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: Mr. Whist who wrote (195340)	10/24/2001 12:16:00 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

I just can't wait for the new SECRET SEARCHES OF HOMES>....what a great concept....just what the Founding Father's wanted....you know....the Founding Father's....those left over from the great Central American War! I'm sure Eliot Abrahms is first on the list. At least SOME of our representatives are looking out for us....like Fazio and a number of others. The rest just want to give ANOTHER $25 BILLION in tax cuts to the big corporations....adding to the bad times for the economy that are looming ahead as the government under Publicans is suddenly the biggest SPENDING MACHINE in 40 years. And of course we can afford about 10% of what they are pushing into the pockets of the Military Industrial big boyz Some of the provisions in the House bill are simply mind-boggling. For example, there is a large retroactive tax cut for corporations that would lead to immediate rebates of hundreds of millions of dollars to each of a select list of giant companies, many of them in the energy industry (though the $1.4 billion check to I.B.M. would top the list). On the other hand, there is almost nothing in the bill for people who might actually need more money. The extra unemployment benefits, in particular, are far less generous than those offered in the last recession, when the elder Bush was president. The bill, in short, looks as if it was written by corporate lobbyists — and it probably was. Even Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was evidently embarrassed by the bill, dismissing its more outlandish components as "show business" designed to impress campaign donors. But his remark was naïve. Those lobbyists are serious men, who are paid by their employers to deliver results, not gestures; they wouldn't have put those provisions in unless they thought they had enough power to get them enacted. And sure enough, the White House soon contradicted Mr. O'Neill; the president, declared Ari Fleischer, was "very pleased" with the House bill. Which brings us back to those war bonds. The government not only isn't calling for shared sacrifice; it is "very pleased" with a proposal to give billions in handouts to corporations. And in that case, what is someone who buys a war bond really helping to finance? Put it this way: If the House has its way, the government will give far more in tax breaks to corporations over the next year than it will spend fighting terrorism. Yet somehow one suspects that people would not rush to buy "corporate tax-cut bonds." In an ideal world Congress and the White House would stand up to the special interests, and give us no reason to be cynical. Oh, never mind. But at least let's not add insult to injury. Ban those bonds. CC