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 (372185)	2/27/2008 3:24:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575446

How can you say that? It's better than 50% of discretionary spending, and growing rapidly. I'm not sure it is better than 50% (although it probably is slightly more), and its not growing rapidly as a percentage of non-entitlement spending. "It's the deficit stupid". Not really. Within reason (assuming we aren't talking about deficits that are as large of the GDP or anything near that crazy), "Its the spending stupid". Both borrowing and taxing hurt the economy. You take the rise in military spending, on and off the books, and give it a dedicated tax and you wouldn't hear me bitch nearly as much. Dedicated taxes aren't very meaningful in terms of figuring out the burden of spending, they just tell you how your paying for it. They have little or now real benefit, and have the possible downside of decreasing flexibility, and likely making it harder to cut spending (because people like you seem to think the spending of huge expensive programs isn't a major concern as long as it has a dedicated tax). And of course much of the funds from the dedicated social security taxes are being spent on other things anyway.