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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (180960)	1/19/2004 1:44:10 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574199

Z, let's be honest here. The vast majority of Bush's tax cuts did indeed go to the "rich," but that's only because the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes. For the anti-Bush activists to call Bush's statement the "trillion-dollar lie" is stupid, as if Bush merely threw away that much money toward some sort of Enron. The truth is that Bush's tax cuts have helped to restimulate an economy whose bubble burst under Clinton's watch. I'd call that a smart trillion-dollar investment in the future, rather than a "trillion-dollar lie" from those who themselves want to buy votes with that very money. Ok...let's assume for a moment that we agreed on the effect of the tax cut on the economy (and let's assume that we could even say that the fed interest rate cuts for the last 2 years had nothing to do with the resurgence), and let's assume for a moment that we could overlook the fact that the economy has already been growing for several quarters even if by more modest proportions, what in the world justifies making these cuts permanent in the face of a fiscal crisis of gargantuan proportions upon which everyone agrees? Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (180960)	1/19/2004 1:55:46 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1574199

>Z, let's be honest here. The vast majority of Bush's tax cuts did indeed go to the "rich," but that's only because the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes. Oh, I agree... I just posted the quote 'cause it made me laugh :) -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (180960)	1/19/2004 4:43:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574199

For the anti-Bush activists to call Bush's statement the "trillion-dollar lie" is stupid, as if Bush merely threw away that much money toward some sort of Enron. The truth is that Bush's tax cuts have helped to restimulate an economy whose bubble burst under Clinton's watch. I'd call that a smart trillion-dollar investment in the future, rather than a "trillion-dollar lie" from those who themselves want to buy votes with that very money. There is absolutely no proof that Bush's tax cuts restimulated the economy. At best, the tax cuts kept the recession from getting much deeper. IT spending is what's leading the economy out of the recession. IT spending resumed once the product overhang from the last building boom was depleted. BTW that overhang came for overzealous CEOs like Bartlett and Chambers who thought the IT boom would go on forever. Please stop trying to blame Clinton for problems that he had no control over. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (180960)	1/20/2004 4:40:08 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574199

Tenchusatsu, RE: "Z, let's be honest here. The vast majority of Bush's tax cuts did indeed go to the "rich," but that's only because the "rich" pay the vast majority of taxes." The problem though, based upon math, is simply this: The rich person can experience accelerated growth, while the wage earning can't. For two reasons: a) investment growth generally is 10% - when was the last time median wage gain was 10% in this country? Talk about being stuck in the mud. Who ever runs Nasdaq, should be out there talking to people about this and getting more and more people into investments. b) Also, since the rich person's investment gains exceeds their living expenses, they can pile those gains back into the market for even more gains on top of gains - call this an acceleration of growth. Meanwhile, the wage earner's savings is so small compared to their living expenses. Note the distinction between growth (of investor) and savings (of wage earner) in the preceding sentences. Meaning they can't get over the fence and watch their growth accelerate. They are always stuck there, unless they have investments. The formula really boils down to this: Growth accelerates only when a portfolio's gain starts exceeding the living expense figure. This to me, is the biggest issue. And the solution is to get more wage earners into more and more investments, and to drive spending down to help reach the formula of accelerated growth. Regards, Amy J