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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (109218)	9/22/2007 11:27:58 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

KT It doesn't matter when the sell off started. What matters is the extent of the bubble and who it occurred under. It was going to mean revert eventually no matter what. It was built under Clinton/Greenspan/Rubin during the great Wall St Rape and Pillage. That's just the fact. I think cutting dividend taxes and other taxes on capital are both favorable for the economy and the stock market in the long term and short term (assuming they are accompanied by spending cuts). But as I said prior, I'm not a fan of running deficits to stimulate economic activity. I think that works in the short term but is a negative in the long term. I'd rather address the monetary causes of booms and busts by eliminating the Fed and just cope with a downturn in the meantime. All that said, I think any president in the position Bush was in at the time (market crash, 9/11, etc..) would have purposely run deficits. The only difference would have been which taxes they cut, what they spent extra money on, and in what proportions they did each. Those are value judgements. His mistake was in not cutting spending once the economy started to recover. And obviously, going into Iraq was an error both financially and strategically. IMHO, the republicans have the right idea about the idealogical struggle under way, but the strategy decisions are being made by traitors and religious fanatics. The housing bubble certainly helped bail out the economy. I'm not sure how much the policies of the republicans contributed to that. Again, I think that was more of a monetary phenomenon that occurred under his watch for which I mostly blame Greenspan and our monetary system. I blame the Clinton administration a little more for the bubbles under his watch because Rubin was running around the world bailing everyone out with the IMF etc... Sometimes it seemed like the entire administration was geared towards changing stats to makes things look better and promoting an even bigger bubble. But to some extent the seeds were planted in the early 90s banking bailout with all the cheap money that came before him. I'm not a fan of the republicans. I'm a fan of unbiased analysis. I don't have a horse in this race. I am a libertarian that hates both sides for different reasons.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (109218)	9/23/2007 9:10:48 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

When he called 911, he refused to talk to the operator: apnews1.iwon.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (109218)	9/25/2007 2:08:47 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Knighty, the bushevics are satan's minions warmed over, but i gotta agree with Wayne - we all knew clinton's and greenspan's bubble wasn't going to last. i remember believing the next administration would be in an awful mess trying to deal with the aftermath. now the buck has gone all looney on us and we will likely be looking up at the looney. anyway, that isn't to excuse one lame duck president, though. i didn't like clinton, but bush makes me want him back. i didn't like marty schottenheimer, either, but norv turner makes me want him back, too. ugggh!