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 : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (768)	10/21/2001 12:13:39 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Notice when the conservative press complains they never mention Bush. It's like they wouldn't mention Ronald Reagan airport by name when it was closed as a terrorist threat (they called it national). Just a week before they were strong arming the metro stations to put up more Ronald Reagan signs and pictures about the airport. worldnetdaily.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (768)	10/21/2001 2:07:09 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

"Bush description is entirely wrong! He says the anti-missile treaty was signed when the two countries "hated each other". They never hated each other. They mistrusted each other." Didn't other countries sign the treaty? There have been comments about the use of Bush's simplistic language. He divides the world into two camps? good and evil. Good and evil are relative to who uses the term and how that person defines it. For instance, when I glanced at the morning paper I learned that it has been a tradition with Pashtun men in in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fire bullets into the air whenever a baby boy is born. The tradition goes back to the days when the tribe robbed the British dead of their muskets. Today, when they fire their rifles or assault weapons into the air the bullets fall back to the earth and kill people. The police think it is wrong. Mr. Bush might even call it evil. The Pashtun who kill their own still do it, although there are Pashtun who think it is wrong, I am sure. In any case, the uses of the term "hatred" when referring to another country isn't diplomatic. Yes, Bush partied and drank his way through university. And he still won't admit whether he used cocaine or was busted for it. For a man in his position, a degree in law might be more useful, but when Mr. Bush applied to the University of Texas Law School for admission he was turned down. Obviously, he didn't do very well on the pre-law entrance exam.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (768)	10/21/2001 2:14:13 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

And you must have been very excited yesterday! Mariners 13. Yankees 3! I believe they play today. I wonder how it will go. Even though I don't follow the sport, I am very proud of the Mariners! I hope they win! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go Mariners Go!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (768)	10/21/2001 2:48:33 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Noxious Norton up to her old dirty tricks: washingtonpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (768)	10/22/2001 12:27:03 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

No Way to Boost the Economy "Apart from its economic flaws, the measure is flat-out unfair. Of the $54 billion in accelerated tax cuts, every penny would go to the top 30 percent of taxpayers. Half would go to the top 5 percent. Eighty percent of the benefits from the capital gains tax cuts would go to the top 2 percent of households. Only one tax cut, a supplemental rebate for people who paid less than $300 in income taxes this year, would directly help poor and working-class Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that just $2.3 billion of the $100 billion the bill pledges for the stimulus in 2002 would be spent to lengthen cash and health benefits for unemployed workers. Sadly, these groups are the ones most likely to spend and stimulate the economy. They suffer the most during recessions, yet the Republican leadership wants to help them least." From The New York Times EDITORIAL October 20, 2001 The first item on the House agenda next week will be the Republican leadership's economic stimulus bill. Nobody doubts the need for an economic transfusion of some sort. But this bill is not the right way to achieve it. Even the Bush administration has expressed doubts. Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, described the measure as partly "show business." And while the White House rebuked Mr. O'Neill for his apostasy, President Bush himself is said to have misgivings about adding a huge new layer of tax cuts to those already enacted. Since the package is expected to be passed by the House, it will be up to the Senate to produce an alternative that is efficient, temporary, safe and equitable — virtues in which the House bill is almost wholly deficient. The legislators can begin by ridding the bill of provisions that have little or no chance of reviving the economy any time soon. For example, eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, at a cost of $25 billion in 2002, would not guarantee a single cent of new investment. It would simply give money to businesses that usually find a way to elude taxes through deductions and loopholes anyway. Indeed, misdirected corporate tax breaks could even hamper growth by reducing corporate taxes on the state level, forcing states that are required by law to balance their budgets to cut spending. Lower spending would hinder economic recovery. The bill would create another short-term danger by lowering tax rates on capital gains held more than one year but less than five years. If investors took advantage of the lower tax rates and sold shares to raise cash, share prices would drop. Private wealth would fall, at least on paper, and consumers would spend less. Both Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, and Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, have warned of this possibility. The package would also pose a threat to the economy's long-term fiscal health. Only two of the bill's 15 tax-related initiatives would expire after 2002. The Treasury would lose a stunning $60 billion in tax revenues — almost 40 percent of the bill's cost — in 2003 or later, when the economy should already have recovered. The resulting deficit would drive up long-term interest rates across the entire economy, stunting growth. Apart from its economic flaws, the measure is flat-out unfair. Of the $54 billion in accelerated tax cuts, every penny would go to the top 30 percent of taxpayers. Half would go to the top 5 percent. Eighty percent of the benefits from the capital gains tax cuts would go to the top 2 percent of households. Only one tax cut, a supplemental rebate for people who paid less than $300 in income taxes this year, would directly help poor and working-class Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that just $2.3 billion of the $100 billion the bill pledges for the stimulus in 2002 would be spent to lengthen cash and health benefits for unemployed workers. Sadly, these groups are the ones most likely to spend and stimulate the economy. They suffer the most during recessions, yet the Republican leadership wants to help them least. The nation needs a stimulus package that will send money where it is needed most. That might include increasing unemployment benefits through federal subsidies. Existing federal investment programs in high-return areas like education and infrastructure could be accelerated. Any other tax breaks for corporations should be aimed only at new investments that were unplanned or unscheduled — not just unused — before Sept. 11. And to minimize the effect on the nation's finances, all these initiatives should expire after 2002. nytimes.com