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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2168)	10/14/2003 6:12:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

"True but its the biggest one." No, it isn't. Nearly a third of the deficit next year is due to Bush's spending in Iraq. "Nearly a third" means less then a third. Also the budget has swung from a surplus to a deficit. "Nearly a third" of the deficit amount is most certainly less then a third of the total swing. What is your point to getting ridiculous? A significant portion of next year's deficit will be the Iraq war. In the face of that reality, to mince words is silly. I never thought I would post this statement but the American rich need to pay more.........they are getting off too easily They are paying almost all the tax burden, and thats a burden that is much higher then it has been throughout most of our history. How much would it take for them to not be "getting off to easily"? More.....until they scream bloody murder. Then we'll know we are taxing them fairly. ted I need look no further than the Hilton legacy, Nicky and Paris, or the Bush daughters to know that they don't deserve to have so much money. They are an abomination/parasites on the land. Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think about them... There should be a cap on inherited $$$ with the rest going into the national treasury. Not only is the idea that the money should be the governments to take for any reason it thinks worthwhile objectionable even vile, there is also the simple fact that such a cap will not do anything in the cases you mention. Unless the cap is so low as to be truly confiscatory, you will still have indolent or wild and partying rich young people who never earned any money themselves. Tim