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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (16485)	5/23/2001 5:42:49 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 30051

Tim, what happened to the idea of an immediate rebate of some $500 bucks to each tax payer here and now? Zeev

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (16485)	5/23/2001 6:24:28 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Tim - Thanks for the recap; saves me a lot of time reading the paper and your being succinct ensures that I actually understand what's in it. Only disagreement I have is with your commentary: I CAN’T WAIT TILL THE DEMOCRATS GAIN CONTROL OF THE SENATE AGAIN (HEY MAYBE TOMORROW). SPENDING GOES UP THE WAZOO, If the Democrats try to increase spending too much, all Bush has to do is veto the appropriations bills. It may shut down the government again, but the last shutdown made it clear that the public will blame Congress for not passing bills that the President finds acceptable (unless, of course, the media present it differently with a Republican President's veto of a Democratic Congress's spending bills).

To: Logain Ablar who wrote (16485)	5/23/2001 6:48:06 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

Tim, Thanks for the tax summary, but.... RE: << I CAN’T WAIT TILL THE DEMOCRATS GAIN CONTROL OF THE SENATE AGAIN (HEY MAYBE TOMORROW). SPENDING GOES UP THE WAZOO>> Sorry, can't just let that pass. The largest percentage increases in spending over the past 50 years have been during the Eisenhauer and Reagan administrations. Granted, defense took a disproportionate share of that increase. The people in the Reagan Administration knew--some of them knew, anyway, the others didn't want to know--that they were going run huge deficits when they increased defense spending and lowered taxes, and didn't care, in fact, some of them participated in a big coverup of that fact by assuming an inflation number for the mid-80s that they knew was bogus just to pretend that government revenues would be greater than they turned out to be and the deficits wouldn't be so large (this was in '82, I believe). Democrats never ran deficits so large during peacetime, and never planned a budget that would do so. They wouldn't have the nerve. The reason Republicans did it was to incapacitate the government as much as possible outside of defense (I'm not making that up, people actually said that at the time, cf. Stockman's book which I recommend to people all the time as it is the one of the best books on Republicans and politics out there, IMO). I thought we went through this a few months ago. I won't make any more speeches on the subject for a couple more months, if all. I just had to respond to your editorial comment. But yeah, they will try to get a prescription drug program done. Bush said he was for such a thing during the election, sure, he said, we want that. Haven't heard anything about it since some time in January. And Yeah, they probably will try to float a few other bills. But we both know that they House as currently structured will never even pass it on the Bush, much less have him veto it. It is actually a good thing for the market that the Senate is Democratic--nothing that is in the least bit radical will get done with a split Congress. There is even a chance that we might save some of the surplus for longer than 2 or 3 years, which would be good for Bush and the country. s.