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 (110222)	12/17/2007 8:25:46 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, I know we discussed some of this in the past, but if we leave out the politics and bias we won't have to do it again. (I desperately don't want to either because it's so obvious I am right about what happened under Clinton) We didn't even come close to paying the bill under Clinton and won't under the next administration either no matter who gets elected. To begin with, Clinton ran a surplus for awhile, but that was partly because his timing was perfect and partly because we had a stock market bubble during much of his 2 terms. The economy was just coming out of the Bush 1 recession when he took over. It then proceeded to boom in subsequent years as it almost always does after excesses are removed. So on a longer term normalized basis (which would include both the exceptional revenue times that resulted from the bubble and the bad times that followed during the bust that occurred just as he was leaving) I doubt we were actually ever running break given his policies. We were just a lot closer than before him and since. In addition, that was a peak time in terms of demographic revenue benefits vs. where we are heading now where the demographics are starting to work against us. So he had some unusual temporary tailwinds helping his budget performance. Plus, we know the accounting was BS then and it's still BS now. They were and still are using the TEMPORARY SS surplus to make up for operating deficits. The national debt was actually not being reduced much if at all under Clinton. It was just the public debt was being reduced sharply. Even worse, the present value of the other unfunded promises that are being accrued for health care (mostly medicare) etc... were monstrous then too. On "reality based accounting" the Clinton years ran up horrible and massive IOUs for unfunded promises of various types etc... just not nearly as bad as under Bush. In addition, it's not the next few years that matter. We can manage to make ends meet with some tweaking. It's the next 100 years where the promises made by government expansionists over the last few decades come due that matter. Those are enormous. None of it was Clinton's fault of course. It was the fault of the morons that made the promises they could not quantify and hoped to pay for with revenues they couldn't quantify either. This last point is exactly why I think it's preposterous to think it's a good idea to expand government power. There is absolutely no evidence that expansionists will do anything other than expand those IOUs, tax us into socialist oblivion, or inflate to pay for them. In fact, I don't think it's preposterous. There are no adjectives in the English language that sufficiently describe how stupid I think you have to be to want to transfer more power to government. I feel so strongly about that, there aren't any adjectives that can properly describe how obvious I think that is.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (110222)	12/18/2007 12:13:32 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 132070

Ron Paul was on "Morning Joe" today. Joe Scarbourough asked him if he would have supported any war we've had this century. No to the current one, of course. No to stopping the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans at no loss of American lives. No to the first Gulf War, so Saddam gets Kuwait. No to Vietnam. No to Korea. Yes, with an asterisk, for WWII. No to WWI. The WWII question showed how out of touch he is with historical reality. According to him, we had to fight that one because we were attacked. But, we wouldn't have been attacked if Wilson hadn't brokered a bad armistice at Versailles. Hmmm, I thought we were attacked by Japan. They were on our side in WWI. And how would a different Versailles Treaty have changed the power politics of the Far East? True, it might have been a Pacific war instead of a world war, but we had been heading for a conflict with Japan since the 1920s. He was bemused about all the money he had raised, the biggest one day take of any candidate in history, according to Joe. It seems like he is an old "America First" isolationist. That philosophy has a lot of appeal, as soon as we are able to build a force shield over our country. <G> Still, he is honest in his lunacy and is more fun than most of the candidates. He does have the problem that Baby Jesus is endorsing Huckleberry Hound. At least according to Huckleberry's latest ad. I find Huck a fun guy to watch, too. Mike Gravel is as crazy as those two, but no fun to watch.