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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (176086)	8/30/2001 1:51:02 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769667

Your kind is the FIRST to complain about Corporate Welfare. Maybe have policy that would help technology with subsidizing broadband buildlout . . . focus on conservation and stimulate investment in those areas. . . . increasing targeted spending.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (176086)	8/30/2001 2:29:35 PM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 769667

Wow, so much nonsense it is difficult to know where to start. OPEC works in their own best interest. Having The U.S. less reliant on OPEC, and having more control over the supply, and thus its price, is a good way of keeping the price of oil from hurting the economy. Making it easier to do business in the oil industry goes a long way to that end. Tax cuts benefit everybody. And the rich who benefit are also the people who do the most spending and provide jobs to others. This stimulates the economy. so our allies would work with us in coordinating policy Vapor. What policies would they be ? Perhaps you mean something like the roaring success of a consolodated monetary policy like the EU ? ROFLMAO !!! Most of our allies do not wish to see us succeed economically anyway. Witness Kyoto. Focusing on conservation will do absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Any lowered demand is too small to have any impact. This has been proven by California in spades. More corporate welfare? For broadband ? Now you are getting silly. Not only is it not needed, it would do nothing to stimulate the economy. 1. It is too small a segment. 2. The fiber / broadband industry is saturated way over capacity. It is cheap and liable to get cheaper. You are 0 for 4 dude. Who has no clue ? Private sector spending will always be more stimulative to the economy than targeted spending. Government is too inefficient. If you want to stimulate investment and the economy, it is real easy. Lower capital gains taxes. Always works. Creates jobs too for the "working man" I have no doubt that the president knows this. I also have no doubt that politically, it is probably not practical. Too bad.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (176086)	8/30/2001 3:23:01 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Like most liberals you seem to have a problem with succusful people (unless they are from Hollywood). When you say that Bush "helps" the rich it leaves the impression that you don't think rich people contribute enough to America. Even if liberals truly beleive that rich people are no good and that the 39% tax bracket is too low and that they should not get any tax breaks at all, it seems like a stupid strategy to attack them. When someone pays more than his or her share to live in this country (which rich people currently do) they get ticked when some yahoo that hasn't contributed as much belittles their contribution. How much should they pay iyo? Is the current 39% adequate, or do you need more? The long term result of this attack on the people that allow our country to be so wealthy will either un-motivate them to pay taxes by moving their assets out of our country or will socialize our country to the point that we will all suffer. If you can't guess by now I think that the people who pay the most should be admired, not villified. Most Dems obviously feel differently.