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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (23499)	11/11/2003 7:08:11 PM
From: Ron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Soros: Bush Must Go Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President By Laura Blumenfeld Washington Post Staff Writer NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush. "It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death." Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush. Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money." "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is." Soros believes that a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent. Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. washingtonpost.com

To: MSI who wrote (23499)	12/13/2003 3:47:08 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

A nobel economist just stated on the Charlie Rose show (tivo'd from last night) that the entire tax-cut benefit to the economy was from the lower-income cuts not in the original bill, but pushed for by Dems. The idea is that upper tax bracket folks are well-off which means by defninition they don't need to spend the marginal increase. Depends on where lower-income "bar" is. I think it's a fair statment that lower-income persons pay very little in personal income tax. [Don't look at marginal rates but what the actual tax rate is.] But I would agree that it's a consumer driven economy and in that sense, if you're going to give tax breaks it will stimulate the economy more by distributing the tax break over a larger group of people [who spend] than giving it to a smaller percentage of people that won't be spending. Where I disagree is that our tax rates are a bargain, but only because I'm convinced gov't is 2X too large, could be providing better social-net benefits at 1/2 the price with a privatized medical system under the Swiss model, and would make the US safer with conscription and 1/2 the budget. Precision without accuracy. Neither you or I [or anyone else] has any idea what the correct size of the federal government should be. I would expect that there are a number of health care systems that would be great improvement over what the US currently practices. Every industrialized country has a national health care system with the exception of the US and you'll find that on the average the per capita expenditure on health care is lower in those countries than it is in the US. There is an aspect of health care systems within those countries that is overlooked. For example, England has a national health care system that is publicly funded and it has a private health care system that complements it. I don't particularly see anything wrong with that model. To some extent, the US has a mixed health care system. We have Medicare, Medicaid, and private health care insurance....there are just 43 million people that are completely left out of any health care coverage. Right as rain ... but concealed from any GOP discussion, since it puts the lie to their real agenda, which is to centralize power, loot the treasury, and blame the results on anyone not in on the game. And they seem to be quite successful at it. I just learned that under the medicare prescription program, the elderly don't get benefits until 1996, but the drug companies get some payed before that....what a deal. jttmab