really a small government vs. large government issue. 2 - Clinton has a better record not just in balancing the budget but in not increasing spending. This would make a better argument for him having "more libertarian results" than the balanced budget argument. But government spending is not the only issue that libertarians care about. There are many other issues and concerns for most libertarians. A better record on controlling spending doesn't necessarily mean a more libertarian record. 3 - That better record on spending was in very different circumstances. Winding down the spending from the cold war for Clinton, winding up spending for the war against Islamofacist terrorism for Bush. A new Republican congress wanting to cut government for Clinton, vs. a more settled and corrupt Republican congress for Bush. Also Katrina happening while Bush was president. 4 - Clinton got action on a lot of things by regulation that required other people to spend rather then on increasing spending. The action is just as against real libertarianism as increasing spending, perhaps more so. 5 - I have other political/ideological opinions besides libertarianism. Bush tends to fit better on these concerns than Clinton. Some of these ideas might be what you call my "strong Republican bias", but its more ideological than partisan.