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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (144395)	11/1/2008 1:29:59 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"You said it as a counter to the assertion that lower taxes would be a good idea." No, you just can't seem to pay attention. You keep putting words in my posts and then arguing against yourself. I didn't counter any assertion that lower taxes would be a good idea, I've asked you repeatedly how you determine what would be cut and why? What are the consequences, what are the benefits? You keep making the irrational assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with your vagueness wants to have high taxes. That's just silly. For one, you can't even say how much taxes should be, you only gripe that they are too high. How high is too high and why? No, again you are putting words into my posts. I do not disdain opinion but it is unacceptable to parade your opinions around as facts. Your posts are a litany of complaints but you have no factual support for why acting on your complaints would have any beneficial effect. You don't even have a factual framework for your argument. I understand that you dislike support for milk producers but why do you dislike them? What are the consequences of having them and what are the consequences of eliminating them? "My main point - " most of government is not necessary in order to avoid the collapse of society" is a matter of opinion, but its also obviously true." That's the extreme version of what you have said but that isn't the argument you have been making. Why the heck are we in Iraq? What does spending $10 billion/week have to do with the collapse of our society? If you only want to avoid collapse then we don't need to be there so you should be for leaving asap. Yet you are not...your arguments make no sense. You say this: "Also the proposed cuts probably add up to more than the cost of our military presence in Iraq per year" That's just gobbledygook excuse making. You simply want program A-B and not programs X-Y because that is what you want. This has nothing to do with an optimal government size because you have no idea what that means. You try and hide this behind your list of complaints-about-the-world but it is obvious that you haven't really thought any of this through. If Iraq does end up costing $3 trillion, that is ok with you? ----- "Wow, raise taxes and you can pay for the program." No, yet again, you are missing the entire point about SS. It is a self-funding program that has regressive taxation. We should not have regressive taxes. When that factor is eliminated, it is self funding as far as the eye can see. The other part of the argument is to consider demographics. The BB generation is huge but it is a specific event and not a cyclical one. Afterwards we have the bust and then another mini boom but not something the size of the BB.