Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2402)	10/13/2000 11:45:37 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 10042

Well then elect Bush and he will prevent all forest fires.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2402)	10/14/2000 2:59:51 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

An issue that is related to the discussion of defence spending: would a major tax cut combined with an increase in defence spending result is a return to deficit spending? It is easy to talk about cutting spending elsewhere, but we have to remember that while everybody wants something cut, everybody wants that something to be somebody else's something. Each budget line has a constituency, and a great deal of entitlement spending is aimed at constituencies that are vital to Republicans, particularly the elderly. Will real spending cuts survive the legislative infighting? Can they cut enough to make up for a tax cut and increased defence spending? Have any specific plans been announced? If we do go into deficit, would the benefits of a tax cut be offset by the inflationary impact of a federal deficit combined with the inflationary impact of increased defence spending (defence spending is regarded by most economists as being a major inflationary force). It is worth noting that large sums of federal money are actually spent by state and local governments, and that many such governments that are proudly running balanced budgets are doing so with federal aid. This affects the tax equation in two ways. First, these budget lines are very hard to cut, since such cuts will be bitterly opposed by the state and local party apparatus that legislative candidates depend on for re-election. Second, if they are cut, they often end up redistributing the tax burden, rather than reducing it, as state and local authorities scramble for cash to make up the shortfall. It's easy to criticize waste and talk about cuts, but a lot harder to make it happen. When rhetoric stops and policy begins, what is likely to happen? Any opinions?