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: Alighieri who wrote (588058)	9/29/2010 3:48:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574557

Al, > Nah...it's keynesianism...came long before these CBO projections... And Keynes fell out of favor long ago. Here's a good clip. An old interview with Keynes' long-time rival, Frederich Hayek. Just three minutes: youtube.com Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (588058)	9/29/2010 3:50:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574557

When i argue that clinton left the budget in surplus conservatives are quick to tell me that it's only possible with borrowed money from SS tactical surplus At the time that was true, but it still true we had a surplus. If the government takes in more than it spends than by definition there is a surplus. We have one federal government, its income is ALL of the federal taxes, and its spending is all of the federal spending. Its not that we had a deficit back then after you consider Social Security, its that the money promised to be spent in Social Security was (then and now) high enough to cause problem in the future. Right now Social Security no longer has a surplus, but if all spending was back at the level it was at when Bush took over, the larger economy (even with the recession the economy has grown) would have produced enough extra revenue to pay for that spending with money left over. Of course a decade long freeze in spending is utterly unrealistic in political terms, but without all that spending we would have a real surplus. Because that's what having higher tax rates is. The argument is political No its semantic, not political. since the bill had an expiration date Which doesn't change the fact that taxes will go up (assuming nothing intervenes) therefore taxes increase, therefore its a tax increase. What's its not, is a tax increase caused by Obama. He may let it happen, it might not have happened without him, but he didn't cause it. Nah...it's keynesianism...came long before these CBO projections... And since many take the CBO as an authoritative source, its support for applying the Keynesian ideas, and for the assumption that they work, have worked, and are working, is politically important.