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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamessmith who wrote (6395)	2/13/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20981

The reasons the Germans supported Hitler are complex but many historians feel that it was the shattered economy of the Germans that led to the rise in power of the Nazi party. World War I left the country in bad shape, the Weimar Republic was a disaster, and you think America at this time is at all similar to the Germany of the 30's? You denigrate the meaning of the Holocaust and the horror that the Nazi's put into motion, by mentioning the Nazis and Hitler in this context.

To: Jamessmith who wrote (6395)	2/13/1998 1:55:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 20981

James, People should be courteous to each other, I agree. Individual rights demand it -- unless you're Bill Clinton or Hillary. They have defaulted on their right to be believed, treated courteously, etc. FT

To: Jamessmith who wrote (6395)	2/14/1998 9:26:00 AM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

James, The reason that Germans supported Hitler because they did not protect each individual human decency and dignity equally. When they denied some people's decency and dignity, they had some excuses. I agree with you that Hitler did not protect individual rights, but I will attack your man Mr. Clinton on similar grounds. I hope it does not seem that I am picking on you, especially responding so long after your post, and I do respect your views. But as the Rev. Jesse Jackson says, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." The Germans supported Hitler for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that he was a charismatic leader and aptly titled Fhrer, which (for non-Germanophones) means literally "leader". More importantly he "led" the citizens, poor and despondent, out of their economic depression and made them feel good about themselves again. He needed a scapegoat to clinch his power game, and this led to the horrors we know of and must never forget. I will now get to my point and make the Clinton connection. Hitler was able to commit his atrocities against the Jews for a number of reasons, but my point is that he was able to circumvent the German Constitution without complaint from the populace, because the only people affected by this unconstitutional miscarriage were a hated minority, the Jews. Now Mr. Clinton got away with a similar and much less tragic miscarriage of the Constitution when he taxed "the rich" retroactively. (Disclaimer: Yep, I was one of them.) The Constitution states clearly that there will be no "ex post facto" law. For the Latin challenged, this means that you can't pass a law which takes effect in the past, or retroactively. But the tax bill, coming some nine months into the year, took effect in the previous January. So the "bad rich guys" who had been playing by the rules all year and paying their taxes found the rules changed three quarters of the way through. But the "rich" are a hated minority, so their squeals of "Unconstitutional!" went unheard or even mocked. I am aware that there will be no tear-soaked hankies after reading the above, but that is exactly my point. No one will come to the rescue of a hated minority (the high earners) who, surprisingly, do pay their "fair share". The wage earners in the top 10% pay more than 60% of all the federal income taxes collected. Here's what Mr. Clinton did: Arriving in Washington, he got out his pen and said, "Now let me start spending some money." His advisers, however told him that the deficit was nearing critical mass, and if he continued to spend printed money, the "bond vigilantes" would wreak havoc in the credit markets, the interest rates would skyrocket, and, most importantly, he would be a one-term president. He was quoted as expressing disbelief that a bunch of "f...ing bond traders" could interfere with his liberal spending ideas. So the new President was left with three choices: (1)Cut spending, (2) Tax every middle class family an extra 50 or 100 bucks, or (3)Tax the top 2% of wage earners $50,000 or $100,000 or more. Since cutting spending was unthinkable, he had to choose between making 90% of the people mad at him for their $100 tax increase, or make 2% of the people mad at him for their $50,000 or more tax increase. My point is he could have achieved the same goal of deficit reduction in either of the two ways, with the same benefit to the country and the economy, but he chose the way which was best politically, even though it was both unfair and unconstitutional. This is not leadership. Sorry to belabor the point. Jack