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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (530166)	11/18/2009 10:06:55 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574342

>>...will put the petal to the medal... Yeah and maybe the pedal to the metal as well! ;^)

To: RetiredNow who wrote (530166)	11/18/2009 11:44:43 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574342

"Gingrich forced Clinton to hold the line on spending" I suggest you re-examine history. Clinton VETO'd several of Gingrich's appropriation bills. en.wikipedia.org Remember the struggle of who was "shutting down the government", Clinton or Gingrich? Clinton WON, and deficits were reduced.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (530166)	11/18/2009 2:38:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574342

Spending labeled as stimulus will almost definitely go down. Spending like the "stimulus" but not so labeled may or may not. Existing entitlements and debt payments will go up (I assume that's what you mean by "structural spending laws"). I don't give the government in charge at the time a pass on such spending, it (at least the entitlements, canceling the debt payments would be counterproductive to say the least), can be canceled though a single act of congress that gets signed in to law. But I suppose I give a partial pass, since its hard to change. If you give the partial pass then we should shift that part of the responsibility to the people who created the programs. And the "partial pass" isn't a very big one. Anyone really claiming fiscal discipline at this point (or at least as we come out of the recession) has to be making a big effort to reform entitlement spending to reduce cost. Then you have general "discretionary" spending (in quotes not because it isn't but since all spending is really discretionary. My point is that its very likely to increase, both when you include defense and national security programs and when you exclude them from the calculations. And I'm not talking about nominal terms, but real per-capita terms. Considering the higher level where starting from future increases indicate a lack of fiscal discipline. Finally you have new entitlement spending. Obamacare/Pelosicare and fiscal restraint don't go together.