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: Peter Dierks who wrote (47007)	11/9/2010 3:04:15 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Re: [Consistency needs to apply.] "Good, then we will consistently say that a tax increase is a tax increase." Exactly! That's all I argued for. CONSISTENCY in labeling! (Perhaps you should mention this to Tim? That's what I was trying to get him to say, that consistency requires that we label these things either one way or the other.) What's "good for the goose" should also be equally "good for the gander". Consistency needs to apply. If ALLOWING a temporary tax cut to expire on it's pre-set schedule is really an AFFIRMATIVE MOVE TO 'RAISE TAXES' then that's what it is regardless of which politician or political party does that! If SOMEONE claimed that allowing the temporary Bush tax cuts to expire, taking no action at all, would be an affirmative move to "raise taxes" then it would be INCONSISTENT and biased of them to not say the same thing about allowing the temporary Obama tax cuts to expire, allowing taxes to rise.) The EXACT SAME INACTION would result in the exact same thing: higher taxes.