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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (155308)	11/26/2002 10:06:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1579382

many blacks were the beneficiaries of the Clinton economic expansion during the 90's I didn't know that so many blacks benefited from fiction. Come to think of it wasn't that one of Reagan's more ridiculous solutions to our problems........he cut off aid to institutions and hospitals. That was mostly state cut backs. Reagan talked a lot about cutting budgets but did little to actually cut them. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (155308)	11/26/2002 11:39:48 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579382

Ted, Of course, the rich would say that this system is unfair. Its unbelievable to me.....you want people making 20k a year to pay the same proportion of taxes as the guy making 250k per year while simultaneously paying all their own expenses including health insurance. I guess your point is that the people making 20K would not be able to afford it, so they wouldn't stand for it. Basically, that's the point. If people knew how expensive the government is, they would revolt, and cut it down to smaller size, one that they could afford. But most people don't know how expensive the government is, since most people are not paying government's bills. So the government keeps growing. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (155308)	11/27/2002 11:02:47 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579382

Ted Re...Of course, the rich would say that this system is unfair. Its unbelievable to me.....you want people making 20k a year to pay the same proportion of taxes as the guy making 250k per year while simultaneously paying all their own expenses including health insurance. That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. No one, even the most ardent republican suggested that a person making 20k should pay as much as a person making 200 k. Right now, a person making under the minimum for a family 4 pays zero in income taxes. So of course, any tax cut would give a rich person a far bigger percentage. The dems problem is that most people realise this, and so far have refused to fall for that line. Secondly, it is apparent the dems want to keep the taxes high on the rich so the dems can afford to re-instate welfare programs for the poor; the very same programs Bill cut, and actually weren't missed. Also, if the dems wanted another welfare program, why not just pass a bill to re-instate some programs for the poor,and pass a bill to raise taxes to pay for it. The dems had a majority in the senate. If the dems were so sincere, and so sure it is the right thing to do; Why the misrepresentation? Because a majority of people agreed with cutting back on welfare, even a lot of the previous recepients would agree they were better off. The dems had no chance in hell of passing another welfare program and the taxes to pay for it. Another misrepresentation was Daschle's insistence that making the tax cut permanent was another new tax cut, and wasn't just a continuation of the old tax cut. Technically he might have been right, but it sounded like it was a continuation, and everybody assumed he was lying again. Well, go for it but don't be surprised when our homeless population increases dramatically. Come to think of it wasn't that one of Reagan's more ridiculous solutions to our problems........he cut off aid to institutions and hospitals. The result was the release of thousands of patients, increasing our crime rate and doubling our homeless population almost over nite. Another major representation. The simple fact is that the ACLU, that famous bastion of liberalism, forced the release of thousands of people by filing suit against those institutions for holding people against their will. The supreme court agreed with the ACLU because the laws in place gave a person the right to deny treatment; and a lot of the mentally deficient did not agree to be institutionalized. Once again, the dems controlled the house and senate at that time, and could easily have passed a law making it legal to institutionalize people against their will. As usual, the dems didn't have the panache to do so, and would rather throw rocks, than actually do what was right.