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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (134597)	3/15/2001 1:31:09 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1589481

Ted RE..I wasn't talking only about the poor......I meant anything that benefits the common good whether that is state-owned universities to planting trees on blvds. As for the poor, I would want sufficient monies set aside for them to guarantee minimal food and shelter.<<<<<<<<< AFAIK this disucsion started on the benefits of the Rep. vs Dem. tax cuts. I took it from your posts, that you felt a reduction in the top marginal rates on the rich would harm the poor, because it would limit the money available for benefits. I was just pointing out that both Reagons and Kennedy's tax cuts lowered the top marginal rates and a investment boom ensued followed by a large increase in the GDP. We should just took to Europe or Japan and note how many entrepreneurs have come here because of the restrictions in their respective countries. While we may have a higher percentage of poor,(some of it caused by drugs); we also have a far higher percentage of middle class and well off. The Tech revolution will in my mind be easily surpassed by the biotech revolution; as I believe the biotech revolution could easily be the mother of all revolutions man has ever seen. I certainly expect biotech to change life in a more profound way than even the industrial revolution. We need to foster that revolution in this country. Which means giving the rich their just due, in order to keep them here. Innovation and just rewards will help the poor far more than an extra stipend each month. I think the Clinton administration has an excellent record of successfully reducing the welfare doles by getting people employed.....particularly in your home state.< Yes, Bills welfare reforn was patterned after ours. It took a democrat to break the logjam in congress and in the poor community, but welfare reform was long overdue. And we have seen that forcing people off the dole has helped not only the nations prosperity but also the poor. The vast hordes of homeless people, many were predicting, haven't materialized; so reform has been good. As for the poor, I would want sufficient monies set aside for them to guarantee minimal food and shelter.<<<<< That is where in my estimation, the old welfare went wrong; guaranteeing a living. We should just offer most of the able bodied a way to make a living, not the living itself. People need to help themselves; and they have to want to do it. Starvation, can be that motivation . It may sound cruel, but though love sometimes can be the best love. But bottom line, there is no reason for a society as wealthy as this one to have people going hungry at night. We are only as good as our least member.<<<<<<<<<<< Bottom line, I don't think that is possible. One can do only so much, before you lose the incentive for people to work. Have the jobs and opportunities available, but don't just hand it over. And to have the jobs, we should be making sure that the rich stay in this country, because they will pay the poor whatever it takes to help make them rich. Please note I am not talking about the truely handicapped.