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: Road Walker who wrote (200273)	9/4/2004 7:48:47 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1574539

But cutting taxes on the wealthy, as Bush did, improves the budget? Of course. We've known that for years. Tax cuts (and even Keynesians support the use of rebates as Bush used) "improve the budget" because it grows the economy and the only way you EVER eliminate deficits is through economic growth. Honestly, having watched what the Bush tax cuts have done to get this economy moving, it is disingenuous for ANYONE to question, ever again, their use. If you look at the polls, the middle class is consistently willing to pay higher taxes to balance the budget. Right, until you explain what it means to THEM. Then, they're not. When you say, "Do you support tax increases to reduce budget deficits?" it is one thing. When you ask, "Would you pay an additional $500 per year in taxes to reduce the deficit?" you get a different answer. It doesn't matter. The way you reduce deficits is through economic expansion. Ask Bill Clinton. You can't do it by raising taxes because Congress simply views it as a checkbook with a bigger balance.