Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Wow, B-T, is this really you? Gosh darn, I can't believe it!!
Now that you've stated some particulars that can be discussed, let me ask some questions.
What is the democrats' idea of a tax cut; I never even heard them do anything but scream for no cuts and actually want to raise them. Who proposed
You're darned right the union works on behalf of the corp. Last year Sikoprsky got an additional 112 million dollars because of the Teamsters
lobbying for the building of a few more Blackhawks. I think they're going to be needed, too.
The trickle-down Reagan economic policy created more jobs and, while taxes were cut across the board, revenue went way up because of the increased tax
base. Why is it you don't think it'll happen that way again? The shame of it is, again as back then, the benefits will be blown on rebuilding a
neutered military and a stupid war (Reagan's was the Cold War, but it took trillions to win even though it was allegedly "cold")
Hey, I am white collar, but grew up with union parents. I also did everything during my school days: a night club bouncer, a kitchen worker, unloaded
meat from tractor trailer for a commercial butcher, you name it, some of it was union.
I believe Paul Sarbane gets credit for it. Look up his policies/points on corporate America: a solid fiscal mind for sure.
Trickle down doesn't work, and in this context as an immediate economic stimulus, it's even more horrible. Economic theory is like football game
plans: you're down by 30 going into half time, you change your game plan. Applying trickle down is like sticking with the fullback dive off tackle &
trying to make up that 30 point hole.
Again, remeber the context: prior to that was some of the worst economic time in our life time, so the 'no where to go but up' numbers growth is
attributable to that. The outcome of that crippled tax revenue for government operations gave us billion dollar deficits because of deficit spending,
the literal rob peter to pay paul pratice.
To stop the knee jerk reaction to taxes and take it out of politics, is to first recognize that they are necessary. From there we need tax relief, a
first step to that is sound fiscal discipline. The Clinton administration applied that to the huge deficit they inherited and turned it to a surplus.
Taxes do suck, but think of huge credit card debt ( the deficit) and having to take a PT job to get out of it ( taxes).
The simplest way to understand the diffrent philosophies is this: One tax cut services the top 5% with most of the relief.
The other services the 95% left over. Which is the greater pool of consumers with new found discretionary income to invest, and spend to drive the
Trickle down swears the 5% will have a greater impact with the savings. Truth is, once you attain a certain economic level, you shift from the
speculatives to long term investment vehicles.
Another way to look at it: If you are worth $4M, a $250,000 tax break is not going to make you or break you. But if you're making $50K a year,
wouldn't taking home more than the $40K after taxes make a big deal?
Neutered Military? That is a fallacy perpetuated by the military/industrial complex to keep the contracts flowing. Why was Rumsfield, after the Joint
Chiefs repeatedly said we need a fast response-light military to address todays threats, still pushing for a 120 ton long range heavy artillery pet
project of the Carlye Group?
Look, The US is far stronger militarily than it needs to be (more than the next 15 countries put together). As the investor that you appear to be, you
should be familiar with the laws of diminishing returns, as well as with the importance of strategic planning and asset management and deployment.
Ammassing war toys is as irresponsible as ammassing big boy toys in your garage.