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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (149225)	5/28/2001 4:07:15 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

No, you completely misunderstand, Michael. I wasn't asking what you thought of any opinion of this particular economist or any other. I was simply asking what you thought of a budget proposal that adopts certain technical assumptions in making its projections. That is NOT interpretable as a question of "opinion." It is a purely accounting matter, a technical question along the lines of "When you figure out how much your mortgage payments cost you every year, do you count December?" If I asked you that, Michael, would you say "That's your opinion!" No, you wouldn't, because that would be silly! The question is, does the document reach its conclusions based on a fictional paper-assumption that the budget cut is temporary, and will end after NINE years?-- See? It's not what anyone's opinion is. Now, if you deny that this is, in fact, in the budget, just as economist Krugman, who knows how to read budgets, details it, it's easy for you, Michael -- simply say that this economist described the accounting practiced in the budget proposal inaccurately, Michael, and that of course if he were right, you would disapprove. Simply say that the following technical detail is not true: ..."they made the tax bill fit within the budget resolution by assuming that the whole tax cut will expire at the end of 2010. That is, they ... made all the revenue that will actually be lost in the last year of the 10-year period — hundreds of billions of dollars — disappear from the accounting...." And also, Michael, that: "absolutely nobody who supports this tax bill thinks of it as a temporary measure, to be canceled at the end of nine years? " Is it an accurate description? Do you think perhaps Krugman is wrong, and supporters of this tax bill think of it as a temporary measure to be cancelled at the end of, oddly, nine years? If it is an accurate description by Klugman, do you have any opinion about that? (Aside from not caring. But other than that.)

To: greenspirit who wrote (149225)	5/28/2001 4:08:15 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

BTW, Michael, all three of the links you provide give this message. The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings... I would appreciate very much your pasting any section from any one of them that addresses the question of whether or not the proposal assumes the fiction that the cuts are temporary and will expire after nine years. That would be great. Thanks.