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: tejek who wrote (584998)	9/10/2010 4:32:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

Tax cuts that don't cut the rate, that just give a set amount of cash back, esp. if they are highly "targeted" are in effect more like spending than tax reductions. If they are refundable, then the refunded about below zero net income tax liability actually is spending, not just something with the same effect as spending. But the tax policies of the Bush/Cheney era were a failure. They didn't create jobs, they didn't generate vast economic growth, and they contributed to massive explosion in federal debt. Failure - false Didn't create jobs - false Didn't generate vast economic growth - Pretty much true, depending on how you define vast Contributed to the massive deficits - True, but not nearly as much as the increase in spending, or even just the increase in non-military spending. Obama tax cuts, on top of the cuts he approved last year, would make lower rates permanent for the middle- and lower-class. That's not a tax cut, its acting to avoid an increase. The expected tax increase is not "an Obama increase", since its already written in to the law from before Obama (well to the extent he played any role in putting a time limit on the tax cuts, when he was a senator then it is partially an Obama tax increase, still the role of one senator is rarely as large as the president's in such things, and I'd be ok with saying its not an "Obama increase"). Similarly avoiding the increase by keeping the rates the way they are now for some people, wouldn't be an Obama cut, it would just be Obama (partially) avoiding an increase.

To: tejek who wrote (584998)	9/10/2010 4:35:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577893

What do you left wing nutcases think about Janet's scare talk? You, the SilentZ, RW and Bentway crowd, have informed us that 9/11 was a mere "lucky hit". Now, the administration you so glowingly adore, is telling us the threat GWB had all but eliminated is now back. WTF is going on? Why, after less than two years, have these idiots managed to leave us exposed to the extent that they have to issue these warnings? =================================== Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11 with a speech Friday in New York vowing to keep up the fight against terrorists and to “to enlist the nation in its own collective security.” “We can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack,” Napolitano will tell first responders and emergency workers. “The threats we face are evolving, and enemies like Al Qaeda and its affiliates are determined. … Today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, I can pledge to you this: We will do everything in our power to prevent attacks and to prepare ourselves.” Read more: politico.com