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 (199705)	11/4/2001 10:59:53 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The problem with you thinking is it's predicated on simplistic one liner focus group rhetoric, which when examined carefully gives only a vague impression. Questions you will probably avoid answering... 1. What does "fair share" mean? Define it, describe it, give us the details. How much should big business pay as compared to mid size businesses, small businesses and individuals? 2. Define "Big business"? Is it based on gross revenue? amount of employees? Net profit per year? Or union employee roles? The problem with most of your posts flapjack is they come straight out of some modern liberal Democrat handbook on terms which get an emotional reaction with focus groups, but when opened for dialogue and discussion, have virtually no meaning. "fair share", "cut taxes for the rich", "starve the elderly", "starve the poor", "government gives money to big business", "pollute the water", "pollute the air", "drive all jobs overseas", etc...all of these terms have been tested and designed by those on the left to get an emotional reaction from the uninformed populace. Because this board is filled with intelligent, well informed people, they don't work here. And for some odd reason, this seems to mystify you time and time again.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (199705)	11/4/2001 11:11:35 AM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

You are welcome. I said zip about patriotism, I am saying that the economic consequences envisioned don't materialize. Business creates jobs and ultimately that is the economic benefit. The employees and owners pay tax. If the owners make less they pay less in taxes, they pay out less in employee remuneration (less taxes as well) or consumers pay more. You ask,"All I'm saying is I want Big Business to pay its fair share of the U.S. tax burden. What's wrong with that concept? The response is that what you are really saying is that I want to pay more at the pump so that Exxon Mobil can send it to the government. If the GWB administration wants to stimulate the economy through tax rebates and such for Big Business, there ought to be a stipulation that they build their companies to provide jobs for Americans, not jobs for Chinese or Albanians. What's wrong with that concept? Generally I don't like targeted tax breaks (or corporate welfare as some call it) that seek to modify behavior. Not only do they have unintended consequences, but they often tend to distract the corporation from what they should pay closest attention to: business. Perhaps we should look deeper into the reasons for the expatriation of jobs. Providing jobs to to emerging economies is not necessarily a bad thing. There are also risks to companies that follow this tact. Ultimately, by providing a good economic climate for business, we attract more capital and investment into the USA. God Bless America Hammer