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 (127012)	7/23/2005 10:27:29 AM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Those that favor war, should at least step up and volunteer to pay more to set example. I will call your bet and raise you. "All" those that insist they be protected from terrorists today and in the future should pay for the protection. Either in dollars or in service to this country.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (127012)	7/23/2005 11:50:36 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793717

Sounds good until you consider only a fraction of the new spending is on the war. Maybe we should sacrifice the new drug benefits for the war effort.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (127012)	7/23/2005 1:52:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793717

But raising taxes during war time to pay for the war also makes sense. Why? The US economy took a tremendous hit on 9/11. Surely you remember what happened to the stock market. Would it make sense to tax people who just had their stock portfolio crater? Make them sell their depreciated stock? No, that's insane. And there was a ripple effect into the rest of the economy. Remember? People were losing their jobs. So you have the choice -- raise taxes and employers will have to fire employees in order to pay taxes. Or cut taxes and they can hire people, give them jobs. The choice is obvious.