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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stevenallen who wrote (268664)	11/25/2003 2:03:35 AM
From: j-at-home	Respond to of 436258

yes

To: stevenallen who wrote (268664)	11/25/2003 2:16:03 AM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (8) \| Respond to of 436258

I just can't understand why so many people think that this administration has their best interests at heart. Are people really foolish enough to believe that, when Bush hands you a check for $400, you're really better off? Sure, he gave you a check for $400, but he gave the wealthy elites checks 100x that and more. Which would be AOK if we had a reasonably balanced budget, but we're not even close. So, he hands you a check for four hundred dollars with one hand, while sticking you with a four THOUSAND dollar liability in the form of budget defecits. People are just too tuned out to notice, and we need to fix that. There are no free lunches, period - it all comes at a cost. I don't understand why we should be reducing the burden on our wealthy at this time. I used to believe in supply side economics. They work fine, when your economy is supply-limited. At present we have the opposite situation, indicated by the deflationary forces at work: we are demand-limited. Aggregate demand is not capable of keeping pace with supply. We don't need policies encouraging more supply; we need policies encouraging sustainable demand. Not that I think supply-side even works any more. It used to be that the majority of a tax incentive for suppliers would be put to work investing in productive capacity in the US, meaning jobs and productivity here. Today, tax credits handed to corporate America are far more likely to flow straight out of the government coffers, out of America's borders, right into China or another foreign land. Why should we rack up deficits so that corporations can build up productive capacity and add jobs elsewhere? It just doesn't make sense. We need to think long and hard about our priorities, where our money is coming from, and where it's going to. If we're going to fund overseas investments by running federal red ink, does it really make sense for it to be invested in making more consumer items, or should we think about supporting foreign infrastructure and education? I'm not necessarily advocating this, but if we're going to continue this policy, we should at least get it into the public debate for review. Leading up to this next election, it is especially critical to get people to listen, to talk, and particularly, to think. We need to turn off the junk food news for a few weeks and, as hard as it might seem, think about what we want for the future of our country and our planet. BC