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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (746981)	8/4/2006 1:16:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

They were just using diplomatic language... 'weasel words'. No, when they give specific projections those projections also indicate "limiting" not "reversing". You can argue that they are wrong. Nothing unreasonable about doing so, but then its kind of hard to use their statements as the basis for your arguments. "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.... Well I'm not sure they are less important, but all of those issues are very important and they aren't mutually exclusive so the exact order of importance might not matter much. 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. That isn't entirely clear. They do seem to suggest that several temporary cuts shouldn't be extended or made permanent. I would call that a tax increase. Then you should line up expenditures to cut to balance the foregone revenues.... I have no problem with that idea.