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 (46640)	10/21/2010 1:32:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I disagree, I'd say it was their primary, even overwhelming reason for the calculation. Well really its indirectly the reason. The real reason includes not just the thought that it would be practically a good thing, and also fit with their ideology, but also the thought that it would get them more political support. But they believe they would get more political support by voting in as big and as permanent tax cut as they could get, and they would lose support if they failed to pass one. Thus settling for half a loaf (a cut with a sunset provision) makes sense even if your main direct motivation is political, as long as you are somewhat risk averse. Tax cuts are usually a pretty popular change to propose! Sure, but actually passing them requires votes in congress, and it was very unclear that they could pass the cut without the limitation.