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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (131322)	2/2/2001 10:45:05 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576110

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — As large as it is, President Bush’s tax cut package could easily swell from $1.6 trillion to well over $2 trillion once members of Congress begin adding tax breaks for individuals, businesses and interest groups waiting in the wings. I hope that does not happen. Not that I would be opposed to a $2trilllion tax cut over 10 years, but I don't want it to be more tax breaks for special groups, If taxes are cut any further then Bush's plan I would want it to be an across the board rate reduction. (It would have to be a small additional reduction to only amount to $400bil over 10 years). As far as paying back debt. Fine I'll accept no tax cut over the next few years as long as federal spending doesn't go up faster then the rate of inflation. Actually maybe I would not accept such a deal, not as a matter of principle but rather because the debt will dissapear so quickly that the tax cuts needed at the end would actually be huge and sudden tax cuts (unlike Bush's plan), and would overheat the economy (unless we are now entering a very deep and persistant recession and even then it would be better to have any change occur at a less rapid rate). What do you think about Greenspan's point that if the debt is paid down to fast we will have to pay a big premium to retire long term bonds? One of my main problems with the "we must pay back the debt before any tax cut" argument is that I think if the Federal government is more likely to spend the money. It might be even more likely to spend the money with the close balance that it has now, because instead of the two parties shooting down each other's spending proposals, they will make deals where "you get your money and I get mine". Tim