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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (18197)	7/16/2001 8:32:23 AM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 82486

"...trickle-down economics..." This was then idea that if the rich got richer, the poor would also? Which would explain why the poorest deciles have not not just relatively but absolutely poorer (in terms of purchasing power) since 1980? Even the name is frankly insulting, really. What images does it conjure up? Where did the gargantuan deficits that characterized [the Reagan] administration come from? Ooh, can I guess? I'll go for... because that fine executive spent wildly more than it took in. Obviously another key conservative practice is to 'cut' taxes but spend far more than you earn. Hello, but isn't that what they castigate the left for (allegedly) doing? Oh no, it can't be, because Bush is already cutting taxes he hasn't even received yet. Excellent. Especially when the big cuts are scheduled for when he's guaranteed to be out of office... oh, except for the ones that personally benefit a few select millionaires. (Frequently big contributors to his campaign, strangely enough: what an uncanny coincidence). Drudge and Newsmax. Ah, what a combination. The intelligence of Weekly World News with the objectivity of 1970's Pravda. Meanwhile Fox is owned by an unscrupulous, unethical, borderline-dishonest right-wing tax exile (IMO, except the last... for justifications, see my other Murdoch rants): so an obvious source of neutral opinion there. On defence, restructuring is certainly necessary. For example, I read recently that the M1-Abrams is so heavy that it couldn't be properly deployed in Kosovo (I think it was) - only three bridges in the area would take the weight... Likewise, the advanced bases in the Pacific are within missile range; and if aircraft carriers stand off at safe distance, the current generation of fighters they carry barely have enough range to reach shore-based targets. The question is, whether to improve/replace the existing technology to match genuine current threats and clear future dangers, or to direct vast funds to - possibly - meet a threat is not there now and may well never materialise... Heh. Guess which side I'm on, as usual.