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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dumbmoney who wrote (148229)	10/20/2004 9:30:46 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, we do our best to eliminate perverse incentives to stay on welfare, but even then, most people did not, in fact, care to stay on welfare, but treated it as a temporary expedient. Those who tended to be chronic were undereducated and unlikely to fair much better in work. The operant term is temporary. I have said, in discussing deficits, that they have to be be reduced over time to keep debt service manageable. In other words, a spike is nothing to worry about, one has to look at the question within longer time frames, where a rise in the debt is proportional to revenue growth and balanced in respect of outlays. Since it is desirable to reduce obligations, so that taxes are not driven up due to anxiety over the debt, a hard look at mandatory spending is a good idea. I do not consider current foreign policy to be over- reaching. I consider it pretty conservative, to tell the truth. A really aggressive, adventurist policy would already have invaded Syria and Iran.