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 : John McCain for President -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4739)	10/22/2008 10:17:44 PM
From: Nicholas Thompson	Respond to of 6579

right on

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4739)	10/22/2008 10:33:57 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

Ok. That seems evasive of the reality that your previous comments agreed with Bush on the principle of Deficit spending and no tax hikes in general, even as you decried that Bush has done that very thing. Obama wants to increase taxes on some folks, you on just oil companies for now, others later. Well, ok then, maybe you don't agree with Bush on the specifics, just the generality (well I admit, you are saying it's all in the timing and the like, and hence you still don't actually agree with Bush, even if from my perspective it can seem that way sometimes, as above). Well, really, you've posted in a very consistent manner here then. You've sorta said more taxation is bad, but will be good in its proper place, with each post. You have yet to address what I said about the consequence of changing the portion of the pie spent by government vs the portion spent by the rest of us, other than to basically seem to agree with me that more taxes are a drag on our economy. So again, in so many words, I just feel you are willingly playing both sides of the my little fence, and don't really therefore agree with what I'm saying about the significance of where the pie is cut. Ok, I think I've definitely got that straight. Hey, yours is a point of view. I'd much rather you and the rest of us be concerned with where that pie is cut, first and foremost. Dan B

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4739)	10/22/2008 11:14:53 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6579

See, it's like this. When you say "we decided to spend hundreds of billions on wars. That should have been financed with increased taxes. However, if you want to guarantee that we go into the severest of recession, increase taxes right now," I think "what if we'd financed that with increased taxes? Wouldn't that have taken oodles of money out of our pockets and caused a "recession" effect, just sooner?" Well, it might have prevented Bush from having any economic rebound during his time to point lovingly at. I do still recall that the QQQ fell 72% between its peak in 2000 to the day Bush was sworn-in in Jan. 2001. Yup, had taxation gone up immediately after 911 to pay for our war(s) (yup, surely a stand-up thought which seems proper and reasonable to me indeed), Bush truly might never have had a recovery to point to at all. I'd say we might be overall better off for it, too (despite appearances), but I really don't think so because I think war is a drag on the economy period. Spending human time and efforts on war stuff just inflates the value of useful stuff to us commoners, and economically hurts us. That's just common sense. But given the state of the markets when Bush took his first oath, it's easy perhaps for you to understand why he felt somewhat the same way after 911 about taxes that you do, if more temporarily, now. I don't give nearly so much a hoot about these small potatoes timing issues when I know we were bound to pay eventually. So I repeat, it's where the pie is cut that makes the real impact on improving our path. If the government cuts a larger piece for war (or just general other purposes for that matter), it can only hurt economically, no matter if you finance it or pay for it right away(discounting of course that war might save our warm asses, which would be a reason to suffer for the sake of war, of course, if sadly). Dan B