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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (447777)	8/25/2003 7:42:37 PM
From: Wayners	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Both parties have a problem with fiscal discipline. Balanced Budget Amendments don't have a prayer. I read an interesting article regarding when the fiscal discipline started to go out the window in the late 1800s. The way budgets used to be put together way back when were centralized and they made sure that the numbers added up without a deficit. Starting in the late 1800s, appropriations were decentralized among a dozen committees that didn't have a clue as to what the total budget would be when you added up the appropriations from all the committees. And each committee wasnt and still isnt held to a number. By the way, I never saw the Democrats propose an increase in the Capital Gains Tax from 28%. Remember the truely rich in this country do not work jobs, or if they do work jobs their income from them is miniscule compared to their investments and capital gains and dividends. No instead the 1994 Clinton tax didn't lable these people rich, instead he hoodwinked the ignorant who dont know what capital gains even are. The ignorant believed the rich work jobs and that 100,000 a year sounds rich to them so they were all in favor of dramatically raising the taxes on dentists and some upper level managers thinking those dirty rich people arent paying their fair share. That made me very very angry. I'm all in favor of raising taxes on the real rich, not this hogwosh 100,000 a year in ordinairy income BS.

To: American Spirit who wrote (447777)	8/26/2003 6:10:06 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

All I can say is we are not "rich" in fact since I retired we may even be LESS then average at least for around here but I estimate our tax savings on our joint return will be around $2,000 so I dont know where you get your figures. The problem with Democrat politicians they feel AMERICANS making 70k are rich, EXCEPT FOR THEMSELVES of course. Anyone happen to notice Huffington pays practically NO INCOME TAX to neither the USA or California, whereas The Terminator payed something like 4 1/2 MIllion yet it is SHE claiming the rich get a break. HMMM. JDN