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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (746979)	8/4/2006 1:08:42 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[...limiting the economic benefit from the tax cuts.] "I agree with that. Limiting, not reversing." They were just using diplomatic language... 'weasel words'. I wouldn't make any grand bets about the economy because of the politically correct choice of one word :-) (There is, in fact, no reason why 'limiting' can't turn into 'reversing & overWHELMING'... given enough debt accumulation. As the Treasury Department analysis made explicitly clear.) "And since the economic gain is small the tax cuts probably don't 'pay for themselves'." (That specific mix of tax changes is '10% paid-for' according to the Treasury --- at least in the short-term... before the debt pile becomes too excessively large, and wipes even that away.) "I also support the call for entitlement reform and general restraint on spending. I think that these are far more important than marginal changes in the tax code." I agree. But not as important as true comprehensive reform of our entire, massively over-complex tax system.... "Where I don't agree with them is there call for a tax increase. (Canceling already in effect tax cuts, instead of making them "permanent") means you are increasing taxes." They don't 'call for tax increases' as a first line option. It is only suggested as the inevitable consequence if spending is not seriously cut. "I also don't support the inheritance tax." Then you should line up expenditures to cut to balance the foregone revenues.... (And, personally, I'd rather see a continuation of an inheritance tax --- albeit at somewhat higher trigger levels then current --- then a rise in either income OR sales taxes... as I believe that, dollar-for-dollar, these would have a greater deleterious effect on the nation and the economy.)