SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Don Troppmann who wrote (34260)10/6/2000 2:57:28 PM
From: Paul Fiondella  Read Replies (1) of 42771
 
Off Topic --- I guess this stuff is over your head Don

"Big government didn't pay for the stadium. It was local government. Just as the system is supposed to work. Paul just for once try to trust the people to handle their own money."

Am I to take it from this remark that taking the public's tax money and using it to subsidize a private enterprise is fully acceptable to you when it is done out of local funds? And do you mean to imply that the money was George's in the first place? Because if George fully trusted the people to invest their own money, he would have advocated a local tax cut in the amount of the cost of his stadium and then offered the public stock to raise that money to build the stadium himself. Instead he demanded a public expenditure of public money for a stadium that increased the value of his team using the stadium. When the team was sold he got the profit, not the public that put up the subsidy.

This is what you advocate as being against "big government" and "trusting the people"?

Are you arguing against federal government subsidies but not against local government ones? Think there is a difference? Did George have the right to have this stadium subsidy because it came as a subsidy from a city but he wouldn't if it were the big bad ole Federal government?

Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

As to the tax cut. The tax cut comes out of the social security surplus in the following manner: A federal tax cut means a decline in revenue and thus a deficit in the federal budget if spending isn't trimmed accordingly.

There is no major revenue surplus in the federal budget.

That revenue loss would normally translate into more debt. However there is a cash surplus coming in from social security. Congress has been using this surplus to hold down the spending deficit.

If the social security surplus were put into a "lock box", a dumb term, it would really simply be kept unavailable to Congress to spend. IT would go to reduce the debt.

You also scored a point for arrogance and pandering with your comment about 'educating the needy'.

As to the Reagan era, are you serious!
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News