SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes
Discussion Thread
An SI Board Since May 2008
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
3816 14 0
Emcee:  one_less Type:  Moderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
2716in two months we have seen the potential cost of the bailout raise to 3 billion c.hinton-11/11/2008
2715I must say i find it highly unrealistic on the part of some to think that cuttinc.hinton-11/11/2008
2714oec...do you even know what aggragate demand is in relation to inflation? en.wikc.hinton-11/10/2008
2713<i>"you raise taxes to choke off inflation ....when inflation is out Oeconomicus111/10/2008
2712yes they were in place before th 50s and the republican president eisenhower lefc.hinton-11/10/2008
2711 The 50s had a lot of wealth redistribution programs, and tax set ups, but mostTimF-11/10/2008
2710going back to your original post ....... "Eisenhower and Reagan worked becac.hinton-11/10/2008
2709<I> but its still the wrongest time to balance the budget </i> ThTimF-11/10/2008
2708fine but its still the wrongest time to balance the budget...unless you want a tc.hinton-11/10/2008
2707<I> tim i never said the 30s were good to the rich </i> But you dTimF-11/10/2008
2706tim i never said the 30s were good to the rich...they took huge looses in the mac.hinton-11/10/2008
2705Thats OK with me...but get ready for a tax hike to stave off a budget and dollarc.hinton-11/10/2008
2704<I> and to get back to the 20 vs the 50s try this </i> Your tryinTimF-11/10/2008
2703 I didn't change it because the blogger's second proposal doesn't pTimF-11/10/2008
2702and to get back to the 20 vs the 50s try this....if 1924 saw the rich having a 2c.hinton-11/10/2008
2701that still does not explain why you posted it and i dont recall you changing thec.hinton-11/10/2008
2700 No "IT" isn't based on, about, or related to a head tax, or any TimF-11/10/2008
2699<I> i did not see any change that would disqualify it as a head tax... <TimF-11/10/2008
2698but is still based on a head tax which will penalize poor middle class familiesc.hinton-11/10/2008
2697i did not see any change that would disqualify it as a head tax... and its yourc.hinton-11/10/2008
2696good observation(sarcasm)c.hinton-11/10/2008
2695 The SI post is mine, quoting a blog post by someone else, where he talks aboutTimF-11/10/2008
2694Tim you still have not posted anything to support your argument other than the wc.hinton-11/10/2008
2693 Statements about the present aren't statements about the future. Even iTimF-11/10/2008
2692sure!c.hinton-11/10/2008
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News