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 : PRES GEORGE BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (759)	4/5/2004 6:13:16 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 944

I would rather have a surplus than a deficit. Beyond deficit there's always the national debt. We should pay it off so that we don't have to spend the money to pay interest. Inflation will rear its ugly head again. Remember, these are the lowest rates in 40 years and, unless the economy absolutely tanks, are more likely to go up than down. We are not fighting WWII. We are not fighting other industrialized nations. We are not even having major combat with a country 1/10th our size. We are not protecting ourselves from aggression. You're equating government spending and investing with trickle down bs. Apply it directly. So, you think we're in recession? I still don't get your position on deficits. Yes we've had them before and we're still in one piece but why are they good? If they're good, then why don't we have deficits all the time and make them as big as possible? The tax cuts are completely misleading. Local and state governments have shortfalls and raise property taxes, fees, etc. We get nickled and dimed to death so we end up paying anyway. The super rich, on the other hand, can get nickled and dimed to death but they make tens of thousands so the nickles and dimes don't hurt. Was there really a tax cut for most Americans? Remember, the AMT kicks in as well and wipes out a huge chunk. When all is said and done, are the great majority of Americans actually paying MORE in taxes one way or another? "...By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers. Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005. In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation...." ctj.org