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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (6468)	3/28/2003 8:16:38 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 7689

How could its structure be just "insurance"? Bush doesn't care if we're in a bad recession and he doesn't get re-elected? I doubt that. I doubt he wants to repeat his father's experience. I think it had that structure because it was the only way it could get passed- -because the Democrats would not agree to immediate large cuts because cuts in social programs would almost inevitably follow. And they had absolutely no objection to bad economic conditions in '04 when Bush runs again. So, politics, yeah. I think cutting taxes is a good thing but paying for homeland security and the war should be done as contemporaneously as possible with the costs being incurred. Question: How do you increase spending, cut taxes, and not increase the deficit all at the same time? Is voodoo economics back? Therefore, instead of halving the tax cut, I would favor deferring the tax cut timetable to address the deficit issues this year, then restarting the cut next year. You're STILL going to have a large deficit built up from the war next year. AND there is the argument that the correct thing to do is balance the budget so as to decrease federal borrowing and get the feds out of competition with private industry for available loanable funds.