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: DMaA who wrote (30304)	8/19/2000 7:12:48 PM
From: ztect	Respond to of 769667

Dma- I agree that we need to look closely at cutting programs, inefficient spending, corporate welfare, further reforming welfare programs to promote self reliance and not co-dependency and, in general, determining what can be better done at the state and local levels while taking into account the economic discrepancy betw. states and localities. A large part of the inefficiencies are due to how and to whom programs are contracted at local state, and federal levels. A large part of who gets subsidies and who gets tax breaks via access is contigent upon who gives how much. W/o campaign finance reform neither tax simplification including reduction of inequitable tax cuts targeted to specific industries (corporate welfare),nor the awarding of federal, state, and local contracts strictly on qualifications and costs can occur. With such reforms in place, efficiencies can be easier to achieve including downsizing government on all levels and more out sourcing that is effectively done. All government has to be run with tighter reins so I'm in favor of tax cuts and the government having fewer of our dollars to spend capriciously and inefficiently, so in general principle I agree with Bush's glib rhetoric and appeal. I do not agree with his means and methods, and find them dubious at best, deceitful at worse. Like I said, I don't disagree in any way with a tax cut. I do disagree with a tax shift. Using SS surpluses to fund an income tax break for the most relief in total dollars for those who paid the least in percent of SS security taxes just doesn't thrill me especially when such tax "cuts" are largely offset by rises in state and local taxes to make up for Federal cuts. I'd like to see the downsizing of government reduce the need for taxes. I'd also like to see a serious non-politicized look at rethinking social security so it is viewed as insurance and not an entitlement. The other big distinction in theory is "social engineering". Do you give the money back, or do you use cuts to try to encourage savings, education, and home ownership? Do the biggest cuts go for "investments" or consumption? One could raise the both the financial caps on contributions and salaries for retirement funds, while loosing some of the restriction for borrowing against these funds. This can be challenged as social engineering. One could also give more financial stability to companies by encouraging longer term investment in those companies, by eliminating all capital gains on investments held over three to five years. (though I know all you day traders would like to see the complete elimination of cap gains, I disagree since believe it or not stocks actually represent part ownership of a company with fundamentals rather than charts). In general though, I'm really open to some discussion about social engineering and the efficiency of free markets. Though with government award of tax breaks and contracts for specific sectors and industries, I've never been too convinced that the marketplace was any more free under Reagan as it is under Slicky. z