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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (10772)	11/13/2007 11:20:58 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

"As I understand it, the 'real' reason nobody has attempted to do anything about the AMT is "pay-go" (pay as you go)." That doesn't make any sense. There hasn't BEEN any PAYGO rules for most of the two Bush terms --- the Congress got ride of the Clinton era PAYGO budgeting rules when Bush and the new Congress was elected in 2001. So, for ALL THAT TIME, they made plenty of noise about 'fixing' the looming AMT problems (round about election time every season, LOL!), but never actually did fix anything. All they did was enact temporary patches. And, as I've already pointed out, EVERY SINGLE BUDGET PROJECTION PUT OUT BY THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE has included rising revenues from the AMT in their numbers. (Counting on the Middle Class AMT tax revenues to reduce the true size of the deficits they were running up.) It's true that this year, after the new Congress was elected in 2006, Congress did enact PAYGO rules ("pay as you go") to try to restrain the growth in the federal deficits again --- but all that says is that if one is to eliminate or reduce revenues by tossing out a tax, you must EITHER cut spending by the same amount, or eliminate enough other tax loopholes to match the loss, to keep from adding to the deficit. Shouldn't be much of a problem if you have enough guts to face up to the special interests --- there is PLENTY of wasteful spending to go around, and PLENTY of harmful/corrupt/counter-productive special interest loopholes that need to be eliminated. It basically comes down to one question: is the Congressman on the side of the big wasteful spenders and the special interests? Or on the side of the public and the country?