Thank You, GW!

[crabbait]

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you so much for proposing to abolish all tax on stock dividend income! It is about time that the few of us who managed to sock away a few hundred thousand stop having to pay for those slackers who work for an hourly wage! If God wanted them to get ahead they would have been born with a little nest egg!

I think it was a stroke of genius to pass this off as a stimulus package to help the out of work slobs. Thanks to you, I have been able to invest in nothing but blue chips at 30% of their worth and now I won't have to pay a dime when they inevitably rise.

How we keep the least educated lowest earners voting for the Grand Old Party is beyond me but don't stop now! And to think we ran Clinton 's name into the mud for messing with an intern! Ha, Ha, Ha! Little did they know that we intended to do it to the whole dang country and they are still begging for it!

Keep rattling the saber and saluting the flag and we will have them all living in trailers and driving '85 Chev trucks while we are cruising in the best wheels Germany ever made, sipping France's best vintage and gorging on Russia's finest caviar!

Carry on, George. You are a true Patriot!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

:grin: [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] :grin:

[RvW]

The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

Didnt we (the people) have control of this country once?

Stimulus my arse!

Could I have my shares of Charter, and Worldcom, and ADC and Lucent and Sun Microsystems and QWest "stimulated" PLEEEEZE!?

Finacial stability is a just a crappshoot away..

Uhh, GW? shouldnt there be TWO dice for everyone?

[ 01-06-2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Boedy]

I love how you Left wing types keep blaming the economy on Bush. Truth be told it was going in the tank before he took over and he is just getting the blame for the policys of Clinton that have came back to bite us in the arse.

Bill lied to us all about it and got cought thats why his name got run through the Mud

[RvW]

Oh how Ronald reagan would love to hear that Boedy.

Clintons admin did a hell of a job if you look at the numbers. But what goes up must come down.

I wont blame GW for the problems he inherited, but many of them had little to do with Clintons reign....I have to wonder whos dat under GWs desk with this recent tax cut which favors only the wealthy?

[ 01-06-2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

[Boedy]

.Bill Clinton inherited the economy from the 1st Bush on the rise as well.

So what did Bill do that GW hasn’t done that made the economy go up or down?

What is GW changing that Bill put in place to make the economy run away like he did?

How is it GW fault that the economy was so over inflated and held up by the corrupted business like Enron and WorldCom types that it couldn’t hold.

Those happened with good old Bill at the helm and GW gets the fallout when they collapse.

Democrats are hoping that the war goes badly and the economy stays in the tank so they can blame it on GW.

They have no answers to the question of the economy ether they are just using it to throw mud at GW because they got the ***** kicked in the last election and they know more and more people see that the Democrats are all about spin control and not facing up to the real issues before the country.

Show me how Clinton’s policies are or were better then GW please and show me how its GW fault that the economy collapsed a month before he took office.

[Silver Hilton]

I think everyone has missed the point of the dividend tax reduction. It's certainly true that this will primarily benefit the wealthy. However, looking at it a different way, of those who own stock, who owns dividend bearing stocks? Answer, older, retired folks. This is also, and maybe more so, a benefit to the elderly. The folks who own a lot of stock prefer to make 20% in stock share price growth, rather than 2% in a dividend. Paying dividends suppresses the price of a stock.

I trade stocks for a living. This doesn't help me a bit. All the traders are rolling their eyes, while America gets all excited about something which will make absolutely NO difference to the economy. There has been a slight rotation this week from small cap stocks to large cap dividend stocks, which moves money from the growing section of our economy to the languishing section.

Business Week, that hotbed of liberal idealism, accurately notes that this change can be counted on to have a negligable stimulative effect. The actual change in income to individuals will be less than 30 billion a year in a 10 trillion dollar economy.

Iinvestors Business Daily, another Communist front, notes that the tax on dividends actually encourages companies to pay dividends, and TO NOT invest the money in the company, causing greater growth in the long term.

So, George Bush is arguably,

a) increasing the deficit
b) pandering to the elderly
c) stunting the economic growth of our country, and
d) dragging down the stock market, on which many of our retirements and livlihoods depend.

I didn't see the press announcement, when did he turn Democrat?

[ 01-06-2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[STGRule]

Can anybody say "Trickle Down Economy"??? Doncha know it works so well?

[Silver Hilton]

Oh, and to be a giver, may I suggest that you all look at

BSTE
EASI
BVF
GRMN
ESPD
TARO
FWHT

None of which pay a dividend, all of which have a good growth story, and all of which are doing fine despite GW's economic 'help'

[TheRogue]

The economy, now more than ever, is about PERCEPTION!! Just like for years, we had the perception that everything was hunky-dory. I mean, really, how in the world could Amazon.com trade for almost $300/share?? :whazzup: :whazzup:

Now, we have the exact same problem, only in the opposite direction. We're hoarding money, pulling out of the stock market, buying bonds, because of the PERCEPTION that things are going to hell!!

Clinton was the best there ever was in playing the nation's perception...hence, he gets the credit. GW, on the other hand, comes across as a dunce who could care less about what's going on domestically.....the worse thing that he could do for this country's perception of his administration.

I definitely don't agree with the huge tax cuts....you look at the military expansions that are coming, and the fact that Congress will NOT allow their programs and pork to go away...the Reagan-era deficits are going to be chump change compared to what's going to happen.

Wanna kick start the economy?? Declare a hiatus from personal federal income taxes for 2 years for all PEOPLE (not corporations) making $300,000 or less per year. Then, phase the current rates back in over, let's say, 5 years. I can guarantee you this would be a huge boost....us "normal" people would buy more, which in turn creates demand, which in turn creates jobs.

Giving a huge tax cut to the wealthy individuals and large corporation only lines the pockets of these people, a study I read recently (I'll try to find it) said something like this: Millionaires will rat-hole a large % (based on current income) of any "new" money that comes into their hands, while the "normal" person is much more likely to spend the same percentage of their income. That sounds much better to kick-start a flailing economy to me!

TR

[CATCH AND EAT]

Hey Steve, send that letter to GW. He will find it most entertaining.

Boedy, you are correct. Stay with what you are saying because it is right on.

Clinton left a scorched economy and we blame Bush for it. Maybe you should look at Clilnton and good ol Allen Greenspan. Greenspan is the true dingbat here. He could not control the Federal reserve and Clinton gave the man free reign while he hid in a closet with bubble head and Mr. Cigar.

They let the economy run wild and it burnt itself out. It will be years before it recovers.

I ask you this. So the rich benefit. Are'nt the rich the ones that provide the majority of the jobs in this world? Guess what? If they are not making money, factories close, business fails, unemployment soars and the economy tanks.

So re-title your letter and send it to Greenspan and Clinton. They started the "trickle down economics" that we are all enjoying right now.

Here's an idea. Send the letter to Al Gore and ask him how to fix this disasterous economy. His reply would be "I would take all of the economic information, put it in a little black box and hide it under my bed. That way, ideas would come to me in my sleep through ossmossis and I could share them with Tipper. She could ask Hilary and Hilary could ask Bill. Then Bill could go on TV and say I think I can invent a "economy.net"."

What a gas you guys are sometimes. Hey Steve, did WILL ROGERS ever meet a President he did'nt like?

[Gun Rod Bow]

Can't leave it alone,

Why do those on the left look to the government to help us?

What exactly can a president do to STIMULATE an economy?

Reducing taxes on dividend paying stocks may actually encourage people to invest for themselves. Explain why a person should work and save all their lives to provide for their family, not be a burden to their neighbor, leave something for their kids to have it taken away by an inheritance tax?

Taxation and redistribution of wealth does not help America, it only empowers the politicians that spoon it out.

I cannot imaging how the government will HELP us by taking tax money away from us, then giving it back as STIMULUS.

I heard the Nancy Pelosi talking about how the demos are gonna save the day with a stimulus :whazzup: :depressed: [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] Please don't!!

I love a do nothing congress. Please do nothing.

If you want a demonstartion of how little a president can actually do to effect an economy, please explain how Clinton stimulated us into prosperity.

American people make an economy. Keep them safe, put bad guys in jail (especially corporate raiders) and leave them alone. Everyone should have the opportunity to achieve. That's ALL!!! No one has the RIGHT to prosper. Talk to a recent immigrant and see how they love this system/country.

Think about it guys.

Peace

GRB

[Sea Nymph]

if i recall, the market tanked before clinton was out.

i'm out fishing in my 2000 model 18 footer pulling it with a 97' decked out Lariat. yeah, i'm really suffering from GW's economy. i'm also lookin' forward to that extra $1,100 dollars too! yes, my 401k is down. the reason i think that is... people are afraid to invest because of the likes of enron, martha stewart, wcom and other crooks.

the rich get richer and poor get poorer? gimme a break. 15 - 20% is 15 - 20% rich or poor. it's a free country. if you don't want to be poor, do something about it. (get a gov. loan and learn a skill - that's what i did) luckily in america you still can.

sn

[ 01-06-2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Sea Nymph ]

[boater]

the rich do provide the majority of the jobs but wouldnt they get richer if there was more working class people who could buy there products ? if i was a millionaire and ran a company selling golf balls and they were to expensive for the average worker to buy, how many more would i sell if i got a taxbreak, wouldnt i sell more if the average worker got a tax break so they could afford to buy them ?

[Silver Hilton]

Gun Rod Bow,

I don't look to the government to help us, I'd just like them to not hinder us. I include both Dems and Repubs in that statement - they have shown themselves of to be of equal levels of idiocy.

That government is best which governs least.

[ 01-06-2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[El Shaddai]

This is a long post, but you should understand the importance by the end.

It has become increasingly popular to classify certain actions by the government in such a way as to promote division and strife between people. In the case of tax cuts, people from the left almost always say they only benefit the rich and completely shaft the common guy.....in a nation that loves it soundbites and not real facts, public furor increases over such an "injustice." How can we possibly starve orphans and send more money Bill Gates' way?

Now, for a dose of reality please read the following example of how taxation really works.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18,
and the tenth man -- the richest would pay $59. That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a taxcut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six the paying customers? How could They divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided
by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12,
>leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man,then,
pointing to the tenth. "But he got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got
seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man," why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO
DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.Where would that leave
the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

This same logic could be apllied to chartering a fishing boat....so next time you hear that precious soundbite about tax cuts only benefiting the rich, please dig a little deeper for the facts.

[Boedy]

Great second post!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[The Fishing Geek]

Brilliant use of copy and paste, El Shaddai. Mind if I show how your analogy is apples and oranges?

In order for your flaky analogy to work we have to assume that the "restaurant owner" does not make a profit at what he does.

Okay, the owner of the restaurant is cutting his prices by 20%. Assuming that his costs have not gone down (you know, materials, property costs, staffing), in order for him to make up for this 1/5th reduction in income, he has to do one of two things:
</font>

1. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">He reduces his spending by 20%</font>
2. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">He takes out a loan to make up the difference</font>

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So, let's say he goes for #1 above. His landlord isn't going to take less money in rent so he either has to buy a lesser product, reduce his staff by 20%, or a mix of the two. Suddenly the food isn't as good as it was, and/or the service isn't nearly as good. In the restaurant scenerio this may just be enough of a change that the ten men decide to go elsewhere. The problem is...not all of them can go elsewhere.

Sure, the man who has been paying the most can go home and eat. Heck, he's got his own chef at home so he doesn't need to eat here.

The other two who were paying more than the cost of their meal (assuming that the restaurant was $10 a plate) could eat at home as well. Heck, they'll save money. They don't have their own chefs, but they'll still eat just fine.

The three men who have been paying less than $10 can go home and eat, but they won't have quite enough to eat. They'll go hungry most of the time, but not starve. Life won't be as good as it once was.

The four who have paid nothing? They don't have any food at home, or have so little that it's not enough to survive on. Therefore, they NEED to eat at the restaurant. Their other problem is that they NEED those folks who were paying the bill to still go to the restaurant to pay for their share, otherwise they won't eat. The only reason why they were able to eat before was due to the compassion of their fellow man. However, if the others go home then what are they going to do?

Moving to another town where the other restaurant is an option for the seven, but this is their home town and they are fiercely proud of it.

Oh yeah, there was option #2 where the owner borrows to make up the difference. However, from here on out he has to lower his expenses (not as much as his unaided cutbacks) to pay for the interest that he pays on the food. Over time, he has to borrow more and more to break even, and more and more of his money goes to paying interest. Eventually, he cannot stay in business as he cannot afford his materials NOR his staff.

Okay, if I missed some business theory in there please forgive me. However, I think that you may get the moral of the story if you were able to read between the lines. In a nutshell, for hundreds of years those who had more paid more into the system than what they consumed, partly because they were compassionate humans who knew that their community was a better place when those who could not support themselves did not starve, and partly because they knew that they were outnumbered, and if they didn't that they'd eventually find angry peasants outside their homes with torches and a bad attitude. Is it protection money? Only if you refuse to see the benefits of the first reason.

This wasn't copied from any Liberal manual, email, or whatnot. Probably obvious from the scatterbrained ideas. However, I feel that it gets my point across so there ya go.

[The Fishing Geek]

And with that, I'm going to bed. My head hurts. I think I sprained a brain cell.

[Boedy]

[ 01-06-2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[1pump]

Don't go to bed, Geek! Tell us another one! :grin:

[crabbait]

and that last guy still can't get his wad back in his pocket becuase he has 95% of ALL the money.

But, hey, I'm not complaining. I got mine and the Republicans are making my retirement years more profitable every day.

[Big TULE]

I really don't like any of the crooked people in the gov. but i listen to them and deal with it. I Love it when the republicans are in office, my pay sky rockets...

[RvW]

Unfortunately, the four guys who work for the tenth guy didnt make enough money to feed themselves, yet guy #10 wouldnt be in his position if guys 1-4 didnt work for him.

Seems to me four guys who pay nothing, get nothing over here in the real world.

[Kilgore]

Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
Clinton left a scorched economy and we blame Bush for it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Clinton created 22 million jobs, balanced the budget, created billions in surplus, reduced the spending, and had the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern history. Where the hell are you getting your facts? Perhaps you should get a copy of GAO’s report on exactly when the recession started.

Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
So re-title your letter and send it to Greenspan and Clinton. They started the "trickle down economics" that we are all enjoying right now.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You’re confusing Clinton with Reagan.

Originally posted by Gun Rod Bow:
Why do those on the left look to the government to help us?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So, if your neighborhood gets flooded and all the houses are damaged with no flood insurance, you’ll just go live with your in-laws, right?

Originally posted by Gun Rod Bow:
What exactly can a president do to STIMULATE an economy?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Because we didn’t elect him to go play golf, instead we gave him the power to influence the economy. Too bad our brilliant president knows only one domestic policy: tax-cut. By the way, he knows only one foreign policy, too: unilateral war. He probably thinks these are two best ways to stimulate the economy.

Originally posted by El Shaddai:
Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">El Shaddai, you seem to have an overly simplistic view of the economy and how the taxation works. There are more complex dynamics at work than your understanding of those rich folks who are paying the bulk share of the meals. These rich folks should pay more because they receive that much greater proportion of economical, social, and security benefits from the society in general. These people didn’t make their money out of the blue, but they have gotten rich from the wealth and the infrastructure that all citizens have created under the federal, state, and local governments’ leadership. They would not have gotten what they have without the help of the fellow citizens and the government. The rich pay a higher level of tax than the poor, but they also receive a higher level of benefits in return that no poor man or woman would dream of getting.

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
Brilliant use of copy and paste, El Shaddai.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Translation: Brilliant plagiarize(to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own) work.
I commend you TFG for your much more honest and original analogy.

The best phrase I’ve read all day goes to crabbait.

Originally posted by crabbait:
How we keep the least educated lowest earners voting for the Grand Old Party is beyond me.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">This is quite fun! :grin:

[Boedy]

Kilgore you sound Canadian :smile:

Clinton created 22 million jobs, balanced the budget, created billions in surplus, reduced the spending, and had the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern history. Where the hell are you getting your facts? Perhaps you should get a copy of GAO’s report on exactly when the recession started.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Why don’t you talk about the after effect of his hot hair economy and what happened after it got to a point where it could know longer maintain is unreal gains that it made over the last 8 years. Look at the Enron’s that made billions thanks to Clinton and look where they are now and look what it has done to the economy Bush is forced to make tough choices because Bill didn’t. Look at the mess Clinton made out of North Korea and the Billions we wasted just to have them go ahead and build a Nuke. Bush is forced to deal with that also.

Maybe if we should all learn the Hillary Clinton system for turning $1000 into $100,000 in the cattle business in a week then we would not have to worry so much about the economy but in the mean time we do and I think a tax cut is better then a tax raise.

The Economy was on the way down when Clinton was still in office and only became an official recession after GW took office, how could GW be blamed for that? How would any of his actions caused a crash so soon after he came into office. It’s the reverse of the thing that happened when Clinton came into office he gets credit for being responsible for the turn around even when it had started before any of his policies could take effect he was just in the right spot at the right time and thanks to the never ending spin machine of the Democratic Party people where duped into believing he did something when in fact he did nothing. It’s the same machine that is trying to pen every bad thing in America on GW because it knows the people aren’t buying their hogwash anymore as the last elections prove. The leadership in the Democratic Party wants the economy to stay bad so they can continue to use it against Bush. And can’t wait for a serviceman to die in a war against Iraq so they can use that as well, how shameless can you be?

[sinker]

I didn't read every word on here, just kind of skimmed through.

The one thing I didn't see mentioned was that the Clinton administration were the ones responsible for the runawway dot-com stock prices. (someone did mention amazon). When they're money ran out things started heading down real fast.

The rise and fall of the dot-commers was entirely during the Clinton era.

The reason GW wants war so bad is Clinton let Bin Laden do countless things during is reign. What did Clinton do? He bombed an aspirin factory. He let Saddam kick the weapons inspectors out.

I agree that GW seems a little over-zealous but if Clinton would have done his job the world would be a better place.

[Kilgore]

Boedy and sinker,

I'm surprised that you two boys were allowed to stay up that late to access the Internet. You probably have heard this already, but for the sake of proper education, I'm going to repeat it: It helps to include some facts in your argument to make it effective. False premise only generates erroneous conclusion thus creating a fallacy. To put it in a language you may understand: Garbage in garbage out.

But there is a hope for you two. Pay a special attention in economics and US Government when you take high school classes, as they appear to be your obvious weaknesses. Also work hard in spelling and reading (sinker), so you can properly spell words and also be able to read the entire thread, without 'skimming.'

Here are a couple of head starts:

Learn how to differentiate 'they're' and 'their', 'then' and 'than' and 'know' and 'no'. This will help you look a little smarter than some other little boys.

The nice thing about higher education is that once you graduate from college, you'll then begin to use facts, logic, reason, and analysis to process your thoughts and opinions, instead of the old "garbage in garbage out" mode.

And btw, Boedy, since when have you acquired the mind-reading capacity?

Originally posted by Boedy:
The leadership in the Democratic Party wants the economy to stay bad so they can continue to use it against Bush. And can’t wait for a serviceman to die in a war against Iraq so they can use that as well, how shameless can you be?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And to wrap it all up, please allow me to quote my favorite passage of yesterday (and today, too).

Originally posted by crabbait:
How we keep the least educated lowest earners voting for the Grand Old Party is beyond me but don't stop now!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Actually, I have some speculations, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.



[ 01-07-2003, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Kilgore ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

I have removed my cherubic, ignorant, uniformed, 2x4 bearing eyeballs, opinion that I previously posted for Kilgore.

Now as for the ballon of hot air you created with Bill Clinton and his "wonderfull years of economic prosperity" . Yeah it was a great run. One that was so super heated that it blew itself out. Hey al gore invented the internet while he was vice president. He started it all. How dumb. Bush planted the seeds of prosperity and Clinton reaped the benefits and harvested the crop. Problem is he fed all the seeds of prosperty to the birds and did'nt save any to replant and continue the growth.

Obviously, there was a lack of control on the part of the Clinton adminstration concerning the economy. They let corporations get away with corruption and embezzlement. Inflate stock prices, and misreport earnings so that those involved in the market would take the fall.

This democratic crap of "It takes a Village" so we are going to help you and entangle you in our care system is pure garbage. It's FEEL GOOD ECONOMICS and that is it. Democrats want to take care of you. Republicans want you to take care of yourself and earn your way in life. For those of you that have a job and take care of yourself and your family, right on. For those of you that want a free ride.......please continue to vote Democrat.

These are hard times folks. Lots of folks out of work and are having a real tough time finding another job. The economy has to change and jobs have to be created. Don't expect one action by Bush to save everything. It is going to take a combination of actions to turn this economy around. My prediction will be that it will begin to prosper before 2004. Just in time for elections. Just in time for a democrat to claim he can turn things around. Just in time for a democrat to claim "hey look at the crop we are going to harvest" without giving credit to Bush.

[ 01-09-2003, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[El Shaddai]

The beauty of this discussion is that rebuttals from the left, while passionate, are usually sorely lacking reason and fact.

Fishing Geek: My use of copy and paste was to provide an example of how progressive tax works in the USA. Does it really matter who wrote the example? The facts remain the same. Also, your example has really little relevance to how things actually work, so I won't even address your points from a business theory angle. However, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding showing compassion towards others. I believe it is the responsibility of each of us to help one another with the financial, personal, social etc gifts that we have been given.

Crabbait: Your post in all its sarcasm points towards an underlying feeling of a more socialist view. Redistrubution of wealth is unconstitutional, unfair and very shortsighted. Capitalism has propelled our economy in the the worlds largest ever. Socialism seems to be a very poor economic model.

Cirrhosis: Ditto as above! Of course, if the four people were unhappy with their standard of living then maybe they should do something about it, like say get an education or training and go apply their new skills.

Kilgore: Your 1st post, in all its length is really lacking any factual foundation. Your second post to Boedy and Sinker is very critical of there lack of factual analysis skills...the very same skills you displayed in your previous post. Basically, you are inferring they are ignorant, so what does that make you?
Now, please tell me, how do rich folks get significantly more benefits economically, socially or security from the government? Let's see, economically they pay more as a % and in real $$, socially the bulk of their $$ funds entitlement programs designed to redistribute their wealth and as for security I am unsure what additional security the rich receive from the government. My personal favorite part of your post is that the rich wouldn't be where they are without the help of the government. In some cases that is true...however,in the vast majority, their success is despite the government. You close by stating that rich people get a higher level of benefits from the government than poor people would ever dream of. Please do the following.....research where our tax $$ are spent and report back to us all the programs you find that benefit the rich, exclude the poor thus creating this "vacuum" of benefits you allege. Then tell us what % of our national budget exclusively benefits the rich. Be careful in your research though, truth is sometimes hard to swallow. You want a factual debate, then bring some facts.

[Silver Hilton]

Sinker,

I don't see how you can attribute the dot com price boom to the Clinton administration, any more than you can attribute the stock market boom in the 80's to Reagan. Both presidents happened to be there when investors started to decide that stocks were something they really, really, wanted, after a long period of not feeling that way.

Both tried to take credit for it, and neither had anything to do with it. Reagan's administration was fighting the Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Voelcker, who was really the person who ended inflation, by ending the rampant increases in the money supply. Reagan's administration fought this tooth and nail, because it had the effect of raising interest rates. In the longer run, however, it ended inflation, and people started valuing dollar demoninated assets again, hence the beginning of the rise in the stock market.

In the late 80's, we saw tech stocks start to become hot, and people began to develop expectations that 20% growth a year could be easily acheived. This happened under Bush senior's watch. It wasactually reasonable, because the companies themselves were growing at that rate.

Then, in the 90's, the internet happened, and we all rushed to get a piece of the gold rush. Unlike software companies like microsoft and hardware companies like cisco, however, the internet companies for the most part, didn't have a product that was economically sustainable, so the gold rush inevitably dried up.

Now, unless you take Gore at his word, that he invented the Internet, I just don't see how you can say that the Clinton administration, or the Bush and Reagan administrations before that, had anything to do with that phenomenon.

Neither can we hold George Junior accountable for the fall. We can, however, ask that his administration not be stupid in dealing with the aftermath. Giving 300 billion in windfall gains through tax cuts to the rich doesn't strike me as smart, given that it won't have much of a stimulative effect.

All of my income comes from the stock market. I'm one of the people who will benefit. Are you? You want to give me money, fine, thanks, I appreciate it. But I'm not asking for it, and I think it's a bad idea for our country. It puzzles me why you would support a tax cut that won't flow to you.

Some examples of steps that might have a more immediate stimulative effect would be tax credits for new hires this year. Make it a bit cheaper to hire new eployees this year, and you might see people go back to work, and hard goods purchases go up. This also would be a tax cut, but the effects would be temporary, and the benefits would flow to a wider group of people.

Instead, Bush continues to engage in supporting programs that seem to benefit a narrow group of people, that have very little support from economists who study how the stimulative efffects might happen. They also just don't pass the sniff test. For years we have believed, and studies have shown, that if the government runs a deficit, it has both an actual and an emotional dampening effect on the economy. The republicans used to get that. Now, it seems like they are just smoking all that dope they are confiscating.

[The Fishing Geek]

Kilgore,

Regardless whether I agree with your statements or not, I do take offense with your personal attacks. That is no way to have a debate, and it only lowers the respect that you will get when you attack the people and not their points.

With all due respect, please do not contribute if you cannot keep from attacking the character.

[GutshotApe]

Boedy - Other than your "Zero" flag avatar , I agree with you 100% on this.

Kilgore - You do sound vaguely Canadian [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] ........Yup, a Frostback. :grin:

[Silver Hilton]

El Shaddai

Rich people get a massive benefit from the govenment. They get stability of a political system and financial markets. If they do not have stability, they can't protect either their capital or their person.

I believe it makes sense for the wealthy to pay more, on a percentage basis, than poor people, for two reasons. One is practical. They can. The second is philosophical. They have benefited more from the existance of our country.

It is possible to take a view that the poor exist to be exploited, and that it is morally OK and not imprudent to let them suffer. However, that is the thinking that led to the downfall of Rome, the end of the British Empire, the French Revolution. It may also be the end of the US. I'm not so sure that we aren't seeing our society fracture irreparably, right now.

You labeled someone's idea as 'socialist', as if that simply ends the debate as to whether it's good. Decrying political ideas with labels such as 'socialist' and 'capitalist' is a bit simplistic. Treating them as perjorative without logical critique attached, just shows emotional feeling. It doesn't allow any real critical discussion of the ideas. Any thinking economist realizes that you can't use the term socialist to criticize an idea, without further exploring whether the socialist aspect is really good or bad, for some group of society.

There are socialist aspects to the US that have added a great deal of value to our economy. The freeway system, air traffic control system, and Bonneville Power Administration are examples of socialist endeavors which have facilitated great amounts of economic expansion. None of these endeavors would have taken place without government investment and ownership of the means of production. There are examples of capitalist ideas which are great drags on our society. Enron and Worldcom come to mind, as well as our current healthcare insurance industry. The US has a great deal of regulation, most of which I think is probably for the better. We have a large amount of socialistic behavior embedded in our economy, yet we continue to be the best place to live in the world. Hm-m-m-m.

It's easy to paint with a broad brush. However, it takes details to reveal art.

[ 01-07-2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[RvW]

Spelling and punctuation are quite tolerable, whereas incorporating insult into a debate with intent to demean is not.

Not everyone utilizes a spell checker here.

How can a president control market saturation (.coms)?

Dot coms failed due to competition plain and simple. I installed the millions of dollars worth of equipment to make them function, I installed equipment next to equipment that was never used! I removed millions of dollars of equipment that was never turned on to put someone elses there! Every Tom , Dick and Joe got involved in the dot come push, Thus the dot com demise. I'd say uneducated overzealous investors were bitten in the arse because they put their arse on the line in hopes of making a quik buck. Whats a president got to do with it?

"Risk" ~its not just for intelligent investors any more.

[lost_sailor]

Exactly how long do we wait until we can blame the economy on the current administration? Is it like, 8 years, or what?

[DanS]

Exactly how long do we wait until we can blame the economy on the current administration? Is it like, 8 years, or what?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">No, dude, you're all confused. The current economy stays the Dems fault with no time constraints. However, when the economy turns around, it is to the GOP's credit, no matter who is currently in office.

Read for yourself. The economy under Clinton was engineered by Reagan and Bush 1, then Clinton ruined it all, and now GW is going to rescue us.

And don't worry if there are 15 Republicans in the White House in a row.......because THEN you have the Dems in Congress to blame.

See..........it's simple really. The GOP is ALWAYS responsible for good things, and never responsible for bad things. Haven't you read enough from Boedy and C&E to know that?

[CATCH AND EAT]

DanS you are pretty funny. Well, pretty anyways . Thanks for lightening it up a little. Also thank you for pointing out that Boedy and I are right. Its appreciated. :shocked:

[Boedy]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Thanks Dans

Did anybody listen to GW speech today? I just caught the last few min of it but it sounded like he is really trying to give the lower and middle class a great tax break. Something like 647 billion dollars of cuts if I heard right. Lots of good ideas and I hope it gets pushed through fast.

After the speech they had some Dem senator from NC complaining that it gave to big of a break to the 1% at the top. Is that all the democrats can come up with when ever some one says tax cut? It’s like they use it to try and anger the poor by playing on their envy of the rich what spin. Does anybody else get that feeling? Here is GW saying I want to give you a tax cut and let you have more money in your pocket right now and all the Dems come back with is but you are giving a tax break to the rich to? But the rich are all evil money hoarders that should be taxed so badly that they are forced back to middle class.

The Dem’s are so scared that all the pork they got during the Clinton years will dry up because GW wants the average Joe to have a little more money to live on image the nerve of him. :smile: I am not rich by anybody’s standard but I know that it takes money to make money and people like Bill Gates have created more jobs while being the richest man in the world then I have being not so rich

Kilgore please spell check this for me and put you left wing spin on it telling us all how GW is tricking us dumb red necks again :tongue: .

[ 01-07-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

[El Shaddai]

Silver Hilton:

Thanks for your response. Suffice to say, I disagree with much of what you posted. Just because someone can pay more, does not mean they should have to. Progressive taxation is unfair and then targeted tax cuts that don't benefit the people who pay the majority of the taxes is like adding salt to a wound. I am very much in favor of a flat tax, eliminating all writeoffs and imploding tens of thousands of jobs that exist solely to administrate a cumbersome and unfair tax system. Maybe a national sales tax (did I say that?) is the answer and abolish all federal income tax. Either way, people who expect others to pay their way simply because they can are selling themselves short. The entitlement mentality has risen dramatically the past 50 years (along with the reforms and programs) and poverty is still an issue..why? Because enabling seldom works...

As for exploiting the poor...that is horrible. We agree on that....however, I fail to see how ending dividend tax which in essence is double taxation exploits the poor. In theory, a company reports its net income and is taxed. It pays a dividend to shareholders...the dividend is taxes...these are the same dollars that have all ready been subjected to corporate income tax (depending on the type of company i.e. C Corp, S Corp, LLC etc). Worst case scenario, you die and have not adequately planned for this and your family may pay estate tax on the cash you received as a dividend. That is the same $$ getting hit 3x...how is that fair? How does that exploit the poor?

Although I certainly do not agree with all of the President's policies, I do support his proposal for two reasons. First of all, it eliminates an inherent unfairness in our tax code. It may also stimulate companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Dell to pay dividends from their 60 billion+ dollars in retained earnings/cash reserve. They have directly cited taxation as a reason for not paying dividends. Is it the cure all? No....is it a step in the right direction? Yes......

Socialism is defined as the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. While I would agree that there are many valuable programs that are controlled by the government, I would argue that we have gone way too far....apply this definition to the posts in question and my subsequent response and you should easily see the substance of my reply is based on facts and logic, not emotion.

It's even easier to find examples of problems within any system or idea. My point was and still is than on the whole, Capitalism is far more preferrable than Socialist, Marxist or Communist forms of governments.

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by Boedy:
Why don’t you talk about the after effect of his hot hair economy and what happened after it got to a point where it could know longer maintain is unreal gains that it made over the last 8 years. Look at the Enron’s that made billions thanks to Clinton and look where they are now and look what it has done to the economy Bush is forced to make tough choices because Bill didn’t. Look at the mess Clinton made out of North Korea and the Billions we wasted just to have them go ahead and build a Nuke. Bush is forced to deal with that also.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Boedy,
Enron was actually starting it's wild actions under the previous Bush. I don't think you can tar Clinton with that brush, anymore than you can Bush. Lay and Skillings were lyers and thieves, and would have been so, regardless of who is in office.

Clinton's administration got North Korea to stop bomb making. Bush's administration created a situation where North Korea started bomb making. Neither president is responsible for Kim Jung Il being who he is. But is simple fact that its two years into Bush's term, and North Korea just started the bomb making process. That doesn't sound like Clinton's fault.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of Bill Clinton. I don't think he was a good president, I don't think his programs were very good, and he was simply lucky that the economy was strong during his term. It's also quite evident that he had the morals of a snake.

But it just doesn't make sense to lay either Enron or North Korea at his feet. Enron was created by the combination of greedy thieving management conflated with the opportunity created by deregulation of energy markets. Lest we forget, deregulation was supported by the Republican side, and resisted by the Democrats. For the record, I still think correctly managed deregulation is a smart idea, for a lot of reasons that aren't relevant here. California's utilities created most of the mess they are complaining about now.

North Korea is starting their reactors to put negotiating pressure on us. This is likely due to them thinking they can get away with it, because of our other distractions. GW is responsible for managing the overall foreign policy situation. He's got a hard job now, but it's his watch that this is happening under. Clinton isn't running this, Bush is. If we now have so many foreign policy irons in the fire that N Korea thinks it can finesse this, well, it's George's team, not Bill's, that let this happen.

And from what I read, Colin Powell has been telling anyone who would listen that this was going to happen, and the chicken hawks wouldn't listen. Bush has a guy on his team who has fought wars before. He needs to pay attention to Powell, and tell Rumsfeld to calm down.

[DanS]

Hey, no sweat, C&E and Boedy.

It was just getting a little heavy in here..........and we needed something to lighten it up.

Man, you can tell when the fishing is a little slow, can't you? :grin:

[Boedy]

I think you are incorrect in saying that North Korea just restarted their program in the last 2 years they may have just told everybody about it but from what I have read they never stopped they just moved it all to a different locations up north. So all BC did was give them Billions of dollars in wheat and Oil and now after they ran out they want more and are using what worked with Good old Bill the last time trouble is GW isn’t playing that game with them.

[fishing is life]

all i can say is GW better start looking at the inside of the U.S. (healthcare, economy) instead of worrying about the rest of the world. quit spending money on the rest (military) of the world and use it here. the war on Iraq will by low estimated cost us 60 billion. at least we should get some oil for our troubles if we go in. that is another thread.

[Silver Hilton]

El. S.

I won't argue that taxing dividends is distortive. I don't even really care if we stop taxing them. Like I said, I'll benefit from that. It is, however, simply untrue, that elimination of this tax will either stimulate the stock market, benefit the common man, or stimulate the economy. It is just a tax cut, pure and simple, and will worsen our deficit. That is fiscally irresponsible. If you want to cut taxes, fine, show me where you're cutting spending. Until then, Bush is just a good ol' deficit spender, the kind that Republicans used to decry.

Now, progressive taxation. First, it's a myth that we have a particularly progressive tax system. If you make $50,000 a year, your marginal tax rate is 26% plus 7.2% FICA, or about 33%. Someone who makes $80,000 a year pays 30% plus 7.2% FICA, or 37%. Someone who makes $200,000 pays 33%. No FICA. If you make a million dollars a year in income, your marginal rate is 28%. No FICA. If you made that money in a stock sale or business sale, or a land sale, the tax rate is 20%. If you have $5,000,000, you can put it in municipal bonds, make about 4.5%, or $225,000 a year and pay no tax at all. So, since the marginal tax rate declines as income increases, we do not have a progressive tax system at all, when really big amounts are considered.

The wealthy have done a great job at getting the republican rank and file to believe that they are heavily taxed, but IRS publications reveal the truth. See this page if you'd like to check my math. You have been deceived.

Now, as to it being unfair, well, I tell my employees that fair is what kids whine about on the playground. Grownups worry about equity and wisdom. Equity is the principal that people in similar situations are treated similarly. Someone making $15,000 a year is just not in the same situation as someone making $150,000 a year. I've done both, and the second is better. Even with a marginal tax rate of 33%. It's actually quite easy to prove that a dollar is worth less to a person making 150,000 than it is to 15,000. Is it unfair to take more from a person, for whom what you're taking is worth less? Well, that's subjective, and I can't say. But in my opinion, it isn't up there with kicking puppies as the most evil thing I've ever heard of.

If we were to go a flat tax system, the effect will be to shift income up the income spectrum. Poor people will pay a larger percentage of their income, and people who are better off will pay less of their income. Or at least that's the way everyone seems to explain it. The net effect here is to increase the income of those who are better off. So, let's see, those with more money, pay less. Those with less money, pay more. It may or may not be more fair. It certainly seems greedy.

We may feel like we will individually benefit from tax reductions. I hope that we will also think about what is wise for our country. We are building a crushing accumulated deficit for our children, all because some folks want more money now. What would Jesus or Muhammed have said about that?

[ 01-07-2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Silver Hilton]

One more point about fairness. Why even base the cost on income or what you buy, or anything? Those numbers don't have anything to do with anything other than your ability to pay. It costs $2678 per person, per year, to run this country. Let's just send everyone a bill. That'd be fair. Then all those slackers with lots of children would start paying their fair share. I hear that the fishing geek has three kids, that would be, let's see, $13,393.86. Dave, when can we expect your check?

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Boedy:
... it sounded like he is really trying to give the lower and middle class a great tax break. Something like 647 billion dollars of cuts if I heard right. Lots of good ideas and I hope it gets pushed through fast.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">W has the best propagandists on earth writing his script. Maybe he's got some of that "ocean-front property in Arizona" for you!

[El Shaddai]

Silver Hilton:

I can appreciate your attempt to point out the "differences" in our positions. However, you need to stay focused on the topic and on the facts.

First of all, I will list below the Federal Income tax tables for 2003 for a married person filing jointly.

10% &gt;$12,000
15% &gt;$47,450
27%&gt;$114,650
30%&gt;$174,700
35% &gt;$311,950
38% &gt;$311,951+

These are real tax rates. I suggest you call your accountant, it sounds as if you may be in for a real surprise. By the way, these are "real" progressive numbers, not "mythical" ones. Trust me, I wish it wasn't so.....

For the sake of brevity, I will not respond to the rest of your post, except to say that it is very misguided, incorrect and I disagree.

As for Jesus, He said "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21

He also had quite a bit to say about tax collectors, and unfair scales. However, I will not have a theological debate on this board. If you would like more information, I would love the opportunity to share with you what God's overall perspective on money is. Please email and I am sure we could meet sometime.

[El Shaddai]

Silver Hilton:

One correction from my last post. I wholeheartedly agree with your position regarding the President's (and congress) spending habits. I am in favor of deep spending cuts and fiscal responsibility.

[Silver Hilton]

E.S.

You're right. My information was apparently old as to the average topping out at 28%, and I stand corrected.

But the rest of my comments still stand. The bulk of income that accrues to the very wealthy is capital gains or other income that is treated in a tax preferential way. When Bill Gates sells stock, he pays 20%.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Just a question to ponder. Is it inappropriate to be rich or become rich because of an idea, inherritance, or great job? We seem to hammer on Bill Gates freely because of his extreme wealth. Bill did it on smarts and luck of the draw with IBM. He is self made billionaire that originally surrounded himself with very smart people that believed in him and what he dreamed about. I hear a tinge of jealously throughout this thread about the rich. Kind of tired of it.

I am not a rich man by any streach of the imagination. Wish I was but it's just not ment to be. Lots of problems come with being rich. People complain about you being rich. They want you to give them money. They attack the way you do business. They complain if you do not support PETA or environmental issues. They say snide things about your religious beliefs (unless you follow the Dahli Lama [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] ). Plain and simple, it is just to easy to complain about the rich.

Don't get me wrong, lots of rich and poor people alike can be real idiots. You see it in the paper every day. Hey life goes on and a Democrat President (Kerry) will save the universe. NOT!!

[El Shaddai]

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

[Gun Rod Bow]

Wow, whoever "said miss a day, miss a lot". Much has happened in the last 24 hrs.

Kilgore,

As usual, the left wants to name call, demean, and generally call the opposing viewpoints "uneducated and ill-informed". Sad, typical.

The president can send down a "budget" or a "tax cut proposal" or veto one he doesn't like, but the congress spends the money and changes the law. What were you doing in Civics 101? [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Silver Hilton,

I'm no expert on stocks, you seem to have a quite a bit of knowledge on them. This strand started in reference to removing double taxation of dividends.

If more stocks payed dividends, rather than just trying to falsly pump up their trading value, wouldn't that help with more fair reporting? Seems like most of the trouble with Enron and the like involved playing games to falsly show higher values by hiding costs. Also when managers are richly rewarded for pumping share value via share swaps and bonuses, it invites coruption.

Why would encouraging paying of dividends to shareholders (by changing tax law) not be a good thing?

Seems to me if we want our government to do someting constructive, it should be to prosecute law breakers, and pass laws that encourage disclosure and encourage equity (I almost said fairness) :shocked: That is much more constructive than who do we take from and who do we give it back to.

GRB

[TheRogue]

Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and several other multi-billionaires publicly decried GW's tax-cut plans when he was first running for office. I believe the general consensus was something like, "I've got billions, and the millions I pay in taxes go to support my country, it's foolish to cut taxes now".

That was great, and I agree completely. Of course, since stock prices tanked, and Bill, Paul, et al, are worth (on paper) about 1/2 of what they were worth 2 years ago, I haven't heard a peep about them being against tax cuts

Seems most of the reports I've read and heard on TV all agree. This will have very little effect on the economy, give a huge tax break to the top 1% of Americans, and build a huge deficit. I think the key point for my wife and I is the raising the child care credit $400 per kid?? Let's see, we'll pay about $12K in federal taxes this year. I'll get $800 more back. That's great.....but I sure don't see any booming stimulus over that??


Democrats = Tax and Spend

Republicans = Cut taxes and Spend

Which is worse, in the long run?? :whazzup: :whazzup:

TR

[OneLastCast]

This is for Silver Hilton:

You made some excellent points although I don't consider Bush the demon you may. I do have a question however and I am really asking because I don't know and am not trying to make a point.

Do you think that GW wants to cut the tax on dividends to create more interest in the stock market. ie if people think that they can make "free" money it will stimulate the stock market thereby stimulating the economy.

And now as I think about it, if the dividend tax was later repealed could it be repealed (it would have to be a democrat :smile: ) without causing a huge selloff and resultant plunge of the stock market.

I will take my answer off the air.

OneLastCast

[Silver Hilton]

One last Cast,

I don't consider Bush to be a demon at all. I think he's fairly honest, as politicians go. Not particularly bright, but mostly honest. I do, however, think many of his policies are shortsighted and damaging to the country.

Bush says that he wants to stimulate the stock market, and that this will help. I can only take that statement at face value, so, I guess he thinks it will, or someone working for him thinks it will.

Most professionals that I have heard comment over the last few days think that, at most, this will provide an 8% stimulus to the Dow. Many folks think that it will have no effect at all. I am among them. Notice the markets' subdued reaction today to the news of the tax cut. The Dow, where most dividend paying stocks reside, was down. The Naz, where most tech companies that don't pay dividends live, was up. Neither by very much in either direction.

If you read the various financial trades, there are an awful lot of investors that are worried about the deficit. Tax cuts are fine and good, but if creating them creates a massive deficit, then the government has to borrow money to fund the deficit. This competes for available capital, which means that interest rates go up. If interest rates go up, the stock market goes ps-s-st. (That's a technical trading term, for those of you new to the biz. )

So, I am very pessimistic about whether there will be a stimulatory effect. I'd dearly love to be proved wrong.

[Silver Hilton]

Gun Rod Bow,

I don't know if I qualify as an expert on stocks either, but I look at them a lot.

I don't think the payment of dividends really affects the reporting issue. Companies will either lie or not lie, based on the integrity of the management, and the business issue they face. The reporting issue is huge, but separate from whether a company pays dividends. Check the chart for TXU, which had a little whoopsie (another technical trading term ) last fall, for an example of a dividend paying company that had a reporting problem, though not of Enron-like proportions.

Now, your more basic question is interesting - should we encourage companies to pay dividends? My personal belief if that we should make it tax neutral as to whether a company pays dividends. Having differing tax rates on capital gains, dividend income, and interest income causes a distortion between methods of raising capital. I think we would be best off to have income be income, period. Of course that would result in there being no special tax rate for long term capital gains. Imagine the hue and cry if THAT were proposed.

The reason that companies focus on their stock price as opposed to paying dividends is that investors would rather make capital gains through the stock price than dividend or interest income. This is because capital gains are taxed at a preferential rate. As long as we treat that income separately, this incentive will continue. There is no good economic reason for giving long term capital gains special tax treatment. It's just a sop to the rich. Keep it up, I'd rather pay 20% than 38%.

Even with the tax change being proposed, I am much more interested in getting a capital gain than a dividend, because companies that are doing the things that are generating large capital gains can use the cash to grow. If they pay it to me, they're not going to have the capital, and they'll need to either take on debt or issue more stock.

Now, some will say that I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth on this issue, so let's be clear. From a theoretical capital market standpoint, the world would be best if different methods of capital were treated identically by the tax code. Dividend income can be thought of as being taxed twice, and that's a distortion. So it would be better if that were not the case.

That having been said, dividends have been taxed for along time, and the market is in equilibrium around this issue. Eliminating the tax is not likely to change much in the markets. We didn't start this process because somebody wanted to improve the efficiency of the capital markets, we started it because somebody wanted to cut taxes. So making lots of noise at this time about the imperfections, blah, blah, blah is just a bunch of political bushwah.

Fixing this defect in the long run is a good idea. It would have been smart to do it in about 1994. Doing it now will reduce tax revenues at a time when we have severe deficits. From a market stimulus standpoint, my feeling is that the deficit is scarier to the markets than any tax on dividends.

At the root of this is my belief that the Bush administration, not unlike all politicians, has a propensity to use the current situation to make headway on an agenda, regardless of the actual connection between events. Tax cuts have been on the drawing board since day one in this office. That's fine, but I'd like to see them in the context of a balanced budget. Trying for deep tax cuts now, without solving the deficit problem, is likely to be disastrous to the financial markets.

Finally, prosecuting lawbreakers should absolutely be at the top of the agenda. I'd like to know why all the people at Arthur Andersen are on the street, while Ken Lay is walking around a multi-millionaire.

[Dancin' Bear]

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:


I don't consider Bush to be a demon at all. I think he's fairly honest, as politicians go. Not particularly bright, but mostly honest. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Silver Hilton and everyone else on this thread -This is a genuine question I am going to ask. I am not trying to make a point or be sarcastic. I see a lot of people on Ifish say that GW is not very bright. But they do think that he is an honest person.

My question is would you rather have your president be an HONEST person that is not as BRIGHT as some past presidents, or would you rather have a BRIGHT president that is not a very HONEST person?

By the way, I disagree with everyone that says that GW is not a very bright person. He may not be your stereotypical polished politician that is a very good (slick) speaker (aka Bill Clinton). He speaks like you and I speak. I for one like that he is a plain talker that speaks to the country probably the same way he speaks to the local tackle store owner (he is a big fisherman, like his dad).

[Silver Hilton]

I'd like to have his dad, George Sr. in office, who was smart AND honest. I wanted McCain.

Didn't vote for Clinton, don't like Clinton. Either of them.

[Silver Hilton]

Dancin'

I think I should expand on my thoughts about George Jr. I have been quoted as saying that he's dumber than a truckload of rocks, but that's just when I'm trying to get a laugh. I think you're right, he's a regular guy. C average in school, not writing any physics textbooks, etc.

I like having regular guys around when I go fishing. I like them at parties, and I like them on my team.

When I evaluate a company for investment, however, I'm not looking for regular guys at the top. I want someone who is experienced, smarter than Einstein, with a work ethic and leadership skills. It also helps if he's lucky. I want top 2%.

George Junior had zip foreign policy experience, demonstrated poor knowledge of geopolitics, has a poor understanding of economics, and has appointed some folks that I think are of questionable integrity. He is proving to have decent leadership qualities, but those don't count if we are going in the wrong direction. Lastly, he has not listened to his generals and to the man on his team with experience on the ground, Colin Powell (who would make an excellent president, I might add).

So, regular guy or not, honest or not, I think he's got weak skills. That worries me.

That said, he's our president, and when the shooting starts, he and our boys have my support. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him.