SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (40921)2/4/2010 1:14:37 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
The yare heavily tilted towards tax increases.

They simply say: Don't SPEND unless you PAY FOR IT.

No, they don't simply say that. They say many other things, but they don't really say that at all.

The bias is that

1 - All tax cuts count as having to be "paid for", but not all spending.

2 - If the rates just stay the same, that counts as something that has to be "paid for".

Those two points make for a hefty bias towards higher taxes.

If it was really just "Don't SPEND unless you PAY FOR IT", than entitlement spending couldn't go up without something to offset it, nor could anything else (even interest on the debt, which I'm not saying should be controlled this way, I'm not calling for default, only saying that if it was simply what you said it was, than it would also be controlled).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News