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 (131667)	2/6/2001 9:45:38 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570755

Scumbria, Why do you keep bringing Gore into the discussion? I think you did. You said that the Republicans are unwilling to cut Social Security and therefore the budget will not be balanced. I pointed out that Social Security and the regular budget don't mix. They only did in Gore's proposed bailout of Social Security from the general revenue. If Bush told you that $100 trillion was a small number, would you believe him? My guess is - yes. The blind leading the blind. I know how to count. The GDP is approaching $10 trillion per year. The spending is over $1.7 trillion per year. If the inflation is about 3% and economic growth rate is on average 2%, the GDP 10 years from now will be over $16 trillion. To arrive at $1.6 trillion using these figures, if there is no phase in or conditions, you would start with $127 billion per year and add up to $1.6 trillion in 10 years. One thing that you don't discuss, which is very relevant, is the major reason for the tax cut, rather than paying off the debt first. It is a possibility that the Democrats will come back to control Congress, and spend the money. Without a threat of Democrats spending the money, Bush would (or at least I would) propose a smaller tax cut now, faster repayment of debt, and bigger tax cut later. Joe