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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (9185)	1/5/2002 3:44:57 PM
From: alan w	Respond to of 93284

He just took the point of that particular line item(which was subsidies for rich farmers) and inserted something he could work with(ie stick to the rhetoric routine). The old switch ruse. alan w

To: greenspirit who wrote (9185)	1/6/2002 6:29:58 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

But I would say someone who was motivated to post this third party attack toward me "but you and Michael Cummings, et al, will still buy into the rhetoric" probably falls into the Gore/Reno loving Democrat camp. Ahhh, so that's your issue! The indirect "attack" phenomena. You'll find that rampant among conservative posts...it usually includes such mild phrases as demolib pinhead, moron, socialist, traitor, Nazi, femi-Nazi, etc... "Buying into the rhetoric" is a bit mild in comparison. Now, let's see if I can play your wonderful game of sophistic word usage. Describe where I "bought into the rhetoric" as expressed by you in this third party post? Was this just an assumption on your part? Or is it because I said I enjoyed an article which led you to this conclusion? Is this a generalization or "random rhetoric" on your part? Not very good; you'll need some practice. The article referred to was full of rhetoric with no substance of the reality. I cited a number of real policy decisions on the part of the Administration that were inconsistent with the rhetoric of the article. Well known and significant policy decisions. Policy decisions that you would aware of to a great extent, if not every one of them. You're support of the article and knowledge of the policy decisions, clearly indicates that you have not made any connection between the rhetoric and the actions. Hence, you've bought into the rhetoric. Not an assumption, it's an obvious and clear conclusion. Take Farm Aid. Everyone has farm aid. The Pres, the conservatives, the liberals. A politician would be dead meat in the corn belt if they didn't have a farm aid package to crow about. Sugar supports have been a long standing [and excessive, IMO] form of farm aid supported quite well by both parties, thank you. Growing or not growing certain types of crops is another form of price support within the tax code that given the opportunity people will exploit. I suppose you imagine that only left wing liberal Billionaires take advantage of the tax code. Take GW's new pledge of no new taxes. Puleeze....he's already implementing a tax liability for someone else to collect. It's called deficit spending. If someone wants to bankrupt the SS System there are two things that one would do. First, decrease the funds that go into Social Security that would be used for future payouts. Second, you would increase the risk that Social Security could cash in on Treasuries when they do need them. Nominally, beginning in 2011. So you can do the first, by proposing a lower future contributions into the system...A Bush proposal. You can accomplish the second by increasing the size of the national debt...another Bush proposal. And if SS does cash in beginning in 2011 where does the money come from...general revenues...or taxes...I don't find it a substantive difference to refer to these as "new taxes" to be collected by someone else or "a deferred tax liability" to be collected by someone else. To make such a distinction is playing a shell game. Except it doesn't sound very good that you have a proposal that increases the likelihood of bankrupting SS. So we'll call it a program to Save Social Security. I've only communicated with you in a few posts and already your hypocrisy is showing. We perhaps have a different defintion of "hypocrisy". When the Republicans had control of the committees the Federal earmarks [affectionitely referred to as pork] increased by a factor of three or four...and then the conservatives claim that it's the Democrats that are spending your tax dollars. I call that "hypocrisy"; conservatives call it "fiscal responsibility". Which do you call it? jttmab