Hello Dave,   
      
    BK>> just pointing out how the republican ideal was achieved only   
    BK>> under Clinton after 1969. Which, BTW, was LBJ's last budget, we   
    BK>> are talking fiscal years, not calendar years.   
      
    DD>> I don't know about how, or even if the numbers were   
    DD>> manipulated. But, I do know that I lived better and had   
    DD>> more "effective" spending power in my pocket when Slick   
    DD>> Willie was there for eight years - and shortly thereafter   
    DD>> before George III managed to drive the economy into the   
      
    BK>> Same here. Would still be doing well if GWB had not so thourghly   
    BK>> screwed things up.   
      
    DD>> ditch - than at any time since. A balanced budget is a good   
    DD>> thing occasionally. As is paying down the national debt --   
      
    BK>> Why is a balanced budget a good thing?   
      
   DD>Why is it not?   
      
   Debt is a good thing.  Going into debt enables us to enjoy   
   what we want now rather than having to wait an eternity for   
   something we might not be able to get at all later.   
      
    BK>> And paying down the debt does involve reducing it, but not   
    BK>> necessarily paying it off. There hasn't been one year in this   
    BK>> country's history when it didn't have a debt.   
      
   DD>True dat. But, we should keep it to a manageable level.   
      
   Depends on what is meant by "manageable level".  In a war for   
   survival, such as WWII, our government had to spend far more on   
   national defence than it normally would considered necessary.   
   More recently, our government had to pump an exorbitant amount   
   of dollars into the economy so that it would not tank, as doing   
   nothing would have lead to another great depression.   
      
   DD>Just where that line is I cannot say as I are not an economist and   
   DD>probably couldn't do a convincing job of playing one on stage.  Bv)=   
      
   You have to spend money in order to make money.  Preferably other   
   people's money.  That is the ticket for success.  Mitt Romney knows   
   this better than most folks, which is one of the main reasons why   
   he is wealthy and most folks aren't.   
      
   DD>John Maynard Keynes ain't one of my favourite people, however.   
      
   Oh, c'mon.  You can't really mean that.  John Maynard Keynes was   
   a great poker player, having learned from The Gambler.  Let's look   
   at the game of poker, from a Keynesian point of view.  There are   
   five players in this game - Government, Yhe Poor, The Middle Class,   
   The Wealthy, and Foreigners.  Each player antes up with each hand.   
   However, in order to play and continue playing, The Poor always   
   needs to "borrow" a few chips from Government, which is always   
   obliged to keep The Poor in the game.  The Middle Class is always   
   screwed, having to pay off both Government and The Wealthy with   
   each passing turn.  Government is always running short on funds,   
   being forced to keep The Poor in the game, but can always get   
   the funds they need by raising taxes on The Middle Class, as well   
   as borrowing from Foreigners, who are always happy to oblige since   
   Government must repay those loans with interest.   
      
   So there.  Now you have it.  The Poor can never lose and Government   
   can never win.  The Wealthy have already won and Foreigners laugh at   
   everybody all the way to the bank.   
      
    DD> .. A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national   
    DD> blessing.   
      
   And a great boon to China.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)