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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (106144)	2/22/2008 11:12:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Don't worry, Obama will go after the Elites. You better watch out. <G>

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (106144)	2/22/2008 1:40:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

With the President’s plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation’s publicly held debt by 2012. Ok.. here's something for you to chew on.. What happens when the national debt is eliminated (or at least minimized to the extent that the gov't stops issuing 30 year T-Bills)?? Where does that long-term money attempt to find an equivalent financial instrument?? (hint.. it has something to do with Real Estate.. ;0) Furthermore, when the government runs a "surplus" in Social Security, did you know that actually increases the National Debt? Think about it... where do those excess FICA revenues get invested? The private market? No.. they go into government bonds.. And you still didn't answer the question as to why the 10 year bond yields have been substantially less than the Federal Funds rate for the past several years. Yields go down as demand for those available bonds go up. So why has the government been able to borrow at a lower interest rate for 10 year paper, than the private is able to borrow from the Fed overnight? Thus.. without that $4 Trillion in additional spending, logically there would be even fewer government bonds available to meet the demand for them.. Which would have driven the yields down EVEN MORE.. Think hard about that.. Hawk

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (106144)	2/22/2008 2:15:00 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>If Bush had continued to pay down the debt like Clinton was doing, <<< Lizzie, I have challenged you on this many times. The OPERATIONAL budget under Clinton was never in the black. The total public debt has grown every year since 1957. (Not to be confused with debt held by the public). Those social security dollars are programmed to be spent out in 2030 or thereabouts, but the government "borrowed" them and spent them today - giving the Social Security admin a little piece of script. You know - just like the script we give the Chinese. It is true that under Clinton, the Social Security surplus was sufficient in and of itself to fund the operational budget deficit. This was a great achievement - not to be diminished in any way. Let there be no doubt that things have gotten much much worse under "W," and it is a horrible shame. Why don't you look into the facts and respond??? My statement is not focused so much for or against Clinton or Bush. Rather it is an indictment of big government in general, and especially the social welfare programs which largely serve as a sop to buy votes for reelection. Get used to eating dog food when you turn 65 because there sure won't be any Social Security for you.