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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (100065)	5/6/2001 10:35:17 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

CB - Please count all the members of Congress and the Executive branch of both parties who, over the last decade, have given even the smallest lip service to the notion that Federal spending might not have to increase by at least twice the rate of inflation each and every year. Hint: use the binary numbering system and use only one digit. Regards, Don

To: Ilaine who wrote (100065)	5/6/2001 11:11:16 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>>>I have no clue what you and he, whoever he is, thinks "fuel the economy" means. As a small business owner, paying for gas in my gas tank and paying energy bills is part of keeping my business in operation. I expect you'll find that to be the case for every business.<<< Your sentiment above echoes the changing rhetoric re: the intent behind this tax cut. Early on in the year we needed it to fuel the economy going forward (allow the consumer to buy more goods and services.) Now it's being hawked by the administration as necessary to allow consumers to pay their credit card bills and keep their gas tanks full (run in place.) This change it rhetoric belies that things are much worse than they appear. >>>You could say that about any revenue projection - they are all based on assumptions. The longer the government hangs on to the surplus, the deeper the recession is going to get.<<< Or you could say that if things are much worse than they appear perhaps those revenue projections were much rosier than originally thought and that a more prudent tax cut approach is necessary going forward. Several states gone from budget surplus to deficit overnight...more to come...a clue perhaps. You seem to be arguing that a tax cut based on a fantasy revenue numbers derived through a bassackwards process is the way to go? Nothing like sound fiscal policy, eh? Yeah, I say we front load it big time. When it only forestalls the inevitable or fails completely the pain will be swift and deep and we can move on.