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: RetiredNow who wrote (316933)	12/22/2006 8:02:15 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577439

re: The real solution isn't to have a gentlemen's handshake that we will pay as we go. Instead, it is to pass a LAW that states that we cannot spend more than 90% of the previous year's tax revenues. If there is a surplus in the current year, then that surplus should be legally mandated to pay down the debt. That would ensure at least some fiscal responsibility. They have tried to pass a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution. It would be ironic if the "tax and spend" Democrats were the ones to finally get it done. (But I doubt it). John

To: RetiredNow who wrote (316933)	12/22/2006 9:36:03 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577439

"it is to pass a LAW that states that we cannot spend more than 90% of the previous year's tax revenues" What has been said against this ( in opposition to the balanced budget amendment ) is that there are times we NEED to deficit spend, such as in times of war or recession. Not doing so would be more harmful than doing so. Of course, such exemptions could be spelled out in the law. ..and since we're in a "war on terror", Bush would be perfectly justified with his insane spending NOW..