SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (2578)9/22/2008 8:27:58 PM
From: Road Walker1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356
 
On the fiscal side I have to agree with you, we haven't had good fiscal policy. Way too much spending, and now they are talking about tacking on a lot more.

I agree on too much spending growth, but also not enough revenue growth. I've heard that the federal government grew 40% under Bush, but don't have the time or figures to back it up. Obscene.

The idea, is that the cost will be minimal because you can sell the assets after the market recovers. I'm not confident in that, and even if you get money later your paying the cost now.

It depends on the 'buying price'. If the Bush admin pays way over market, which I suspect they might, 'main street' will never get their money back from 'wall street'.

There have been a lot of negative events, not caused by this administration, which have contributed to all this extra spending.

Somehow I don't think you would be so sympathetic to a Dem administration. It must just be "negative events" that only happen in Rep admins... because the growth in spending % has been much higher for Reps than Dem admins since Vietnam.

Given those circumstances any president would likely have spent a lot, esp. one without an ideological commitment to restraining the growth of government (which Bush clearly lacks even though he has paid lip service to the idea at times).

So did Bush 1, Reagan, Nixon. Look at the numbers, they don't lie. Clinton has the lowest spending growth percentage of any recent President, followed by Carter.

But there is a lot, and then there is what Bush has spent and is apparently planning on spending.

Not just $'s, it's also the principle (and I hate to bring that up, being a pragmatist among ideologues). Nationalizing huge swaths of American industries smacks of communism, not even socialism.

That, and I don't think it's going to work. If it doesn't there are no bullets left. Welcome to the end of American prosperity.

I have no 'sympathy' for the Bush borrow and spend policies. He painted us into a corner.