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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (78711)	3/12/2001 7:34:30 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Allan also remember that AG fast easing in 1987 saving the republicans and electing Bush senior. His failure to take the easing back brought us the S&L debacle. It is the same story all over again in a different set of assets. Haim

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (78711)	3/12/2001 8:35:26 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

Haim - ...The proposed tax cut will only make US economic even more anemic paying down the national debt would have a more effective and broad based implication on household free cash than the tax cut from an illusionary long term budget surplus. Contrary to popular belief, the so-called paying down of the national debt is simply a multi-level political con game, and the 'risky' tax cut is so small and dispersed over time as to be effectively lost in the rounding errors of futile economic projections. First, since the majority of the current 'surplus' is due to the current payroll tax receipts exceeding current social security outlays, there is little or no actual reduction of the national debt involved, but rather simply a shift of publicly held debt into the non-public pseudo debt of the criminally-misnamed 'Trust Funds'. The 'Trust Funds' are simply a bookkeeping device that records an IOU when 'surplus' payroll taxes are spent along with general revenue, and contains NO economic assets of any kind. When the 'IOU' becomes due, it will simply be turned back into publicly held debt to fund future social security payments. Secondly, even if the 'paying down of the national debt' were to achieve its stated goal of interest rate reduction, this would be a dubious achievement indeed. To the extent that it replaces tax reductions, its overall effect is to transfer wealth from the hands of taxpaying savers and investors into the hands of non-taxpaying borrowers. Finally, the ideas of a 'national debt' and a 'surplus or deficit' are over-hyped and misdirected. If the debt level is merely growing slower than the economy over time, that should be sufficient to prevent any outsized problems for the economy from that particular source. However, all the concentration on debt, surpluses, and deficits serves to misdirect attention from the real issues. At the end of the day, the real economic damage is the result of ALL government intervention in the economy. Every dime that the government EITHER taxes or spends is a dime that distorts economic activity and reduces the standard of living of every productive member of the population. The balancing of the difference between taxing and spending is a secondary issue, as both are real problems in and of themselves. This is not to say that there is not a necessary and proper level for government defined by the Constitution, minuscule by current standards, but that even the taxes and spending for that level would be necessary evils, but evils none the less. Regards, Don

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (78711)	3/12/2001 8:52:10 AM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

G bush is simply recognizing the inevitable and using it to his advantage to fill a pledge and hope for a chance this crisis will be near over when he runs again in 2004. it's just that simple. the piece of really good advice he's gotten so far. good morning. J

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (78711)	3/12/2001 10:08:05 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Haim, your suggestion that Bush should be blamed for the market decline is absurd. AG is the man most responsible for creating the bubble and its inevitable aftermath. The Greenspan inspired credit bubble has suckered the public into the most overpriced stock market in history resulting in a great wealth transfer from the public to Wall St and company insiders. Students of history knew it would end badly but it took longer than almost anyone thought. Mike

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (78711)	3/12/2001 2:48:07 PM
From: chic_hearne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

The point I was trying to make was that the Bush administration is trying to push their agenda of tax cut for the rich by tanking the market and erase any resemblance of the previous administration. The tanking of the markets was well under way before Bush was elected. Like many others here, I speculated that if Bush had any forsight he would've thrown the election to avoid getting Hoovered. [gee, will it be a Dem or Rep in 2004?] If these slimey rich Republicans wanted to push through a fat tax cut for their buddies, why didn't Bush cut off Greenspan in January and not even bring up the tax cut proposal until it got bad? That would've sent us to the crapper in a hurry and then he could push his tax cut through no problem. If anything, I see Bush as working to prop up the markets. tax cut for the rich 97% of federal taxes are paid by the top 50% of earners, which means the bottom 50% only pay 3%. So if you're going to cut taxes they will have to be, at least in a big portion, from the rich. The bottom portion of earners are already getting a free ride, there's no taxes to cut for them. But maybe we could pay them money for being poor, errr, wait, we already do that, it's called welfare and countless other government programs.