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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (86243)	3/25/2003 5:22:59 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Senate Cuts Bush Tax Package to $350B By ALAN FRAM The Associated Press Tuesday, March 25, 2003; 2:47 PM washingtonpost.com The Senate unexpectedly reversed itself Tuesday, voting to slash more than half of President Bush's proposed $726 billion tax cut and dealing a blow to the keystone of his economic recovery plan. A week after refusing to do so, senators voted 51-48 to reduce the tax reduction's price tag to $350 billion through 2013. Bush has said his plan - which would eliminate taxes on corporate dividends and reduce income taxes - is needed to create jobs, boost investment and spur the slumbering economy. Just Friday, the Senate voted 62-38 to reject a similar move to pare Bush's tax plan in half. That plan would have taken the additional money Bush wanted for tax cuts and used it for deficit reduction. Both moderate Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and deficit hawk Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., had voted against making the tax cut smaller on that day. But both voted Tuesday to shrink the size of the proposed tax cut. Tuesday's successful amendment was slightly different, saying it would take some funds that Bush wanted to use for the tax cut and use that money to either to overhaul Social Security or put toward deficit reduction.

To: Ilaine who wrote (86243)	3/25/2003 5:56:12 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<the facts we know are not sufficient to support the conclusion that our people beat them to death, but some people like to jump to conclusions> Have I ever stated that a U.S. soldier killed the prisoners? The few facts that have come out, said that: 1. they were prisoners under our control 2. they were beaten to death by blunt trauma. Now, according to the rules used in the Nurenburg trials, and according to the Geneva Conventions (that is, our rules, according to treaties we have signed), it makes no difference, none at all, whether it was done by a U.S. soldier or not. What happened to those prisoners was our responsibility, and their deaths means blood on our hands. Once they were in our hands, we are responsible for them. Period. No excuses. No exceptions. And the excuse that it might have been our proxies who did it, so we are blameless, is exactly what Sharon said after Sabra.