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 (231161)	4/29/2005 6:22:50 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572103

re: Social Security Spending is a bigger part of the deficit than spending in Iraq. Of course it is paid for by Social Security taxes, but tying a tax to it doesn't change the nature or amount of the spending. There is a dedicated SS tax that is running a surplus. It's transparent, it's real dollars in real treasury bonds. On a reported basis, and a real dollars basis, it is a net revenue generator that offsets the cost of military spending. re: If the federal income tax was renamed to the "Defense Tax", than defense would show a "surplus", but that wouldn't mean that there is no point in saving money by reducing defense spending. If the portion of the fed income tax that was used for defense was labeled as such on your paycheck, then there would be transparency, as there is with SS. And if the cost of the Iraq war were in the general budget, instead of hidden as emergency appropriations, the general fool on the street might be able to figure out how much this war is costing him. You would think, as a libertarian, that you would support transparency. From transparency comes reform. John