Kevin Gowen wrote:

> I am still trying to figure out who the person is who lost to Clinton and
> then gave Bush such a hard time.

Gore.

> >>>> I was thinking of the New Deal. Funny that you mention the
> >>>> Depression. Did it occur to you to wonder why it is called "Great"?
> >>>
> >>> Because it was serious?
> >>
> >> And loooooong. It was serious and loooooong on FDR's watch.
> >
> > He was the one who changed it.
>
> FDR did not change the Great Depression. He insured that it was great. Learn
> about Lord John Maynard Keynes, the man who was FDR's big influence. You
> grouse about deficit spending? FDR was the king. Take a look at the budget
> he proposed in 1934 for a wonderful example of this.
>
> > He had to undo it, like Clinton had to
> > undo what Bush and Reagan had done.
>
> All FDR undid was the value of the dollar.
>
> Let me guess...you went to a government school?
>
> >>>>>>> Obviously Bush Sr., Carter, Ford did not cut
> >>>>>>> it. But would Reagan or Clinton have what it takes to
> >>>>>>> be elected once more?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reagan has been elected once more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could he do it again after the public realized how he put future
> >>>>> generations in deficit?
> >>>>
> >>>> What's wrong with deficit? Don't you engage in deficit spending?
> >>>
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> Then you are very rare. Most people do, with the most obvious
> >> example being home/real property ownership.
> >
> > Then they don't have enough money.
>
> How do you define having enough money?

Having cash on hand, not having to borrow money from family, friends or banks.
I had money in the bank, but it was tied up, thus I "did not have enough money"
to buy Yahoo! Japan stocks or invest in the stock market until it was already
near its peak.

> Such ownership is generally considered an investment. It is wise to borrown
> money in order to make money.

Only, in the case of real estate, if values are on the increase, and offering a
better return than banks, stocks or bonds, for example. If property values were
increasing about six percent a year, and were somehow able to continue, why
would I take out a six percent loan for the next 30 years, when I can put that
into something that will grow right now?

As for Japan, deflation and declines in real estate prices are the norm, and by
the time the loan on a new structure is paid off, it will be about time to
rebuild. I would not "invest" in Japanese real estate.

A house for me, is a place to live. It is hardly relevant that my family's
property values have shot up, because I don't want to sell off the family
house, the only house I have ever known, or my grandfather's 19th century house
to get at that money (minus taxes).

> > Going into debt for property
> > ownership is only useful if values rise at an attractive rate, or one
> > cares to commit themselves for a few decades of residence or
> > repayment.
>
> Then you feel that no one should ever have a car payment?

Despite being able to afford one, I would prefer not to buy a brand new car.
Here in Japan I would prefer to wait four or five years, and buy a sweet car at
about half price. Here in Fukuyama is a place where you can buy even a Mercedes
500 series about ten years old, for 90,000 yen during the dealer's periodical
90,000 yen campaign. If other people would like to pay inflated prices to have
brand new cars in order to provide me with quality used cars, that is fine.

> >>> With the possible exception of a house, I do not need to spend
> >>> more than I have at the time, much less more than I will ever be
> >>> able
> >>> to pay for.
> >>
> >> Then if you have a house, you are engaging in deficit spending,
> >> unless you paid for the house in full.
> >
> > And pay for real estate in full for personal use or investment
> > purposes is what I can currently do, with or without help from my
> > wife or family.
>
> I don't understand. You use the present tense rather than the past tense. Is
> the real estate paid for or not?

I do not "invest" in real estate, and I am not going to buy a house while
rampant deflation continues, nor am I sure I want to spend decades of my life
in Fukuyama while paying off a loan, nor do I know what my future holds while
my family would be obligated to pay a decades long loan. I have cash to buy a
house. The problem is just where and which one.

> >>> I do not dig ever deeper financial holes for myself and
> >>> my family like administrations of Japan or the US, deliberately or
> >>> otherwise.
> >>
> >> You never borrow money?
> >
> > No. Why should I?
>
> I am not telling you that you should. I am simply surprised.

Why is someone expecting a corporate lawyer's salary or lifestyle, surprised
that someone is able to make a decent living within their means?

> > It is the administration's hard line, tough talking policy and
> > military actions, that created the need for tighter national
> > security.
>
> Explain.

Are foreigners, particularly those of the Islamist persuasion, who are the
people usually considered a threat to American security at home and abroad,
more pissed off at America now, or under Clinton? Did this level of terrorism
occur under the tough talking Bush Administration, who makes veiled threats
against other Islamic nations, or under Clinton?

> > Perhaps Bush would like to go the way of Israel.
>
> I wish the hell we would. El Al-style airline security would be a good
> start. Israel does not fuck around.

Yes, and look at how safe Israeli society, and how healthy the Israeli economy
are. Look at how at ease Israelis are with their government issued gas masks.
Look at how "safe" and "secure" the US is becoming and has become. Japan does
not have pissed off foreign volunteers, much less citizens, planning or making
high profile attacks against them on a regular basis as in Israel, or the US. I
wonder why.