The budget was not balanced. National debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency. The only way Clinton showed yearly deficit as Zero was by actually raiding the Social security trust fund. That's right, his administration moved money from the trust fund in to the current account, and showed a deficit of zero. It's called smoke and mirrors. But *National Debt* went up EVERY YEAR. Look it up.
Besides, I already pointed out to you that all of that money in to government coffers was all FAKE. It was based on a fake prosperity engineered by government financial engineering (Greenspan interest rates).
Again, clueless on why FaceBook IPO was so high in the first place. It is the government regulations that delayed the debut of facebook IPO. The myriad of government regulations means only expensive companies can afford to go public. The regular people should have gotten a chance to invest in FaceBook long ago, should have gotten a chance to really get in on the ground floor (so to speak). There are no $10million, $50million IPOs for people to invest anymore. Government has made it so expensive such that only after the big institutional investors have bid up the valuation, can they come in to the public market. If not for myriad of government regulations, FaceBook would have gone public long ago.
Besides, the point I was making in my earlier post about the market distortion caused by Government financial engineering has got nothing to do with IPO topic. Why are you switching the topic ? Are you trying to follow the logic of "let's justify one worse thing by pointing out to yet another worse thing" ? How does the incorrect facebook valuation justify the engineering a housing bubble ? Do you even realize the scale of Housing bubble ? Facebook IPO is peanuts compared to the scale of housing bubble.
In a separate thread, I'd enjoy reading how the government's regulations prevent $10-50M IPO's.
In the separate thread: How does the government force FB, for example, to wait years before it can go public, and then, finally, grossly overprice itself for it's IPO? Greed is greed, who's clueless?
For this thread: The fact remains that the since 1970, Republican Presidents spend more than Democrat Presidents; most times for war, as you pointed out.
For this thread: There is a very big difference between the Texan and New Hampshire Republicans. Mostly to do with social / fundamental religious conservatism. New Hampshire are the Republicans of Lincoln, socially liberal. Southern Republicans are well represented by students at Ol' Miss ranting racial epitaths at Obama's reelection, plus the secession baloney -- social hebephrenics. The GOP is going to be torn apart during the next 4 years and a new party will hopefully emerge...