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: Don Hurst who wrote (607025)	4/7/2011 3:38:58 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1579908

"Look what you did to the country's energy policy over the last 30 years when Reagan took the solar panels off the WH" they were re-roofing the white house and the panels were pieces of shit that were falling apart and produce squat. Reagan save the tax payers by not putting them back up, something dems don't care about

To: Don Hurst who wrote (607025)	4/11/2011 12:32:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1579908

when Reagan took the solar panels off the WH and effectively stopped all of our country's alternate energy efforts Even if solar, is now, and was then a more sensible idea as a major source of energy then it really is/was, the panels on the WH would be pretty meaningless. As for effectively stopping all alternative energy efforts. 1 - False. Didn't happen. 2 - To the extent federal support was noticeably reduced, that's largely a good thing. It means we wasted less money. a RIGHT to, yes, a Right to You can pass a law calling anything "a right" and I guess its a legal right, but you can't have a natural right to have something done for you, to demand the work of others for your benefit. Your real rights are only to not have something bad done to you. For example you have freedom of speech, we have constitutional protection for our right to speak, and even more broadly to communicate in other ways, and if we didn't have the protection, heavy handed government censorship would still be a violation of our right (the constitution protects it but did not create it). But we don't have a right to demand (and enforce the demand) that other people give us a forum. The New York Times doesn't have to give us a page to express our opinion, the major networks don't have to break in to scheduled program because we feel like communicating to the country. To the extent we have a right to health care its a right to not have others forcibly keep us from getting treatment. , what did you do...give tax cuts to the rich To almost all taxpayers. Sure in dollar terms the rich had a larger cut, but that's because they pay the most taxes. In terms of the reduction in federal taxes as a percentage of federal taxes previously paid the rich did not get the largest cut. call the Estate Tax...the death tax An appropriate name. your solution is SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT No, my solution is to shrink the government. The shutdown didn't happen, and if it had it wouldn't have been a real shutdown anyway as a huge chunk of the government would have continued. and bust up the Unions I don't want to bust private sector unions, I just don't think they should get the special favors they get. You want to join a union fine, but no one should be required to join as a condition for work. Also public sector unions are problematic, since the unions often have a huge effect on who is supposed to be the other side in the negotiation, and because governments don't have the same type of competition that private sector companies have, if the union demands too much, a company can fail, that provides a check on unions going to far (or at least it did before all the bailouts). that are largely responsible for creating this country's Middle Class Unsupported, and probably false. privatize (give it to Wall Street so they can create CDS's) Social Security A doubly false claim. Privatize\ing Social Security would mean it wasn't a government program, it wouldn't be Social Security, it would just be people investing for themselves.. Essentially no one of any political prominence is proposing elimination of the program. Allowing some of the money to go to actual investments (rather than government IOUs to itself which have no real value since the government is both the "creditor" and the "debtor") would be a good thing, but it would not be privatizing. The other reason its false is I'm sure this money would not be allowed to be put in Credit Default Swaps. Also its not really an idea that anyone's really pushing now. The main thrust seems to be controlling government spending, and while a program allowing some private investment of money that would have gone in to government self-IOUs might be useful, it doesn't, at least not directly, reduce government spending. Instead you advocate more socialism, more out of control spending, and more harmful high tax rates.