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 (29430)	8/15/2000 1:39:59 PM
From: J.B.C.	Respond to of 769667

Most of your statements are not true, but I'll let you go ahead and prove them all. Except the one about a tax increase being inflationary, I'll agree there. Jim

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29430)	8/15/2000 2:05:42 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 769667

There should be no income tax. A tax increase would be inflationary. No tax increase has ever fueled an expansion. The Clinton-Gore economic plan and tax increase of 1993 which was opposed by all Republicans was helpful to the economy. Sounds like you're parroting the Democratic Convention speakers. But what they miss is that an income tax is nothing more than thievery at the point of a gun. A full employment economy does not need a tax cut. Power to the people! Let the people keep their money! Phase out the government redistribution programs and make the government responsible for its Constitutional duties. Period. The Bush tax cut would leave no money for a prescription drug benefit and would leave inadequate funding for baby boomers social security.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29430)	8/15/2000 3:29:32 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

The Clinton-Gore economic plan and tax increase of 1993 which was opposed by all Republicans was helpful to the economy. In truth, it hurt. If you believe it helped, then you must also believe Pres Bush's tax increase in 1990 helped. We all know it didn't.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (29430)	8/15/2000 3:36:43 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth, let me see if I can walk you through this one gently... Taxes are a confiscation of the life energy of the people. People use their energy to work, start businesses and create wealth. The government then (via taxes) takes some of it. What they take should be 1. necessary for the common good of the people when private enterprise efforts have failed to address a severe problem. or 2. Be results driven. In other words, they must prove using objective data that the life energy they have taken from the people has worked to achieve the results desired. Questions: 1. Do current government programs spending trillions of dollars meet these two tests. If not, why should we give more of our life energy under the assumption they will start now? 2. Why should we give more of our life energy to one of the wealthiest segments of the population (those 62-80) via free prescription drugs when our young people already shoulder the highest burden of taxation in history. While (in many cases) because of this burden, both parents have to work and send their kids to day-care in order to keep food on the table? Drop off kids, without a loving parent around to raise and spend time with them is costing our society far more than we realize. Do you deny that our high tax burden has created an environment in which many parents must choose between a home and food or work? Additionally, why do elderly Americans, such as yourself, believe so selfishly that young people must transfer their wealth to you, in order to give you free prescription drugs? Especially when you consider welfare programs for the elderly are at the highest level in American history? The "greatest generation" is becoming a bunch of piglets sucking on the nipples of a young mother swine. Furthermore, using your linear model of taxation. When Reagan cut the marginal rate from the nearly 75% in the early 80's to 35%, we should have witnessed a gross revenue decline. Yet we did not. Revenue instead surged. Can you explain this? Cutting rates is the right thing to do because it provides stimulus for congress and the next administration to stop expanding government programs. The ONLY reason a surplus is within our grasp today is because it was a surprise to government economists that our growth and tax receipts were this high. Remove the surprise element and you reduce the incentive to slow the growth of spending. Michael