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.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (42446)	3/27/2001 10:48:23 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Let's see, this year federal tax receipts as a percent of GDP hit 20.4%. The only years in our nation's history when it has ever been as high is in 1944 (20.9%) and 1945 (also 20.4%) when we were fighting for our lives in WW2. Does historical precedent mean anything to you? Are you even the slightest bit concerned that the federal tax bite is now headed into uncharted territory? Do you think that the economy is unaffected by this? Since you are so against tax cuts, please tell us all what you think the ideal percentage should be: 30%, 40%? (remember, this is just federal taxes) Hell, why not just make it 100%? That would solve one problem for sure. There wouldn't be any private capital left, and we all wouldn't have to worry about the stock market anymore...

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (42446)	3/27/2001 11:10:18 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Respond to of 64865

One other thing, individual federal income tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are already off the historical charts. It was an all-time record high of 9.9% of GDP in 2000 versus only 9.4% in 1944.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (42446)	3/27/2001 11:57:14 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

I can't resist also commenting on your so-called "fiscal disaster"... You claim impending "fiscal disaster" if the surpluses shrink. Well, the level of federal debt is nowhere near historical highs as a percentage of GDP. So, again, if historical precedent means anything to you, I don't see how you are justified in making such a statement. Please explain to us all... Federal debt peaked at 122% of GDP in 1946. During Reagan's years it rose from 35% to only 53%. During Bush Sr.'s years it rose from 53% to only 66%. It seems that winning the cold war was a lot less costly than winning WW2. It is currently 59%, which is less than half of the 1946 level. So, let me get this straight... You are worried about a "fiscal disaster" if the surpluses decrease, even though the current debt level is well within historical norms and less than half of the all-time high. And, you are worried about the paltry little tax cut that Bush, Jr. is serving up even though current taxation levels are at all-time historical highs. Do I have that right, Steve?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (42446)	3/28/2001 5:52:09 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 64865

Dear Steve: I LIVE in Fla and there are NO MASSIVE program cuts that I have heard of and we got the most liberal paper in the world here. What you MAY be thinking of is Education. Well, for the past couple of years Fla. made the BIGGEST percentage increase in Education spending in our history. Teachers are now paid AT LEAST on the national average, perhaps higher dependent upon who you listen too, SO, next years education budget has not gone UP as MUCH as before percentage wise and THAT has the Dems using it as MISINFORMATION. Like Washington, they call lowered INCREASES, CUTS. I actually DESPISE that kind of misinformation AND hope the American Public sees them for what they are. Lying, thieving, partisan Politicians. JDN