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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2187)	10/16/2003 10:30:14 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

The cost of the Iraqi war will be X percentage of the deficit next year. Your statements may be relevent but that statement remains true because its a purely mathematical one. Part of your statement may be true but it is misleading. But not all of it. I said (or really quoted) - " And since the rich pay most of the taxes around here, overall tax receipts fell dramatically in 2001 -- and are estimated in the federal budgeting process to keep on falling in 2002 and 2003 -- hence the forecasted deficits. The chart tells the story -- tax receipts are falling while GDP has continued to rise. In fact, since the top in 2000, individual tax receipts have fallen by over 23% -- and there sure hasn't been any 23% tax cut in effect since 2000. And Social Security tax receipts continue to rise, indicating that it's not a matter of overall unemployment." In the context of mentioning the fact that the income of the rich fell which was the biggest reason for the budget shortfall. You said - " No, and its not a matter of GDP. That's just one metric. Besides, there's the matter of Bush and the GOP spending like there's no tomorrow. And Iraq is a prime recipient." I replied - "True but its the biggest one." In other words that the reduction in taxes paid by wealthy people due to their reduction in income was the biggest reason for the deficit. Then you said "No, it isn't. Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq." The second sentence. "Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq", is in a sense true, but its also misleading. The first sentence "No, it isn't" is just flat out false. Also the 2nd sentence is irrelevant to the 1st but is presented as an argument for the first. I don't hate them.....not at all......but I've known enough of them to know how they think. You think they think in one particular way??? Tim