Out with the old, in with the old

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Dec 9, 2002.

  1. Tres. Sec. O'Neill was obviously the wrong guy for the job, a CEO of a rust belt old economy company whose big qualification apparently was that he was in the Ford administration with Cheney. So they replace him with...a CEO of a rust belt old economy company whose big qualification was that he was in the Ford administration with Cheney. Obviously, the market is underwhelmed, perhaps because this appointment signals more tax breaks for big companies and nothing for traders/investors.


    The sad thing is there were candidates out there who could have made an impact, retiring Sen. Gramm for one and Chuck Schwab for another. Ex-Rep. Dick Armey would have also been a good choice.

    I read somewhere not to expect much from any of these vacancies because the same people who picked O'Neill and Pitt would be doing the choosing again. Too true.
     
  2. ChrisRT

    ChrisRT

    I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "nothing" for traders/investors..it was my understanding that tax on dividends gains was going to be taken away if new legislation was passed, which at least at face value would be a benefit to investors that continue to park money in dividend paying issues...not sure if there are other issues that lie deeper to be honest with regards to this.
     
  3. ChrisRT,

    I think you are correct about div taxation, but this is a proposal that will run directly into the Democrat class warfare buzz saw. In the past, Republicans in Congress have wet their pants when confronted by the "unfairness" of giving tax relief to the people who are actually paying the taxes to begin with. The administration will have to get out in front on this and I don't see a Business Roundtable/CEO type being willing to take the heat.
     
  4. taodr

    taodr

    Will Bush get re-elected if they continue their lackadaisical attitude towards the economy ? As with Pitt, took too long, and they seem to be missing the mark how serious this could get. If the economy keeps falling where is the money coming from to fund these wars ?
     
  5. ChrisRT

    ChrisRT

    I see your point, this whole "shakeup" basically just being a net change of zero regardless of issues at hand.
     
  6. Tea

    Tea

    I think if we put a tax on Canadians coming across the border to buy beer & cigs, we could probably fund one, maybe 1 & 1/2 more wars.

    Now, who to attack......hmmmmm
     
  7. taodr

    taodr

    How long do you think it will be before the US just takes over Canada. I read a story last week that American corporations had tax losses to the tune of billions in Canada and the Canadian government was going to try to "get some back" yea right.
     
  8. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    A friend of mine said that the company lost 50% of the stock price while he ran it (into the ground it seems).....
    Investors voted with their feet and headed for the exits today!
     
  9. Tea

    Tea

    Don't quote me on this, but a friend of a friend of mine has an in-law working in the Pentagon on a secret project to liberate Canada.

    It involves dressing soldiers as hockey players so they can move across the border undetected. They will be using handgrenades that are designed as hockey pucks and their assault rifles will be built into their hockey sticks.

    Fortunately, the Canadian government has made it difficult for its citizens to own firearms, so the job will be easier.

    Bye the way, lets keep this hush-hush old bean.... eh?
     
  10. This nomination is nothing less than a Snow job. A patsy for Prez Bushie to blame and Carl Rove to fire when the stockmarket continues to decline. It's actually Paul O'Neill in disguise!!
     
    #10     Dec 9, 2002