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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157724)	6/5/2003 10:30:39 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Like I said to one of the other mantra chanters, that's been flushed already, but if you insist... as you know, the dividend and cap gains tax cuts amount to less than 8% of the estimated 2003 tax savings, $8 billion out of $109 billion. This "giveaway to the super wealthy" that you eagerly lapped up from Buffett's spoon is a very small part of a tax package designed to put money into the pockets of nearly a hundred million taxpayers, the vast majority of whom are very middle class. nope, you can't just disregard 90% of the tax cut, rd, that is DISHONEST. well, you can choose to be DISHONEST, but i'll point out that isn't a valid way to approach the issue. try again, and be HONEST next time. please make a cogent argument as to why trickle up is better than trickle down. or are you just repeating stuff that came off a spoon? i made up trickle up myself, so nobody could've spoon fed that to me. ironicly, i spoon fed the spoon fed idea to you. stop eating so much! -lol- Please ask a cogent question... or are you just repeating stuff that came off your porch floor? oh, i can make just such an argument and, in fact, have already - right on this thread. you p[robably didn't understand it, though! -lol- that wasn't the point of my question, though. the point was to give you an opportunioty to show you understood what you alledged - that trickle down was good and trickle up was bad. you alledged it, i asked for a thought process to back it up and you showed us nothing. therefore, i'm left with the idea you really can't explain it. i already know you can insult - even if you steal mine and misapply it. i already know you can spin and try to control the direction of the argument b/c you can't address THE WHOLE TRUTH. what i don't know is whether you can explain why you believe trickle down is superior to trickle up. you had nothing to give in this regard. is that b/c nothing is there?