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

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (634042)	9/28/2004 2:38:43 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 769670

You may be aware of some portion of government spending that is not wasteful. From my experience it is not common. Private health insurers may have a higher overhead per capita, or not. Did you factor in the transfer cost to the providers for the extra bureaucracy that Medicare inflicts up them above the administrative cost of dealing with private insurance? Read this article: consumeraffairs.com here's an excerpt...but read the entire article: "At present, Medicare's overhead is less than 4 percent. But all of the new Medicare money * $400 billion - will flow through private insurance plans whose overhead averages 12 percent. So insurance companies will gain $36 billion from this bill. And the AARP stands to make billions from the 4 percent cut it receives from the policies sold to its members." ************************************************************* They gave away one square mile of land for each mile of track laid. It stimulated capitalists to find a way to make it happen. First thing to remember, is that the land, without the railroad was worth almost nothing. And the cost to the US of that land was...well they stole it from the indians...almost free except for the cost of the wars to steal it. Then again the government provided protection to the railroad for decades...who paid for that? ************************************************************* The internet was founded to facilitate the exchange of information between the military, academia and private contractors. It really took off when it was freed from government control. The internet was created by a combination of public and private funding. When in it's infancy it was not an internet. It was an intranet. Access to it was limited...but then if you're the government using the system for military purposes you want it that way. The internet was a parallel system that was never hindered by government...so your assertion that it was freed from the government is pure nonsense. The government and many businesses have their own intranets today...because they want a seperate and secure system. ********************************************************* Highly progressive tax is not the answer. You get inequities like the Heinz's showing much higher taxable income with much lower tax payments than President Bush's family. The Kerry's state (Taxachusetts) has much higher marginal rate than Texas. Any tax code in which all citizens do not pay some tax is going to destroy the country very rapidly. The non-taxpaying class wants free money. IT IS GIVING FREE MONEY TO PEOPLE. There has always been a certain poverty threshold under which the tax is zero. This threshold can be raised and lowered as seen fit by congress. But are we really talking about the need to tax a single mother making $4,000.00 a year? Even a flat tax system should have some ceiling for folks struggling to make ends meet in an economy where jobs are leaving the country and wages are going down while inflation and expenses are going up. Comparing Bush and Kerry's tax returns on a percentage basis is not very useful, when you consider that much of the Kerry-Heinz money is invested in tax free municipal bonds. Here the rate of return is much lower that most typical investment instruments. In return the tax rate is lowered. A side benefit is that these instruments allow cities and states borrow money at low rates which in turn benefits tax payers. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage gain on investments in the Bush family is much higher than the Kerry Family too. Government can be efficient. There's no excuse for it not to be. That's why we have to hold the controlling party's "spendthrift put it on the credit card" ways in contempt. Orca