You can bet there will be more politcal postings here at CL over the next several months.
NRO linked to this Reuters story containing a quote so stupid it makes me want to move to another planet.
The gist is that a Kerry presidency would be good for financial markets because the deficit would come back under control.
Here's the quote:
"'Kerry (policy) will probably be similar to a Clinton economic policy, which would be more focused on balancing the budget,' said Gus Faucher, a senior economist with Economy.com, where he tracks elections.
'That would bring down interest rates and drive up bond prices,' he added."
Mr. Faucher - how far down can interest rates go from here?
Will rates be so low that they'll be counted in handfuls of cheetos rather than American dollars?
Or perhaps I'm missing some valuable information that only trained economists have... (Someone please tell me if I am.)
Sheesh. I can't wait until the Bush campaign gets in gear.
This just in:
3 out of 3 members of the Paul Krugman Fan Club think a Kerry presidency would be good for the economy.
Clinton never anticipated balancing the budget during his presidency -- he wanted to do it in 10 years or 5 years or 7 years, depending on his audience. Nobody in the Federal government anticipated a surplus. It just happened.
How would Kerry balance the budget? More taxes. Of course, transferring money from the productive part of the economy to the non-productive part will have horrible long-term economic consequences. But the Dems have never worried themselves about how wealth gets generated, just how it gets distributed.
Kerry doesn't want to balance the budget with tax increases. He want to further increase the money going to the education bureaucracy and institute a national health care plan. Anyone who thinks that the economy will improve under a Kerry administration, and that he really cares about balancing the budget, is smoking weed.