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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44900)	8/16/2010 6:49:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Its mostly consistent with reducing spending (as a portion of the economy) and restraining its growth (in absolute terms) because when you spend you have to pay for it in some ways. The only options for the government are to "print" it, messing up the economy with inflation, or to tax it (borrowing just means paying for it with taxes or inflation later). coincident with a revenue/spending balance that does not increase national debt. Increasing it a little bit isn't so bad, esp. if it lets you avoid a tax increase. Of course if you concede "a little bit" if you give that inch, maybe the politicians take a mile. Another point I'd make is that driving economic growth, while massively important, isn't the only concern. Lower spending is a good thing itself not only because it lowers the burden on economic growth but also because it allows for more individual freedom. In the context of no severe debt problem and minimal or zero deficits, along with no wars (or wars amounting to only a small portion of GDP), and with the most basic and important of government services largely being provided)if a tax rate of 20% resulted in the same growth as one of 30%, the 20% would still be better. I care less about balancing the budget than limiting spending, both because spending is the burden placed on the economy however its paid for, and because limiting spending is likely to get you the balanced budget. Also because if you need to raise taxes to deal with growing deficits, its less harmful if your starting from lower rates. More than lower taxes, or balanced budgets (as much as I would want those things) I'd say reduce spending. If you can, then sooner or later the other things should come around as well.