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: American Spirit who wrote (193696)	7/8/2004 7:51:33 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573691

AS, Reverting to CLinton era taxes for the rich is not an increase, it's a rollback to the rate when we had our greatest prosperity, just 4 years ago. While we're "rolling back" to the tax rates of Clinton, why not also "roll back" our defense spending to the "peace dividend" times of Clinton? How about we "roll back" social spending to that time as well, given that the social spending part of the budget has never, ever gone down from year to year? Heck, let's also "roll back" the situation in Palestine to the time Clinton got Barak and Arafat close to a peace deal? And while we're at it, let's also "roll back" the Nasdaq to 5,000, just like where it was when Clinton's dot-com bubble was at its peak? That's all you've got, AS. A Clinton legacy that didn't last even in the final months of Clinton's own presidency. "Roll back" is a fantasy you're never going to sell to the public, except the gullible. Tenchusatsu

To: American Spirit who wrote (193696)	7/9/2004 7:55:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573691

Reverting to CLinton era taxes for the rich is not an increase, it's a rollback... "Rollback" to a higher rate equals an increase. It doesn't have to be the highest rate ever in order for it to be an increase. Furthermore, all honest conservatives now realize that the tax cuts are unsustainable and unfair. There unfair only in the sense of not being enough. The current tax rates are very sustainable, we had rates lower then this for most of our history. What is unsustainable is the spending spree that's been going on for a long time and which has been accelerated by Bush, and would probably be accelerated again by Kerry if he wins. (He's more in to raising taxes then cutting spending.) but the only things he {Bush} is willing to cut are veterans benefits During the Bush administration there has been one of the biggest increases in veterans benefits in a long time. "President Bush has provided record support for America's veterans. His 2004 budget earmarks $63.6 billion in veteran benefits. That includes a nearly 8 percent increase over fiscal 2003 in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs and a 32 percent increase in overall funding since fiscal 2001." townhall.com Tim