SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Dan B. who wrote (276909)7/17/2002 5:12:15 PM
From: rich4eagle  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Re: "Well Danny, two things for starters, the bulk of taxes do not come from the little guy, they pay very little in taxes"........ and you said.......
Frankly, I'm not looking up the numbers(in dispute anyway), but you may be right that the top 10% pay more than half the taxes. But I do feel sure that tax revenue depends a great deal upon monies from those falling below the top say, 10%, or as I equated, "the little guy." Flat Rate Taxes are clearly emminently fair, IMO. Currently, though the "rich" pay, as you seem to recognize, more than their fair Flat Rate share, we would have to wipe the rich out altogether(and then some, I think) to replace what is taken from the vast masses below them- not a good idea. As the old Ten Years After song put it(sarcastically, I like to think) "tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more."

............and I say.......

Well, surely you must know that the rich prospered significantly in the 80's and 90's at the expense of the poor. Also, I would think it is quite foolish to consider 90 per cent of the people poor. Also, a flat tax would be fine if there were no deductions for anything. That one million dollar mortgage payment hundreds of thousands in business expenses far exceeds the income of most people.

Re: "Thus either cut spending if you insist on cutting taxes or raise taxes if you insist on raising spending."

and you say.........

The problem with this is on the higher taxes/higher spending side. Anytime a population itself loses influence on an economy due to a Government spending the money instead of masses of individuals(hence altering the very nature of the jobs the individuals with-in society do throughout their lives) , the world is, as I'll apply the pharse, "dummed down" to the detrimate of us all. A few minds in Government will never make better overall decisions with the money individuals must earn, than the individuals who earned it.

........hmmmmmmm.........these guys below your cherish..

Are you talking about Bernie Ebbers, Kenny Boy, Dick Cheney, Martha Stewart, Dennis Koslowski, Joseph Nacchio, as fine examples of how corporate america is better at running things? There is nothing wrong with the right amount of Government, but when it gets bloated I agree that problems arise. The obvious "bloated" portion of government is the military. Bloated with more Generals and Admirals than at any time in American history feeding at the trough so nicely overfilled by Bush. So we have higher spending and lower taxes the worst combination of all. Expecially when the spending is mostly waste.

..............and you also say........
IMO, it is you who have a lot to learn about Economics. And just as the market rose the very day you foolishly predicted it would suffer a great fall in a post to me recently (I inject this indicating a big lie here by you for, ......well this had to be at least nine days ago as today was the first rising session for the Dow since July 5, and if that was so it was in early May when I posted, because I did not post from May 20-July 6), you have to be sheerly contrary to dismiss what the Economy is actually doing, in favor of your one-sided and un-realistic doomsday scenario. Sure, there is evidence to make your case, but there is a wealth of evidence that this Economy has been turning around, too. The fall, it seems to me, undeniably started prior to Bush, and the turn-around is likely happening under him- right now- like it or not.

And the facts are..........

Clinton 700 to 2700 on the NAZ, 3300 to 11000 on the Dow, Bush 2700 to 1370 on the NAZ and 11000 to 8500 on the Dow, I guess these are just phoney numbers.

Btw, I am an optimist, I believe the US can overcome this dysfunctional Administration and grow and continue to make America better. My warnings are for the sole purpose of throttling these folks before they make those dire statements come true. But you have other ideas.....blame it on the past.......yeah that is good blame the future on the past.......cool you are a genius

Finally, when Bush gets the markets back to zero loss from his first day, he will deserve credit as being 10% less than average.

"Let Freedom Ring, the Eagle Soars"