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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (13778)	9/21/2003 12:49:35 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Until you learn the fundamentals of basic economics a serious discussion on the subject is impossible. Spouting slogans from national socialist literature, or a recent party meeting, is not a substitute for critical thought. You truly believe savings come from deficit spending by the federal government. I understand that. It's simply not correct.

To: GraceZ who wrote (13778)	9/23/2003 2:00:08 AM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

"but you don't question the wisdom of giving earned income credits to 40 million Americans (in some cases giving them a negative tax rate) because they have children they can't fully support. Years from now people will shake their heads and wonder what we were thinking when we provided monetary rewards to poor people encouraging them to have more children when they couldn't afford to feed the ones they have." Why do you think that there is any connection between the obscure taxline "earned income credit" and the rate of reproduction in certain categories of population? People see this taxline once a year, and most of them have no foggiest clue as what does it mean. Yet the act of potential reproduction happens how many times a year, what do you think? And every time the "earned income credit" line flashes in their sweaty brains as an encouragement? "...as opposed to having them be forced to struggle through night school in the hopes of learning a better profession so they can support their children without government subsidies?" Better profession? You can't get a better profession for everyone. A society has a spectrum of professions, and what people already do is struggling to re-distribute themselves across this spectrum and fill all positions. All you can do is to maintain a reasonable balance and maintain stability. If you force people to struggle too much, they may elect to take the wealth from you, by force. I don't think you want this to happen to you. - Ali