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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (360144)	11/24/2007 8:22:14 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

"CJ, you're "nuancing" again, as usual." Again, you apparently don't understand what the word "nuance" means. It does not mean "I don't agree with you", for example. "The fact is that you think we can increase revenues by increasing taxes while at the same time benefiting society (and therefore the economy) in the process." It depends on what you mean by benefiting society. But, hell yes I think cutting the deficit and the debt will benefit the economy. I guess you don't. I can't say you are alone. The Republicans seem to be true believers in that. "If that's the case, you might as well go ahead and maximize tax revenues" See, you are letting your tendency towards straw man arguments to slip the leash again. In this case, you are attempting a RAA (reductio ad absurdum)argument so beloved by Continental philosophers. This is similar to those who wind up overdosing on vitamins and other things just because if a little is good, a lot must be better. But, really, it isn't intellectually honest to basically say "well, if you believe X is true then that means you must believe that X^Y is true and that is silly. So you are silly to believe that X is true". Government has its place. So does free enterprise. To go exclusively one way or the other is a recipe for disaster.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (360144)	11/26/2007 7:12:15 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574260

Editorial Faux Fiscal Discipline In the 2000 campaign, Gov. George W. Bush rebutted charges that he was a big spender, noting that on his watch, Texas state spending had been modest “when adjusted for inflation and population.” That answer is utterly reasonable. Spending that is more or less constant in terms of the cost of living and the number of beneficiaries is hardly runaway. Yet President Bush recently vetoed Congress’s main social spending bill, for the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. He said it — along with Congress’s other planned spending bills — would recklessly overshoot his spending target by a total of $205 billion over five years. By Mr. Bush’s own earlier reasoning, that figure is bogus. Adjusted for inflation and population, Congress’s proposed increases amount to zero. Mr. Bush’s sudden passion for fiscal discipline is hypocritical in other ways. The bill he vetoed would pay for programs like college financial aid, Head Start, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer research, rural health programs, mine safety and job training. Mr. Bush wanted to cut $7 billion in 2008, while Congress wanted a $5 billion increase. But even as he was vetoing the bill, his aides were proposing to add another $51 billion to the deficit to shield the nation’s wealthiest money managers from having to pay their fair share of taxes. The House had passed a bill to raise taxes on hedge fund managers and buyout partners, and to use the revenue to offset tax relief for less affluent taxpayers. The White House rejects the tax increase, but is happy to borrow the $51 billion, thus sparing today’s titans from taxes while passing on the cost to future taxpayers. It is clear that Mr. Bush’s threat to veto Congress’s proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It’s all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to. There are signs, however, that Congressional Republicans are becoming uneasy. The House upheld Mr. Bush’s veto of the social spending bill, but narrowly. With polls showing Americans increasingly anxious about the economy, ever fewer Republicans can risk linking their fates to Mr. Bush’s obstinacy. When Congress returns from Thanksgiving break, Democratic leaders should make another attempt to advance the spending bills. The best approach would be to reach a compromise with their Republican counterparts — the two sides aren’t all that far apart, and a deal would let Mr. Bush know his vetoes are unwelcome. This White House is guilty of runaway spending — on the war and on tax cuts for the rich. Ending the war and rolling back excessive tax cuts are the way to control spending, not cutting needed government services. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company