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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (76605)	12/20/2006 10:56:18 AM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206347

>>>The idea that all governments use taxes to increase spending rather than cut deficits is incorrect. For example, Clinton's government used increased taxes to systematically cut the deficit every single year except one while he was president.<<< Under the Clinton presidency, the US economy achieved the laudable goal of reducing the federal operational deficit. This is a stark contrast to the very disappointing fiscal management demonstrated by the Bush administration. However the fact remains that the total public debt has increased every year since 1957. So (pulling numbers out of my hat for example purposes only) we went from spending 130% of every tax dollar in 1993 to only 105% in 2000. Again an achievement, but hardly refutation of my point that the government always spends more than it takes in. A gasoline tax??? The past fifty years of experience suggests that the government will spend more than it receives on it, and that there will be no correlation with that tax and federal spending on addressing the critical energy cliff over which we shall plunge presently. Want proof??? How about the pending appeal of all the drilling tax credits which took five years of legislative "work" to put in place? How about the dubious ethanol program, which the government has embraced with at best scant proof of a net energy gain and the real possibility of a net energy loss? The table below reflects the new congress' aganda as perceived by the public. Is there anything in this table which suggests to you either fiscal discipline or a focus on applying gasoline tax revenues towards a more healthy energy complex? (OK. Maybe some savings on drug benefits, which benefits comprise the latest governmental give away, and which no doubt contributed to soaring drug prices - supply and demand you know).