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: combjelly who wrote (68398)	4/25/2018 6:31:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358602

Unjustly high? Compared to where? Its not a comparative statement. Spending is where it is. Whether or not it should be cut, and to where, is up to Congress. Yes it is (with the check of presidential veto) but Congress isn't' a single decision maker. Effectively eliminating entitlements would be impossible and even reforming them to keep them from gobbling up government revenue potential completely is extraordinarily difficult. Even changing popular ordinary programs is very hard. Entitlements more so. Without support from the other party in congress and the president (and now you have neither, Trump seems to oppose entitlement reform at best he fails to support it) Taxes should be lower, but to get that you should have spending restraint. As for non-entitlement spending Your attack on the current congress for lack of such restraint is an attack they deserve, they should be attacked on that point more often. As for entitlement spending - Entitlements create a formula for future government spending without needing future congressional action. Considering the practical need for reform congress should be blamed for not reforming them, but so should previous congresses who failed, and so should the congresses that opened up the can of worms in the first place by creating the entitlements and those who expanded them later.