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: tejek who wrote (175200)	9/17/2003 5:13:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578706

His take was that if we cut out the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other "wastage," we will be able to make up a lot of the deficit. That's preposterous on the face of it; those are million-dollar programs and we are talking about hundreds of billions in deficits. Do I call someone a liar? Used to do that, no more. I just disagree. He is talking about waste and small programs. Those are not the only things that can be cut or even eliminated from the budget. Cramer is looking for a weak argument, finding it, defeating it, and claiming victory. He proves one thing (that we can't balance the budget by getting rid of ational Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and claims, that he has proved something else (that the budget can't be balanced by cutting spending. Also the only reason why we can't grow out of the deficit is that the spending is increaseing as fast or faster then the growth rate. Even without cuts if we just put a lid on further increases the deficit will shrink and eventually disapear. The main problem is that politicians want to spend a lot more then they want balanced budgets. Tim