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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zzpat who wrote (44638)	11/11/2017 12:34:04 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356551

I don't think she has the 'balls'!

To: zzpat who wrote (44638)	11/11/2017 12:38:22 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356551

>> The real facts remain simple. There's nothing on the face of the earth that can undo decades of debt from tax cuts and the irresponsible people who defend it. This generation created 20x more debt than all previous generations and we have a party that wants tax cuts. The problem is with your understanding. The only way you can deal with the debt problem is through economic growth. Keep in mind the Clinton near surplus resulted from predominantly 1 the Reagan peace dividend from ending the Cold War 2 budget adjustments resulting from cutting costs, notably the welfare state, 3 tax cuts which led to substantial economic growth 4 a general sense of consumer confidence 5 organic growth related to the dot com boom You have comprehend that economic growth is an essential component without which you cannot generate more revenue. Tax cuts are the best shot at attaining it. As the chart I posted to you showed. We have a very strong economy at this moment. Democrats need to get on board with growing the economy or get the hell out of the way.

To: zzpat who wrote (44638)	11/11/2017 2:42:08 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356551

I asked a question that wasn't framed in a manner that made you "feel" good. You continue to insinuate your imaginary bogeyman into my position on taxes. How do you presume to do that? Do you always go around informing people what it is that they think about this or that? The problem with the framing of your question had nothing to do with my view on the subject. The problem was that the question was inapt. you can pretend you're engaged in an honest and open debate only if you're willing to let our children pay for what we spend. So, the measure of one's openness and honesty is that he take a particular position? That is a total contradiction. Being open and honest means, instead, being receptive to the panoply of positions and to evaluate them objectively. And being willing to let our children pay for what we spend is your preferred position? Hmmmm. Surely not. Given a choice between tax cuts that create massive debt or tax increases that reduce the deficits and eventually the debt which do you prefer? You did not address why "tax increases that reduce deficits" is the only alternative to "tax cuts that create massive debt." Or, conversely why "tax cuts that create massive debt" is the only alternative to "tax increases that reduce deficits." My judgment of false dichotomy still stands.