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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (60015)	4/19/2008 12:14:03 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542843

and another instance en.wikipedia.org I guess you could look at that one as just trying to meet current obligations- but they were also aiming at deficit reduction

To: KyrosL who wrote (60015)	4/19/2008 12:22:28 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542843

Clinton's tax increase in 1993 directly resulted in a steady decrease of national debt as a percent of GDP The result re the debt is not the point. And the deficit is besides the point. Obviously you can't reduce the debt if you have a deficit. It's the intention. Did he stand up and advocate for that tax hike on the grounds that it would reduce the debt. No, he did not. You might reasonably claim he did it in part to reduce the deficit, but not the debt. My point seems to be getting lost in the rush to commend Clinton, who deserves some credit for setting a good example for fiscal responsibility and even more for demonstrating that the debt doesn't need to be a slippery slope, that it's possible to reverse the trendline.. Too bad it didn't prevail. But that's neither here nor there. I will assert once again that no one could get away with campaigning on a promise to raise taxes to reduce the debt. Not only would he not be elected, he'd be lucky to not be assassinated. The notion is politically preposterous.