Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host Message Board

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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: nasdaqian who wrote (14084)	5/10/2001 2:14:05 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) of 42834

>>The hell it would. It's spread all over hell and back but not into their control.<< not sure what you mean here. my point was that the 100% tax rate for income over $100k is so extraordinary that nobody really knows what would happen - if you think you do, imho, you are fooling yourself. in any case, the example was made to make a point and nothing more. >>Interesting you use as an example one of the principal areas I believe govt has a legitimate role - defense.<< not sure what your point is. defense is a legitimate role of govt. that absolutely does not mean that folks can't abuse a legitimate role. specing out $20k toilet seats when $100 seats would do fine could be an example. since the mfr of the $20k seat is a friend of govt officials and they contribute a lot of dough, no big deal, right? ;-( >>Same as above. The myriad of other "causes" the govt takes on is what my argument is about.<< it seems you assume i'm pro govt screwing everyone. i totally agree govt is out of control and both parties benefit mightily while the avg citizen gets screwed. i am NOT defending the current govt's mo. >>That would be fine as long as a paradigm other than a public school system is employed.<< vouchers are just another way to limit access to improved education to poor people. this totally defeats what i'm talking about. blaming poor undereducated people for creating poor undereducated children is kind of silly (poverty tends to continue until someone breaks the change - often with the need of some help). if society wants to solve the problem, instead of just b* about it then poor kids need equal access to education. if you think vouchers will enable the avg poor kid from south central to go to private school then you have not thought through the issue or do not understand supply and demand dynamics. >>Also, personally, I think the federal govt ought not be involved and that the state level would be the highest.<< the kids in less than ideal circumstances don't care who provides the help.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next