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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29372)	8/15/2000 10:27:56 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I like Bush's "case" better. That money is not the federal government's money... it's OUR money. Hell, I want the IRS abolished. Why should I want them to keep more of the money they stole from us? FT

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29372)	8/15/2000 10:36:59 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

That's why they should balance a general tax rate reduction with targeted spending cuts that favor savings over consumption. Eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Eliminate the Americorps program. Cut back the Education department. Cut back the budgets for the White House and the Congress by 20 percent ($ 10 billion). Get the general budget in balance. They probably should phase out the mortgage interest deduction in 5-10 years now that cap gains on residences are not taxable. Once you get the income tax low enough and replace it at least in part with a sales tax, you can get rid of artificial savings plans like IRAs and 401Ks.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29372)	8/15/2000 11:04:35 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth, your assumption seems to be politicians from both parties would not spend the money and pay down the debt. I'm curious, what leads you to that assumption? The more dollars politicians have to work with, the more things they will find to spend it on. What we should do is dramatically reduce tax rates, thus forcing the politicians to drop existing wasteful programs. And also take social security completely off budget and allow people to invest a portion (at first) in private investments tied to their individual name. Reagan proved you can have strong growth with low inflation. Cutting taxes and providing some relief to families might create the environment in which two working parent decide one should stay home and raise the children. The sociological effect of one parent being home, is much more positive and profound long term, then a short term interest rate reduction. Furthermore, cutting tax rates does not necessarily equate to less revenue to the treasurer. When Reagan dramatically cut rates in the early 80's revenue surged. When capital gains rates were cut a few years ago (by the Republican Congress and Senate) capital gains revenue increased. We need to get out of the habit of this linear way of thinking about tax cuts as a revenue reduction equation. Keeping the economy humming along by reducing tax rates is the right thing to do. The rhetorical nonsense that spending equates to giving people back their money in tax cuts is sophistic clinton speak hyperbole. Michael