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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Reaper who wrote (36203)	8/20/2011 11:46:37 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119360

Why don't you move to Chile? You had no problem with Bush's spending. If I'm wrong, show me the post. No Tea Party rose up to stop Bush! If the Tea Party was serious about the debt, they'd CALL for raising taxes, as well as cutting spending! What the Tea Party is FOR is no new taxes, especially on their wealthy!

To: The Reaper who wrote (36203)	8/21/2011 12:22:44 AM
From: Les H	11 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 119360

"The Tea Party wants to balance the budget, pure and simple. What is so hard to understand about that? " They wouldn't have artificial exclusions if that were the case. Rolling back the policies of the last ten years that created the problem would be an obvious step toward resolving the core deficit problem and addressing Medicare and Social Security would go toward the deficits looming in the second half of this decade. Since they seem so intent on protecting the changes made under the last regime, their motivation is not really one of addressing the ballooning deficits but of shifting more of the spending toward the same things that got us into this mess.