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: greenspirit who wrote (132312)	3/18/2001 3:36:27 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So typical. Liberals complain about using Kennedy's words in a political debate but when it comes to TRASHING history, and SLANDARING the dead, no one does it better than a liberal. Actually, no one BUT a liberals WOULD do it: AMERICA'S most popular film director, Steven Spielberg, is to challenge the integrity of Abraham Lincoln, one of the country's most potent presidential icons. Spielberg's first biopic will portray the so-called "Great Emancipator" as a manic depressive racist who nearly lost the American civil war. The blockbuster will be Hollywood's first attempt to unravel the myths of liberal historians which maintain Lincoln's near saintly image. sunday-times.co.uk

To: greenspirit who wrote (132312)	3/18/2001 3:40:49 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Ok here is a FACT boys and girls. Every $ of the over tax [ I'm DONE calling it a surplus ] that is spend is a TAX INCREASE!!!! The liberals ( dem and republican) and, yes, even GWB are contemplating a TAX INCREASE but all we are talking about is a TAX CUT. discussing tax cuts as if they are just one of three options for using the surplus,

To: greenspirit who wrote (132312)	3/18/2001 5:08:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 769670

Michael, I've been reading Will for 20 years and I swear he used to be more thoughtful. Lately his columns are so knee-jerk and predictable. "Large chronic surpluses"? After what, two years of surpluses? Surpluses that wouldn't even exist without the fictitious Social Security Trust fund accounting? Since a considerable percentage of last year's surplus consists of capital gains taxes (I saw a number somewhere, but I've forgotten it), which are not likely to recur this year, wouldn't common fiscal prudence demand that see if the surplus was going to exist before you commit yourself to giving it away? Also, if the debts of the U.S. Government were contracted in good faith -- with an intention to repay -- why is a tax cut morally superior to repaying debts? And who, pray, is George Will to sit on high and declare "the rates do not establish a reasonable relationship between pressing public needs, as distinct from political appetites"? Who has given him the authority to distinguish between public needs and political appetites? In my innocence, I thought that we had elected a Congress whose job it was to debate such things. Where does Will get off implying that it's immoral for Senators and Congressmen (read: Democrats) to want to even debate the issue?