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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3547)	6/16/2001 9:02:27 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Madison's views depended on context. Your point is accurate is an accurate reflection of his views with the populace as it was. He also elaborated on factions and public opinion in the context of a much larger country. Those views are different. the fact that the rich have some recourse to sway public opinion and moderate it seems a reasonable balance It's not the recourse to sway public opinion of the rich that I would have any concern over, it's the ability of the rich to in indirectly influence government policy to their own benefit in spite of public opinion. On the point of soaking the rich, their relative position on the economic ladder has not been diminished in the last 20 years. If you would consider "buying power" as a measure rather than some isolated measure of "taxes", their buying power, or standard of living has increased at a more rapid rate than the majority. So as you might say, what difference does it make. The whole issue of taxes is bogus to begin with. You can get everyone to agree that they pay too much taxes. It's another matter to get two people to agree on what the right tax structure is. I'll return to your point of an earlier post. If it doesn't matter to you what the wealth distribution is, why does it matter what the tax liability distribution is when the standard of living rises rises for all, let alone more so, for the wealthy. If you do not think that the failure to satisfy consumers represents a systemic problem, I do not know what to say. Different consumers take priority in every market. So which consumers does the market favor? The American on a two week vacation who disappears or the French, who are there throughout the year, year in year out. The ice and the wine will take priority. I have no idea what you were looking at. I live here now, and what I said is true...... Twenty five years in the BW area, I've seen pretty much all of it. I'm sure you believe what you say to be true. I'll suggest that you've grown numb to the litter in the area. Years ago, after a trip to Germany [which was quite clean]. I started a practice back in the States of picking up "one piece of litter" whenever I was out. There was not a day that went by that I didn't pick up a piece of litter and never had to go more than a few steps out of my way. More than ten years of that practice. In England, I follow the same practice. In 10 months, I've picked up less than 5 pieces of litter. Look at the ground going in and out of Dulles; take a stroll down New York Avenue into the District. Heck, go to the Annapolis Mall parking lot and look at the ground as you walk towards the Mall. Same thing at the docks/downtown Annapolis. If you look for the litter it's there, you just don't see it anymore. The National Zoo may be cleaner than average, but sit on a bench and take note of the number of people picking up litter. As regard "free air", I was merely relating a series of impressions to which I was privy..... I am not impressed by UN assessments. I will look back, though, and see what is there.... The impressions are fine, you're not impressed by UN assessments. Ok. So why is the US more free? jttmab