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: Windsock who wrote (138074)	7/11/2001 10:27:38 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584213

"Government in its best state is a necessary evil" -- Tom Payne. The tax cut is horribly bad policy There are a huge number of people out there who don't have more gumption than to willingly hand over their hard-earned money to a government that will only hand the money over to bums via the welfare state. I'm not one of them. Where to you people get the idea that Democrats have even a shred of fiscal responsibility? Even if you don't read the papers, it is intuitively obvious to an idiot that the Democrats can't manage money. Look at the best example -- Social Security -- in which the Democrats have put in place a ponzi scheme that is impossible to eliminate. See the recent books by Alan Dershowitz and Vincent Bugliosi. A couple of really unbiased scholars you're citing there....If that's all I had, I think I'd not say it. Devastating, indeed. Did you see Alan Keyes chew Dershowitz up and spit him out? What a laugh. Big OJ man. Your references are written by nitwits. It is interesting to me that you can criticize Geo Bush when you can't point to EVEN ONE lapse of integrity in the man -- compare that with any Democrat to hold the president's office (okay, Carter had integrity but was not otherwise competent to hold the office) in your lifetime. For the last eight years we've witnessed the most corrupt administration in the century. Please -- no more.

To: Windsock who wrote (138074)	7/11/2001 11:18:08 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584213

Winsock Re..the budget may go into deficit this year and certainly will next year. <<<<<< Who's budget, the gov. or mine. If the gov. keeps on taking my money, how can I possibly balance my budget? I would much rather balance mine. I already give app. 45% of the money I make to the gov.; and I don't receive half that amount back in services., When I start getting back close to what I am putting in, then I will volunteer to let those crooks have some more. But only after stealing money from the lockbox -- Social Security and Medicare. The gov. has been stealing from SS and medicare for the last 38 of 40 yrs. Why should next yr be any different. And, most importantly, get rid of the Thief in Chief in '04. As we wait for this resurrection, <<<< That's a joke. Who are you going to run? Mr fatty; Gary Condit, your party charmer who treats woman as red meat.; mr obstructionist Daschle; Hillary, the head crook in Washington. For all of your crying and whinning, you don't have anyone in your party who can beat GW. Kind of sad isn't it? Then install a Democratic Congress in '02 to put the brakes on the Thief in Chief.<<<<< Right. After the Condit affair, the dems will be lucky if they don't lose more than 5 seats. Especially after the economy recovers next yr. because of GW's tax cut, and more exploration and oil lowers energy costs. See the recent books by Alan Dershowitz and Vincent Bugliosi. They present a devastating case on the actions of the majority in Bush v. Gore.<<<< Right, like I am stupid enough to buy a copy. Who is. Has either of them even sold 100 copies?

To: Windsock who wrote (138074)	7/11/2001 11:30:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1584213

But only after stealing money from the lockbox -- Social Security and Medicare. What a FOOL you must be!!! I missed this the first time through. You THINK there is a "lockbox"?!?!? Jeez. Talk about gullible. Don't you realize that Social Security is technically insolvent and has been since the 70s? Because the Democrats created a plan that uses CASH BASIS accounting, the uninformed actually think there is a LOCKBOX! If you put SS on the accrual basis of accounting (like private pension funds) and record the unfunded pension liability (like private pension funds) the thing was broke years ago. Reagan managed (fighting the Dems all the way) to prop it up, but it has been broke since the 70s. This is precisely what I'm talking about when I refer to Democrats' inability to achieve any fiscal responsibility. Instead of true accounting, they give us bogus numbers that keep the voters confused. I think you make my point for me. Do you even UNDERSTAND the difference between cash basis and accrual basis accounting? Any of you have the guts to debate the "lockbox" issue with ole' maroon?

To: Windsock who wrote (138074)	7/12/2001 10:41:05 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1584213

The tax cut is horribly bad policy. It is evil with a delayed fuse that gets worse over the next 10 years. the budget may go into deficit this year and certainly will next year. It very well might. Because neither the Republicans or the Democrats have shown any inclination to restrain spending recently. A divided Congress might make deficits even more likely. Instead of the Republicans and Democrats restraining each others spending proposals you get them trying to beat each other out by spending more in certain widely popular areas, and on the other areas they compromise by accepting the other sides spending if the other side accepts their spending. If spending can be brought under control (not even cut or held steady, just growing at a single digit rate) then the tax cuts are a great idea, but they lose a lot of their positive impact by being phased in over so long of period. If taxes are not cut it could be even more dangerous for the budget. The money probably will be spent on new programs or expansions of old ones if the government collects it. If the budget does need work later it is easier to raise taxes or cancel planned reductions in taxes then it is to cut government spending. I don't think that federal government spending has gone down even one year in my lifetime, but there have been quite a few tax increases. Every recent president before GW has increased taxes. Even Reagan did (after the initial reduction), Bush Sr. did (after "read my lips no new taxes"), Clinton did (after all his talk about a middle class tax cut). The health of our democracy can not stand any more assaults on the Constitution by the Supreme Court's Scalia-led 5. Scalia is one of the few justices that usually (although perhaps not always and Bush vs. Gore may be an example of this) actually backs what the Constitution says rather then pushing some idea of what he want's the Constitution to be. Tim