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 : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (42404)	12/22/2012 2:57:57 PM
From: PJr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 221965

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say or I just wasn't clear. I simply stated that if someone suggests that we should set our current tax rates to those of the Clinton years in order to obtain the perceived Clinton prosperity, then let's return to the precise Clinton spending levels as well. Let's not reorder the Clinton spending priorities as part of that agreement. Perhaps I misunderstood you but I thought you were suggesting that you might agree to the prospect of returning to Clinton spending levels but only if you reduced the levels of Clinton's MIC spending so that it could be reallocated to something more in line with your priorities. If an agreement could first be enacted to return to identical Clinton spending levels, perhaps there could be follow on agreements that might permit tweaking different allocations. Trying to make one agreement satisfy both of your goals would likely cause the primary goal of reduced spending to fail. That's why Congress fails us so consistently. They try to cover everything in one piece of legislation instead of breaking it into smaller pieces. I'm not suggesting that this hypothetical deal would solve all of our current problems. The increase in spending levels since the Clinton years has been astronomical .... and both parties share the blame. But those on the right have been unsuccessful in trying to make everyone understand that our budget problems are not caused by insufficient revenue. They're caused by excessive spending. It's really difficult for me to understand why many can't grasp that. Think about it. If increased borrowing and spending was a good solution to the country's economic problems then we would also have a solution for personal bankruptcies caused by people who wildly spend more than they make. Simply compel employers to grant larger salaries to those employees who voluntarily spend way beyond their means. That's essentially what we're asking from taxpayers now .... increase the government's "salary" (through higher taxes) so that it can not only maintain its current excessive spending level .... but can even increase it with this generous new revenue source! This hypothetical discussion is academic since reducing current spending levels to Clinton spending levels would require nearly a 50% reduction in our current spending. That level of dieting will NEVER happen. Remember, in a bureaucracy every increase in an agency's budget very quickly sets in stone their new absolute minimum funding requirement for their perceived survival. I'm glad I'm old enough that I likely won't have to suffer the coming inevitable consequences of our misguided philanthropy. Pat