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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (75720)	10/8/2004 10:04:55 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

Only a socialist or a child would believe that any President has much effect on the economy. Seriously. You're an adult. You post on an investment website. Explain to me what, exactly, Clinton or Rubin did to give us a good economy. Then tell me what, exactly, Bush did to give us a bad economy. While you're at it, please explain how a 5.4% unemployment rate and a Dow over 10K are indicators of a bad economy. I am all ears.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (75720)	10/8/2004 1:50:33 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793917

OH Heavens..... Giving huge tax breaks (especially during times like these) to the enormously wealthy is not a smart thing to do. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Larry Ellison and many of the other wealthiest people in the nation all say they do not need the tax cuts. They are worried about the economy. Basically, for them, what is good for the country is also good for them. Of course they don't need tax breaks...this country and its capitalist system allowed them to invest, innovate and start or work for companies that enabled them to accuire that great wealth. (Gates, for instance, developed and grew MSFT during the Reagan admin.) What is good for the country is allowing individuals the same opportunity they had. What Kerry....and these hugely wealthy blowhards won't discuss.......is that by taxing the over 900,000 small business's in this country even more than they already are will effectively destroy the ability of average people to find a job, small buisiness's to grow their business, hire people, outsource their work by hiring subs that hire people and so on and so on. Therefore, it is a lie if they say they want what is best for their country. If they wanted what is best for their country they would encourage less taxation on the working man and small businessmen that drive a great portion of our economy. Increasing their tax burden will push more of them OUT of business, which will not only leave them with fewer choices, but most importantly will put their employees out of work and into the unemployment lines along with the people who work for the subcontractors, that work for their subcontractors, and so on and so on. It is lower taxes that encourage investment and opportunity.....not more. BTW: Leaving aside the recession that Bush inherited from the Clinton administration, the Internet bubble crash and the attack on our economy on 9/11 (that liberals conveniently forget) Bush has done an incredible job considering. Bush has an MBA, so I'd say he does have a tish of knowledge about economics. And why you think Paul O'Neil is the economic guru that should have the last word is beyond me......he flunked when it came to sorting out the complexities of the above mentioned situation and was given the boot. Bush and O'Neil had philisophical differences about which path our economy should follow. That is allowed in every administration. M