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: TimF who wrote (175658)	10/1/2003 10:26:33 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579682

if you already know revenues are down and you can't control the spending by your own party, why would you go in for more tax cuts? Logic tells you that the situation will only worsen. Tax cuts are one of the best ways to turn the economy around, plus they are just right, Actually, there are many economists who would not agree with your position. There is no definitive proof that tax cuts stimulate the economy. the government taxes us too much, The gov't doesn't tax enough. We have people sleeping on the streets and starving. We have certified, mentally insane people running around free. Our prisons are overpopulated and there is no money to build new ones. Due to a shortage of schools, schoolroom class sizes are the largest for a western country. Our built environment and social infrastructure are lacking on many counts when compared to Canada, Europe and Australia. and running a short term deficit in bad economic times is actually not a bad thing. Its not a bad thing if you don't go out and purposely reduce your revenues at the same time. No business person would commit such folly. The problem is that with all the increased spending a large part of the deficit may be structural not just cyclical. That's what they said about the country's deficits before Clinton. They also said that 6% unemployment was normal and unemployment could never get below that figure. They were wrong on both accounts. ted