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 (40959)2/5/2010 1:20:32 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
('Cause it SURE SOUNDED like you were saying that for a while there....)

Not if your where paying attention to what I actually posted.


Is this "bias" something that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO *any* of this legislation we have been talking about

The method of counting the planned changes is written in to the proposed legislation. Its not inherently and automatically biased towards tax increases. If we had planned tax cuts, and spending cuts as a matter of current law, than it would be biased towards spending cuts instead. But in the context of current law, it provides a bias towards tax increases.

I believe, that this bias was intentional. But even if it was not, it doesn't change the fact that the bias is there, and it is one that I don't support.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News