| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gates, others to see gains from Microsoft dividend | |
|
||
| Time: 10:10 EST/15:10 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The same proxy said Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer held 235.5 million common shares, worth $37.7 million in post-split annual dividend payments under the dividend plan. The company's 29 executive officers and directors, the proxy said, held a total 898.1 million shares, which would carry a post-split dividend payment of $143.7 million. On Jan. 7, President Bush unveiled an economic stimulus plan that included a provision abolishing the investor tax on dividends. Democrats have countered that 25 percent of the tax break would go to people who make more than $1 million a year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:57:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8589 (66.169.175.34) at 1/17/2003 10:39:35 AM |
| Yes, the Democrats would gripe. They want to use that tax money to fund their favorite perversion societies. Give me a break. the tax rate at the top is in excess of 27%. A flat rate of 10% has been suggested by some, and I think it might be a good idea. |
| #2 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/17/2003 11:35:57 AM |
|
nonsense, that tenth guy should pay the whole bill. the rest of us should eat free
rumor has it that if I write that statement on a piece of paper, and bring it down to the local Democratic office... they will provide matching non-partisan funds for my Mayoral run. anyone buying msft stock today? splits are sweet and dividends warm the soul. |
| #3 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/17/2003 11:36:40 AM |
|
double-posted This post was edited by mooresa56 on Friday, January 17, 2003 at 11:37. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/17/2003 2:59:51 PM |
|
Except the bottom 5 poorest people in your example wouldn't have been allowed to eat dinner.
They'd be in back washing dishes. |
| #5 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/17/2003 6:36:12 PM |
| is that your response blue? sad. almost an admission. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/17/2003 9:48:49 PM |
|
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. "
- Adam Smith from Wealth of Nations, Book five, Chapter 2 part 2 Do you have some great disagreement with Mr. Smith? |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/18/2003 2:26:43 AM |
|
Funny bumpersticker I saw today:
"KEEP WORKING: Millions on welfare depend on you!" |
| #8 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/18/2003 2:31:42 AM |
|
#7: And most "poor" people either a.) Don't pay any taxes, b.) get a huge refund from what little taxes they pay because of the Earned Income Tax Credit or c.) are on Welfare.
The middle class ($20-90k, I would say, depending on many things) bears an unequal burden of the taxes which is why Bush's plan is so desperately needed (dividend break for their retirement accounts, remove the marriage penalty, increase the child tax credit, etc). I have a kid (another on the way), and my child tax credit will be a couple hundred dollars more this tax season. I don't know how rich you are blue, but a couple hundred dollars means a _LOT_ to me. Also, you can't slap a ton of taxes on the rich (you can charge them a higher percentage, charge them some extra on huge incomes, etc), but taxing them here and taxing them there just discourages progress. Liberals seem to forget how rich people got rich. They seem to think that all rich people are rich because they were born into it or got lucky. Liberals think that no one can just work hard and become rich, it's a status that is given to you. Perhaps in their elite societies it is, but in the real world people can be smart, work hard and work smart and become rich. And nailing rich people for being rich is the worst thing you can do. I'm not saying lower their taxes, I'm just saying don't raise them unfairly. |
| #9 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/18/2003 10:30:30 AM |
|
daz - "dividend break for their retirement accounts"
BZZZT! Want to try again on that one? "Liberals seem to forget how rich people got rich. " You need to get over this whole liberal thing... It's causing you to make bad judgements. As I look around, at the various people of liberal leanings, the bulk of them are self-made, rather than inherited wealth. So I'm not sure where you get off saying this. I come from a relatively poor family background, and have done well for myself. I did exceptionally well for myself under the Clinton Presidency, which is why I am so appreciative of it's government policies. Under Reagan, the rich got richer. Under Clinton, everybody got richer. *THAT* is what this nation is and should be about... expanding the economic base to include all people, not just a handful of privileged. That's what Capitalism is about, and that's why it's a damn good idea. "And nailing rich people for being rich is the worst thing you can do. I'm not saying lower their taxes, I'm just saying don't raise them unfairly. " Uhh? That's exactly what you've been saying. Lower the rich people's taxes and put more of the burden on those who can't afford as much, such as the poor or middle class. I just think it's interesting, that the economic policies established by the Clinton administration follow in line with the thinking of men such as Adam Smith. Smith's work is over 200 years old, written again in 1776 like the Tytler book. Yet you accuse this of "liberal" thinking? I don't get it, most of this is what we would call accepted thinking these days. Little government intervention into markets, and so forth. Daz, you need to get over your hatred of liberals and start thinking about the future for a change. The GOP has the Congress, Executive and Judicial branch. It's time they started behaving like adults instead of the whiney little children. What I am so exceedingly tired of is the GOP bringing up these whines every year in the campaigns, and then when push comes to shove they refuse to implement them. If it's not a good idea that you're afraid of implementing, then don't bring it up at campaign time. Damn stupid populist rhetoric. This post was edited by sodablue on Saturday, January 18, 2003 at 10:49. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/18/2003 10:58:32 AM |
|
"KEEP WORKING:
Millions on welfare depend on you!" How about some facts. How many are on welfare? How long have they been on welfare? Why are they on welfare?(i.e. mental retardation, physical handicaps, what?) I have family members who have received government aid over the years, and I really take some issue to this argument that they are lazy. I have friends who have received job training, and other benefits as a result of government. There are some people who receive welfare who are lazy, but the bulk of them want jobs and want to support themselves. That's why the welfare reform which we passed here in Minnesota was so important. It allowed for a phased in approach once people got their jobs, reducing their benefits in relationship to how much they earned. Under the Republican system, once people got a job they were dumped from the rolls, which usually meant they could make more money sitting on welfare than actually working, thus encouraging bad behavior. My boss at work is one of your type. He sits around endlessly whining about how the government wastes his tax money building libraries and schools. Yet he thinks they should put in 8 lane interstate highways going from work to his house, and they should spend half a billion building a new stadium for the Minnesota Twins. Want to talk about wastes of tax dollars... Let's talk about subsidizing professional sports. It's not that some of the points made are not accurate in certain contexts. But it's this over simplification of problems into populist rhetoric which is not helpful and solves no real issues. |
| #11 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/18/2003 6:51:31 PM |
| and while clinton sat back and enjoyed, N.Korea sat back and prepped nukes, and Saddam threw out the inspectors and thumbed his nose at America, and terrorists planned the take down the world trade center, and on and on and on... |
| #12 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/18/2003 7:01:04 PM |
|
and sodablue, i agree with that Adam Smith quote. But remember his statement implies that EVERYONE earning should also be PAYING. A FREE RIDE teaches absolutely NOTHING.
Curious... have you read When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, January 18, 2003 at 19:04. |
| #13 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 1/18/2003 11:41:25 PM |
|
daz:
Someone got my dad that shirt... funny thing is he works in the state agency which handles welfare. It is very much true that here, in Flordia, the people on welfare are overwhelmingly lazy and just sit on their welfare checks rather than actually working.... One of the few things that I commend Jeb Bush for is reforming welfare here to aid in alleviating this problem. |
| #14 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/18/2003 11:48:59 PM |
|
#12 - "The ugly truth sodablue is the boom years the 90's were the direct result of the policies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr."
Show me some evidence... ANY EVIDENCE. The average lag for monetary economic policy is 2 years, so how do you explain the 14 year lag time? What is special about these 14 years? Why did Bush Sr's policies, which consisted of RAISING TAXES, and, in general, not continuing Reganomics, actually contribute to Reganomic's affect? Why was it not Clinton's policies that made the difference? Nobody has EVER PROVIDED me ANY evidence that Reganomics works. Not a SHREAD. Yet it is still the conservative battle cry. "And the tech bubble and its collapse were the result of the policies of Clinton -- he was too busy getting laid to worry about the economy." Sigh... wake up and smell the propaganda. I suggest you read "Blinded by the Right." Last I checked, it was Republicans that spent ALL THEIR TIME on trying to get Clinton impeached. At any rate, anybody who has the slightest grasp of reality knows that the Dot Com bubble burst not because of government policy, but because the stocks of these companies we incredibly over valued due to irrational buying on the part of investors. Anything with ".com" or "linux" in its name got millions in venture capital and investors ate it up, but with absolutely nothing to back up these decisions. THAT is why the .com bubble burst, and if you weren't so blinded by your dogmatic political beliefs, you would realize that. #14 - "A FREE RIDE teaches absolutely NOTHING." Are you kidding me? Do you honest think somebody who earns $15,000 a year is getting a free ride? They can BARELY SURVIVE and you want to tax them to teach them money is important? Get a grip. "Curious... have you read When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten." Yes, I have. |
| #15 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/19/2003 12:41:32 AM |
|
RMD, oh c'mon! who actually earns $15k/year? really, who? at $6/hour, you end up with $480/week or over $20k/year.
I'm not asking someone to take 3 jobs here, I'm simply saying PUT FORTH SOME EFFORT! My kid makes $150/year (he's very young), yet I teach him that "money is important". Why wouldn't I want to do the same for the unfortunate adult who finds himself in bad financial shape. I CARE about that person, and I'm compassionate enough to provide him with something he can use to MOVE AHEAD in this world. A HANDOUT is the last thing anybody needs. |
| #16 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/19/2003 12:43:28 AM |
|
oh, and RMD... while we are all looking for PROOF, why don't you PROVE to me that monetary policy lags only 2 years. Go ahead, do it.
And while you are doing your google search, try searching for BERLIN WALL... and you'll know what a profound affect Reaganomics had on millions of people. And the savings to America? BILLIONS. |
| #17 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 1:47:25 AM |
|
#17 - "RMD, oh c'mon! who actually earns $15k/year? really, who? at $6/hour, you end up with $480/week or over $20k/year."
You're correct... I forgot about minimum wage. After all, those guys live like kings. Let's tax em to teach em a lesson. "I'm not asking someone to take 3 jobs here, I'm simply saying PUT FORTH SOME EFFORT!" Why do you think people making minimum wage aren't putting for effort? Have you ever had to work for minimum wage to survive? I'm all for an effort/reward society, but if that is your ideal, why don't we tax people who inherited their money more than those who worked for it? Wouldn't that make your effort/reward ideal? Also, do you honestly think that people who get paid the most in this country actually put forth the most effort? Do you think they are the ones contributing the most to society? Your effort/reward ideal quickly breaks down outside of your anti-reality bubble. "A HANDOUT is the last thing anybody needs." Actually, a handout is exactly what some people need to get their lives together. There are limits on welfare (enacted during the CLINTON administration, by the way... lol), so people don't live on it as you suggest. I'm not saying we should have socialism, since our society is far to money centered for socialism to work. (Our reward is money for our efforts. A socialist society may be the better society in far in average human happiness and potential, but only if the reward is NOT monetary.) "oh, and RMD... while we are all looking for PROOF, why don't you PROVE to me that monetary policy lags only 2 years. Go ahead, do it." Well, I gave 2 years because that's the absolute upper limit I've ever seen occur. Most economists agree that it's more like 1 year. Here are some resources: http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/EM220/popUp1.html (1 Year) http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mpc/extmpcpaper0006.pdf (2 Years) http://stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2001/01_15_01.html (1 Year) http://www.e-analytics.com/bonds/fed5.htm (1 Year) http://www.iet.ru/trend/07-99/3_e.htm (6 to 9 months) As I define proof as significant supporting evidence which has yet to be found flawed, can be duplicated, and remains intact for a long time (say, the 100 or so years governments have used monetary policy to control fluctuations in markets), I would say I "proved" it. At any rate, if you have some evidence that monetary policy has a 14 year lag time, I'd be happy to read it. Since this is what you believe, you must provide me evidence that this is so, and that the 2 year max previously deduced is flawed. Continued on next post... |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 1:47:43 AM |
|
Continued from previous post...
Since you obviously aren't an economist, nor have you looked into WHY markets change and cycle, what are you basing your belief on? I suspect it's political dogma. I used to have your same attitude, but I change my mind. I could change it again I suppose, but it would take substantial evidence to do so. By the way, I assume you're Christian. (Since most Americans are.) If so, do you believe that Jesus was wrong is saying that you should give your possessions to the poor and needy? If you believe "A HANDOUT is the last thing anybody needs", then you must believe that Jesus was wrong... which would be impossible if he was God. Take note my argument absolutely does not rely on this last paragraph; I simply added it because I find it humorous to see Christians squirm. After all, Jesus would be ANYHTING but a Republican. "And while you are doing your google search, try searching for BERLIN WALL... and you'll know what a profound affect Reaganomics had on millions of people. And the savings to America? BILLIONS." Huh? What did Reganomics have to do with the Berlin Wall falling? Regan is often credited with the fall of communism, but this is completely unfounded. Communism fails for many reasons, and nobody has ever provided me with evidence that it had anything to do with the Cold War. First of all, it was the Marshall plan that doomed East Germany. The Marshall plan (which was pushed by Democrats, and apposed by most Republicans) gave West Germany a MASSIVE head start, ensuring that no matter how well implemented communism was in East Germany, West Germany was almost certain to be the "greener side" of the fence. This meant that East Germans, who were oppressed by their Communist government, had little reason to want to stay there. The flood of East Germans to West Germany soon caused the collapse of industry and services, and eventually the collapse of the government. It had absolutely nothing to do with Reganomics. (Support: http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_economic_miracle.htm) And exactly how did spending TRILLIONS of dollars that we didn't have save us money? We are STILL trying to pay off that debt. The Cold War was a perfect example of a combination of the military industrial complex, corrupt government puppets, irrational fear of the unknown, and dogmatic views of reality doing incredible damage to a country, and indeed, to the world. |
| #19 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 8:40:37 PM |
|
#21 - "There are many people like you who refuse to give Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves, for various ideological reasons."
I refuse to giver Reagan credit because it seems silly to me that such a simplistic view of history could be accurate. I believe the USSR feel because Communism is inherently flawed. I also think many external factors - partially including the cost of the Cold War - caused its eventual downfall. The paper you cite, while interesting, is flawed. Basically what you're saying (and what most conservatives believe) is that thanks to the massive build up of weapons by both sides during the Cold War, the USSR was unable to sustain its economy, and therefore fell. The United States, on the other hand, was able to hold out longer... in a sense, out lasting the USSR while doing the exact same destructive defecit spending. This theory is discussed here: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/reynolds/SovietDecline.htm An alternative theory of the collapse of the Soviet Union has to do with military buildups, see Brown (1992). In this model, we have the same economic stagnation as before, but it is made worse due to more and more resources being poured into the defense industry. As defense gets a bigger piece of the Soviet pie, there is less investment in capital. The total pie gets smaller, leading to economic and then political collapse. America's own defense industry has made claim that President Reagan's military expansion helped caused this. The theory suggests that the US military buildup induced a Soviet escalation of its own military power. The Soviets, trying to keep up with the West, starved their economy of needed investment, speeding up their economic decline. These general explanations however do not explain why the break up occurred exactly in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The idea that wages were allowed to rise but prices were kept constant does not take into account the thriving black market that occurred during this time. See FBIS (1990). Nor does the theory explain why it was that the Soviet authorities started the process of glasnost in the first place and choose to raise wages all of a sudden in the late 1980's. The reasoning becomes circular: Soviet mismanagement caused Soviet mismanagement. At any rate, since a black market existed throughout the Soviet economy, we cannot use Soviet planning as the singular cause for its monumental decline. Black markets are powerful economic structures that can overcome the most fool hardy of policies. Furthermore, the Soviet and Eastern European economic decline did not start in earnest until right at 1989, and all factors mentioned existed before 1989. For example the Soviet military had always taken a larger percent of GDP than the United States did for defense expenditures, even as far back as the Russian revolution. Furthermore, the Soviet military was always behind the West technologically, so they knew they could never gain an advantage nor even close the gap. Hence, we are left searching for an alternative reason for the events of 1989 to 1991. There must be a more definitive cause and effect scenario for how and why the collapse of the Soviet Empire happened at the exact time that it did. The paper concludes that it was, in fact, the decline of oil production in Russia that contributed the most to the fall of the union. At the very least, one must admit that the exact causes of the fall of the USSR are debateble. Yet you, and most conservatives, do not acknowledge this point. You adhere to your dogmatic view that Reagan's policies were the sole cause of the USSR's downfall, and this is silly. In doing so, you blur the line between your dogma and reality, and do a disservice to those of us who are genuinely interested in the truth. |
| #20 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 9:04:57 PM |
|
#22 - "The Reagan expansion began on the heels of the worse recession since the 1930's. It began in 1983 and when it came to an end in 1990, it was the longest peacetime expansion in US history."
Yes, I agree... it's easy to expand when you're: A.) Spending other people's money. B.) Spending money you don't have. "While it was followed by a very minor recession that was caused more by international economic changes than any domestic policy, America quickly returned to prosperity (well before Bill Clinton disgraced America)." Whaaa? Why don't we look at some facts. During the Reagan years: 1.) Income rose sharply, as did personal consumption. (BUT....) 3.) The budget deficit soared to over 6% of gross domestic product. 4.) National savings rate dropped. 5.) Business spending on equipment hardly rose. 6.) The GDP did not begin substantial rise (above that of inflation) until January of 1995. (You can just hop on money.msn.com and enter in a date range for the Dow of 1979 to 2000 for proof of that. And, ironically, if you enter it to 2003, you will see the very sharp decline starting at the begining of the Bush Jr. administration. :-) "Supply-side policies of the early 1980s had the effect of emphasizing the short run over the long run and eroding the foundation of the economy." Support: http://www.businessweek.com/1996/34/b348910.htm "During the expansion, the stock market rose from the modest value of 777 to 3,000 even after the stock market crash in 1987." This is incredibly misleading. You say "even after" the market crash, when the market crash tipified Reaganomics. It was BECAUSE of his policies that the market crashed, and in SPITE of them that it recovered. In addition, the increase from the low of 777 in 1982 to the high of 3,000 around 1988 is just barely more than what is accounted for by the massive rates of inflation caused by Reagans insane "spend money that we don't have" policies. Continued on next post... |
| #21 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 9:06:27 PM |
|
In addition, Reagan lied about his economic recovery plans during his electon.
"In his election campaign of 1980, Reagan had promised to balance the budget in three years. By 1984, the U.S. deficit had soared to its highest level in peacetime history, from $90 billion in 1982 to $283 billion in 1986—nearly ten times the highest deficit under any previous president." "In part, Reagan was correct in saying that the deficit had increased due to a failure of Congress to cut entitlement programs like social security. Indeed, despite Reagan's cut of $45 billion in specific programs, total federal spending on social welfare rose from $313 billion in 1980 to $533 billion in 1988. Reagan had only managed to stop the rate of increase in social spending, and not the actual amounts of spending. No experienced member of Congress who hoped to be reelected was about to cut senior citizen benefits (Social Security and Medicare), and Reagan was equally insistent on tax cuts and increased defense spending. The result was near economic chaos by 1989." "The out-of-control deficits had serious consequences. To finance the deficit, the U.S. borrowed money, which raised interest rates and generated a flow of foreign capital into America. This caused in turn the value of the dollar to skyrocket, as foreign investors competed to buy dollars in order to buy government and private securities and other high interest paying investments. As the value of the dollar soared relative to the value of foreign currencies, the cost of foreign goods to American businesses and consumers dropped. With imports cheaper than American goods, American consumers bought more and more imported goods and services. This is turn ruined many American businesses and sent jobs overseas as U.S. firms relocated abroad to take advantage of cheap labor and lower prices. By 1987 the U.S. had become the world's largest debtor nation, with a trade imbalance that stood at $170 billion." You say we "quickly returned to prosperity", so you must be forgetting the market crash of 1987: "The financial implications of the new era of the 1980s became vividly clear with the stock market crash in October 1987. In one week, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 13 percent of its value, stacking up $500 billion of losses in the market value of U.S. securities. It was the greatest collapse since the crash of 1929" Luckily for Reagan, the market rebounded right at the end of his presidency, leaving many Americans (obviously including your) with the mistaken ideal that his economic policies were a success, when, in fact, they were an utter failure. (Source: http://www.americanpresident.org/KoTrain/Courses/RR/RR_Domestic_Affairs.htm) "Several Silicon Valley entrepreneurs agree with this assessment, including Michael Dell and Cypress Semiconductors CEO, T.J. Rodgers." Wait, big business CEOs praise conservatives who want to cut taxes? Who woulda thunk it!? Give me a break. Lastly, you forgot to address both my evidence supporting the max of a 2 year delay in monetary policy, and my conclusions about the Berlin wall. I think it's wonderful how you provide me with "points" that I shoot down, then you ignore the fact I shot them down. |
| #22 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/19/2003 10:06:14 PM |
|
Reagan takes office and Communism soon falls. Hell, thats obviously pure coincidence... according to RMD. Just pure happenstance. It could have happen at any time during the previous 50 years, but just by chance happened after Reagan applied amazing pressure.
Nice debate Parker. Sorry, but I'm not even going to begin to pick apart your argument RMD. I must attend my Christian church tonight and learn more about how Jesus was a Democrat and supported abortion rights. LOL. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 22:11. |
| #23 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/19/2003 10:10:38 PM |
|
Wow I have never seen such anger, hatred and plain old desire to white wash history than has been seen this weekend from our reactionary leaning friends at activewin.
My God. |
| #24 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 10:13:09 PM |
|
#26 - "The trouble with that silly oil theory is that the serious problems started with the death of Brezhnev in 1982, and then the rapid deaths of his successors Andropov and Chernekno. It did not begin with the oil production problems that didn't start until 1988."
Wait, I thought it was the Cold War weapons build up that killed the USSR, not the death of their leaders. How, exactly, did Reagan help those individuals die? You call it a silly oil theory, yet you don't actually controvert any of the statements made in the article. Furthermore, how do you know when the serious problems started in the USSR? Even if the deaths of those leaders was a major factor in the fall, it would have been further compounded by the oil issue. Oh, and if you read the article I posted, you would realize the oil problems started around 1975, not 1988: "according to the CIA... From 1975 to 1980, the Soviet Union had a much lower 4% per year increase in use of oil and only a 3.5% increase in yearly production. This is the time when Soviet growth fell to 2.6%. From 1980 to 1985, the Soviet Union had no increase in oil consumption and a slight decline in oil production. At that time economic growth fell to 1.8% per year according to CIA estimates. See CIA Directorate of Intelligence (1988). Finally, from 1988 to 1992, Soviet and post Soviet oil production collapsed, as did consumption." "Ronald Reagan stood up the USSR when it was in trouble, instead of appeasing them like Carter did and Clinton would have." Oh, yes... the USSR was like a school bully. All you have to do is stand up to them. I remember that next time I try and take down a world super power. Just because Carter didn't want to kill the US economy by spending money we didn't have doesn't mean he was "appeasing" the USSR. Give me a break. "I could go on and on, but until I get a theory that is less silly from you I won't." Well, considering you've failed to address almost every issue I've raised, I'm not sure how the theories I present are silly. "The DOW is not the GDP you moron!!!" Sigh... I meant the Dow. And thank you for the name calling... it shows you'rr striking out because your arguments are weak. "That means from 1983 to 1990 real GDP jumped 30.6%." The GDP is far more reflective of how much cold hard cash is being spent than on the overall health of the economy. Since the government was spending massive amounts of money it didn't have, the GDP HAD to go up. Continued on next post... This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 22:18. |
| #25 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 10:18:49 PM |
|
Continued from previous post:
Yet, during that same time, the Dow's rise was minimal. The reason for this is that the Dow is a fairly distributed sampling of industries, and the only industries doing particularly well during the Reagan years were the defense contractors, which make up only a small portion of the Dow. "Ok. This is the last reply you'll get because I try to limit the amount of time I argue with out and out liars." What, exactly, have I lied about? So, let me sum up what you have yet to address: 1.) How do you explain the magical 13+ year lag time in monetary policy that must be a reality if Reaganomics is responsible for today's relative prosperity. 2.) How exactly did Reagan bring down the Berlin wall? Why do you ingore the affects of the Marshal plan, and the inherent flaws in Communist rule in East Germany? 3.) How do you explain the stock market crash of '87, and the "economic chaos" in 1989, if Reaganomics helped "America quickly returned to prosperity". 4.) Do you flat out deny the massive inflation rates caused by Reaganomics? If so, what caused them. If not, since when is inflation good? 5.) While you insist it was not oil problems that caused the fall of the USSR, you fail to actually address the points made by the article. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 336 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:57:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
