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 (357251)	11/6/2007 4:16:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

Social Security spending isn't the same thing as the tax. The spending is enormous. Having an enormous tax doesn't make the spending any less. If one's only concern is the budget deficit than it makes some sense to say the spending is off set by the tax, and so we don't have to worry much about the spending, but even then 1 - The program is on a path to spend more than the tax brings in, eventually much more. and 2 - The tax might offset the spending in terms of budget balance, but its still a separate thing, that is not inherently part of the spending. In any case the budget balance is far from the only concern about spending. If we had a surplus excessive spending would still be an important concern. Other than budget balance, taxes, associated or not, dedicated or not, aren't relevant to the concerns about government spending.

To: Road Walker who wrote (357251)	11/6/2007 4:32:53 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

"Not true of the wars. They are "supplemental" and without revenue support. And an incremental addition to the deficit." It's just true of THIS war. Taxes were raised in WW I, WW II, Korea and Vietnam, specifically to help PAY for the wars. The income tax was first introduced in 1862 as a temporary tax to help pay for the Civil War.