I think you're right. A trade deficit would seem to be like a store having a non-stop sale. The sale of cash ... for a reduced amount of product. Then you give away the store .. and the store goes broke.
National Deficit ... I also think you're right. Deficit Spending DOES seem a little like were funding this whole thing of "some large credit card". Or rather "some large mortgage loan". With all the residential property, business property of the whole United States, and more importantly the "slave ownership papers" of our future generations, being offered up for Collateral. I think some big economic expert once made that analogy on some radio talk show ....... The problem is .. what happens when you "can't pay up". Ahem ..... REPOSSESION. Hmmmmmmmm............ "Don't both seem daunting to fix?"????? That's IF your trying to "fix" the problem. Me think Mr. II is NOT trying to "fix" the problem .. but rather is thinking of the US (as a whole) as a large, massive CORPORATION. That him and his cronies have had enough fun with. And is now trying to "sell". Sell all the assets .. "sell the name" ... and get out. And make a whopping massive "profit" Problem is ... we on this list are the "employees". And what happens when the owners of a company sell out. We're all out of JOBS. Out on the streets. Or in the ocean ... in this case .... since the geographic U.S. ITSELF is the Corporation's property. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL ----- Original Message ----- From: murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------fast forward---------------- When a person or an enterprise or a giant nation runs a deficit, the meaning of the word would seem to indicate that at some point, there has to be a payback. In a way, one is borrowing against the future. ---------------snip-------------------- Bush II, at present, seems intent on borrowing the people of the United States into oblivion. His so-called tax-cuts are, in my view, proposals to *increase* future gross tax revenues, since ultimately someone will have to pay in the future for money borrowed today. His revisiting of the "by spending oodles of money we can "stimulate" the economy" thinking, a brazen and wantonly irresponsible drunkard's philosophy that I thought we put to bed with the end of Reagan's term, has been astonishing. What is he thinking. Can any "Conservative" seriously believe that this philosophy of government spending has a place in a legitimate fiscally conservative approach to government? What I wonder is whether it would be too much of a stretch to make some connection between the government deficit and the trade deficit. I don't mean to imply that there's a direct causal connection or anything, but isn't it a bit striking that the amounts seem somewhat similar? Don't both seem daunting to fix? Perhaps eliminating the oil portion of the trade deficit might, somehow, also help make it easier to address the Government deficit? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
