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 (268566)	1/20/2006 7:16:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575920

Of course $146B is a high "cost"; more so when you tack it on top of ~$400Billion (or more) in annual deficit spending. Costs (or in this case a reduction in income) are relative to wealth or income. $146 bil over a decade is a low cost for our nation. It may be a bad idea or a good idea but the fact that (at least with static analysis) it reduces income by $146bil doesn't make it a bad idea, or a fiscal disaster. Why does deficit spending not offend you; why do you support it? High spending offends me. Lowered taxes do not. I would oppose extreme tax cuts for practical fiscal reasons, but they wouldn't offend me, and $146bil over 10 years isn't an extreme tax cut. Tim