October 14, 2004
Is it RIGHT? or is it WRONG?
Can someone PLEASE tell me who it was that decided that our government (really us,the taxpayer) should pay for every research project, study, and idea that anyone has?
There used to be a time in our country when people went out and asked for donations to fund their projects and ideas. What happened? Has it just become much easier to go to the U.S. Government for the money?
I ask this because of the issue of Stem Cell Research.
People seem to forget that our Government's money comes from ALL of us.
The Dilemma:
There are people in our country that are against destroying embryos for Stem Cell Research.
There are people all for this.
How can our government go against the wishes of the people that are against the destruction of these embryos and pay for it?
How can our government not pay for it because there are some who want it?
The Solution:
The government should not ban the research and should not pay for all of it either.
It's not like the ones against it can keep their tax dollars from going towards it. That's not fair to them.
There are enough people in our country who support this research. People who would gladly open their pocketbooks to help fund this research. If the supporters would ask, they may end up with more money than the government would give.
The people who these embryos belong to should decide what happens to them. Not some politician.
There is a box on our tax returns to fund the Presidential Campaign. Why can't there be one to fund Stem Cell Research along with the amount of your donation?
Because we can't trust our government to actually put the money where it was meant to go?
How would we know how much was actually donated in this way? How would we know that OUR Government didn't take some of the money to build a golf course somewhere for a retiring Congressman?
How about attaching a cancelled check to our tax returns and being able to deduct it from taxes owed -100% ? This way it would come from tax money of people who want the government to fund the research and it would go where it is meant to go.
Our Politicians would hate this idea but it sounds good to me. What would happen if half of us decide to send our whole tax bill to this research? The Politicians would want a limited amount to go to the research. I guess that is understandable. That should not stop additional donations that should be tax deductible.
Posted by Dawn at October 14, 2004 02:21 PM“There are people in our country that are against destroying embryos for Stem Cell Research.
There are people all for this.”
dawn:
I am against research into new weapons programs, I am against the use of coal as a energy producer, I am against the war in Iraq,
there are people who are for all of these things.
there are issues on all sides of government people are against, but we live in a (suposed) democracy, and the idea is that majority rules.(or some lengthier description that means the same thing.)
so when the majority of americans think we should do anything possible to find cures to incurable desieses, we shouldn’t be shocked the government funds it.
I am curious, do you want MORE people asking you for money? a knock on the door every nite for a million different causes that all of the sudden don’t have funding.
“yes hello, would you please donate money so we can do research how to make even deadlier weapons?
Posted by: martiniwitz at October 14, 2004 03:26 PMDon,
In the private sector, what you are referring to is called ‘venture capital’ and ‘R&D.’
Previous post already addressed problem of opting out.
It is possible for a society to work together and ‘promote the general welfare.’ Remember that, at least ideally, the government consists of ‘we the people.’ Those guys debating last night are not there by divine right. They owe us honest answers to straightforward questions.
Government is more effective at promoting research than the private sector. Surprised? Take a look at the last 25 major pharmaceuticals developed. Guess how many were produced by the private sector, and how many by the public one. An interesting debate would be over why publicly funded research is so much more effective than private research (or is it?), but perhaps another day…
It’s not like the ones against it can keep their tax dollars from going towards it.
My understanding is that you can, actually. You can write the government a letter asking that your money not be used for __________ (e.g. the military, stem cells) and they pretend to shuffle it around on paper for you.
Posted by: ceejayoz at October 14, 2004 04:00 PMDawn
I agree. I am pro-choice and pro-stem cell research though, I just don’t think the govt. should be the main source of funding either.
martiniwhiz
“but we live in a (suposed) democracy, and the idea is that majority rules”
- Wrong! We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. If we were, as you say, a democracy and majority rules, then abortion would be illegal, gun owners would still have rights, just being gay would be illegal, religion would probably rule on alot of our laws and if the majority ruled against stem cell research, it too would be illegal.
Because we have a representitive form of govt. and not a democracy, individual rights are supposed to be protected.
You also cannot compare this topic to the military. National defense is a govt. function as layed out in the US Constitution.
You can also elect not to support energy derived from coal, you have a choice. People who disagree with stem cell research have no choice.
My ‘solution’ is meant to get the ball rolling on the research.
How many people that are against the government funding of the research do you think would still be 100% against it if cures are found and they themselves or their family members benefit from it?
They might even take out a loan to write a check to fund the research.
After that the private sector may be able to take over the whole funding problem without government money.
If they need government money I’d say there wouldn’t be the fight against it that there is now.
Martiniwitz,
Just curious.
What do you use to heat and cool your house?
I just turn the furnace down and don’t run the air as much.
My husband complained until he saw I cut our electric bill in half this summer.
I also want our government to be able to protect us. They may go a little far in what they think they need sometimes but that stuff needs to be left up to our wonderful,caring politicians.
Dawn,
Research grants by the federal government require matching funds, set standards, and promote the sharing of information. Additionally, they provide much needed funds for education projects and break through technology. However, the grants do have their drawbacks for those who want to use them. Responsible reporting of findings on a regular schedule, accountability of funds spent, and local economic expansion (which I find a joke). Actually, the latter depends on exactly how the final draft of the grant is wrote up. Nevertheless, federal grants allow our government to control the use of any knowledge found in the experiments.
Maybe you remember the same debate being discussed over “DNA” research or Cancer. While our government supplements research for all sort of things, I do understand your personal concern over the stem-cell research. However, cloning may hold the answer to the problem and provide a solid base for the first couple rounds of experiments.
While I like your idea of checking a box on your tax return for allowing the money to be used for a certain research project. You might want to check out the governments list of studies and research projects that are currently being funded by our government. Just don’t be shocked when you find out what congress has granted money for over the last four years.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 14, 2004 05:26 PMDawn, I don’t object to federal seed money for research PROVIDED the American tax payer gets a 2% royalty on all profits from the primary patent holders who develop that research into a marketable product. Want to reduce deficits and lower taxes? I can’t think of a single more significant long term stategy for doing that than this royalty rebate to tax payers for successful research.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2004 05:49 PMDavid,
Great idea, but I think the going rate is 5-10% per invention. In fact, I think, but am not a 100% sure, that some research grants have done just that. Clinton and company stated something about it with G Nome and Nano research in the mid 90’s.
Henry, that may have been proposed under Clinton, don’t know, but I am pretty sure such an arrangement would never survive under Bush or a GOP Congress. Why would corporations yield back royalties to taxpayers without threatening campaign contributions to the GOP?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2004 06:40 PMdavid/henry-
I tottally agree that the taxpayer or rather the deficit, should be given at least a large portion of any proceeds.
dawn:
“Just curious.
What do you use to heat and cool your house?”
there are many cleaner and cheaper ways to generate electricity than burning coall to heat water to create steam to spin a wheel. And the gov. subsidizes the coal industry something in the range of 55 bilion dollars a year, so that it is the cheapest form of electricty.
kctim:
” If we were, as you say, a democracy and majority rules, then abortion would be illegal, gun owners would still have rights, just being gay would be illegal”
they would? are you sure? while I have no data to suport my statements, do you?
Posted by: martiniwitz at October 14, 2004 07:10 PMkctim:
You also cannot compare this topic to the military. National defense is a govt. function as layed out in the US Constitution. You can also elect not to support energy derived from coal, you have a choice. People who disagree with stem cell research have no choice.
I submit that you’d have a very difficult time separating many, many areas of research funding from national defense. 150 years ago, wars were won by manpower, 50 years ago by economic and industrial muscle, now by technology and precise intelligence.
For the second point, I’m guessing martin doesn’t find coal-powered light bulbs less pleasant, but objects to other side-effects, like air pollution. How do you elect to enjoy clear air? Stem cells are actually easier, in a way, if and when there are therapies developed from them one could always decide no, stem cell research is wrong, I’ll just stay paralyzed…
Martiniwitz.
You didn’t answer me but I will answer you.
If I say we heat with wood, you would probably be against that too. I suggested a windmill to my husband but he was against it. Windmills are eyesores ya know. Ask those people fighting those off New England.
He really wasn’t willing to invest in one and it would be hard these days to run a household on one. Unless of course we spent a whole lot of money building one big enough to do the job. I don’t have a creek nearby to wash our clothes and I’m not much on reading by candlelight. My computer that I use to argue with people uses electricity and so does the phone line.
We do what we can to conserve. That is what we all should be doing.
Since we are all spoiled we have to pay the price. Whatever it may be.
I don’t know what your solutions are but I know what you don’t like about the coal issue. You said cleaner and cheaper. What are they? What will it cost to get them up and running, how many jobs will be created, and how long will it take?
Henry,
I wouldn’t be shocked at funding from our government but please don’t suggest that Republicans are the only ones who do this.
Henry - David,
The idea of any of us taxpayers receiving a return from profits is a good one but it would never fly. The politicians would want to keep that for the government to spend and we all know it.
Just like the form one can fill out to direct where they would like their tax money used ….
I’ve looked into grants for myself. Thought I might try to start my own business. Decided I would just keep trying to win the lottery instead of going through all of that.
Isn’t the Stem Cell issue a little different though? Because it has become such a big issue I am assuming most of the red tape would be skipped.
Posted by: Dawn at October 14, 2004 11:05 PMDawn,
Ever time I have mentioned our government I mean both political parties so please don’t try to play he said she said with me. I am sure you will find that I do not support either party just because they think they are right.
What I was pointing out is that our government has payed for studies on sex (all types), Cow manure, and even on ant farms. The list of grants which would be contriversal to say the least would take you a life time to read. Where do you think all those “How to” books come from? Have you ever checked out our governments “Consumer Reports” studies?
How is stem-cell research different than testing live monkeys?
Like you found out about business grants, our government loves red tape, but that might be because our laws require it.
On dealing with royalities from grants, like I told David I think that in the 90’s our congress did it on a limited basis, but I’m not sure on exactly which programs actually were effected. I do know that Clinton provided funding for the DNA Structure research that made cloning possible on the terms that our governmant kept rights to all studies, information, and technology.
Posted by: Henry Schlat man at October 15, 2004 12:03 AMPure science research usually does not have any direct benefit economically.
There is very little or no venture capital interested in research that is unlikely to produce a profit.
Science often involves what sounds like arcane and even stupid research to those not conversant in it.
We live in an age where science has massively improved our living standards, longevity, and understanding of our own behavior. Look at progress over the last 100 years. In 1904 my greatgrandparents did not have electricity, phones, radio, schooling beyond the eighth grade,or antibiotics. Most of our modern technologies were advanced by scientific research. Much of it was funded through federal grants.
People sometimes yearn for the good ole days. My grandmother didn’t and neither do I. My father worked for a university in their R&D department. All of their funding was governmental. It was mostly defense related. The “star wars” technology that Reagan touted was actually under development in the late sixties and early seventies. Yes, there is a lot of waste in these programs, but look at where we’ve come. How can you not see the great benefits that scientific research has brought us?
The only thing that is right or wrong here is the wrongness of advocating ignorance.
Posted by: Greg at October 15, 2004 01:00 AMOn stem cell research the government has put limits on private research, which I personally think wrong, massively over-stepping its bounds.
With “Government” funding certain research it has a certain amount of control over the end result, and if it is in the “country’s” best interest, ie; tradeable, like nuke fission, smallpox vaccine, and the myriad of other inventions/discoveries since America first wrote a letter to King George, all well-and-good.
If it is a weapon, like nuke fission, guidance systems, explosives, while not everybody likes them they can be sold and they can, especially in the event of an attack on the US, be beneficial to all.
These add to GDP, which is great for our credit around the world.
So while some of us might like some things the government invests in, because it is an investment, some just don’t see it as such, and some might dislike other things, they all benefit the country as a whole in one way or another, and THAT my friefnds is what a good government is supposed to do.
(sarcasm starts here)
And that endeth the lesson according to Ynot.
Charles Krauthammer wrote an interesting piece in the Washington Post on this issue.
In it, he condemns both Kerry and Edwards for their shameless exploitation of the catastrophically afflicted and describes their distortions of the whole stem cell issue as loathsome.
Mr. Krauthammer is a doctor by training and a quadriplegic.
Posted by: NOTOTH at October 15, 2004 08:29 AMNOTOTH,
Although I don’t believe in the “Cure All” distortions, the fact that stem cell research has proven that advanement in health care is possible I say we go for it.
Based on the doctors idea and others, we would still be fighting chicken pox. Research is just that Research. Now, I do not know of any candidate that takes a position to take an embyro out of a woman, if you do please let me know. Therefore, I suggest that as long as no one pays for eggs and sperm to make the embyros than I can not see the personal conflict. Unless somehow people want to put an end to the natural cycle of mankind.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2004 09:01 AMSorry again Henry,
In your post you said - ‘in the last four years’.
As many times as I’ve heard ‘in the last four years’ and ‘in the next four years’ …. I took it as a jab towards Republicans.
The way some of these issues are ‘used’ by our politicians to gain votes and some people can’t discuss things without reciting ‘talking points’ … Not you Henry … but you know what I mean.
Just like the issue of prescription drugs. I saw a stat that said 4% buy drugs from Canada. I’m guilty. I bought medicine in Mexico once, about 8 years ago. I didn’t have insurance and there was an enormous price difference. The medicine was made by the same company, same boxes. It looked identical.
What I am getting at is from what I understand, most of the drugs from Canada are made right here. We have to pay for the R&D and these costs are not added in when drugs are sold to other countries - like Canada. The reason I heard was because ‘Americans can afford to pay for it and other countries can’t’. I don’t believe this for a minute. If the costs of R&D were added equally for whoever buys them, the drugs would be cheaper here and a little more other places.
Granted there are places that just can’t afford the extra cost but I do not believe Canada is one of them.
The question is… if the drugs are made available to everyone and most people choose to buy them through Canada where will the money for R&D come from? Would this cause job loss and hurt R&D? Will insurance companies require us to order drugs from Canada to save them money? Will this cause prices to go up even higher?
Most people with prescription cards and co-payments don’t think about what the drugs really cost and don’t know how much their insurance companies really pay after their discounts.
People are being led to believe that our government is just trying to rip them off to benefit the drug companies.
I can’t see how Bush can say, ‘The reason your drugs are higher here is because you pay for the R&D and Canada doesn’t.’
Kerry won’t tell anyone that because then it wouldn’t be an issue he can use.
Dawn,
Just remember that I am not buying into the parties line.
Canada has price controls in effect and would be hurt if Americans overran their system. They even do R&D of their own; however, the US does alot more.
You are right about our government benifits the drug companies under Bush’s new drug plan. It seems that Bush and Congress has decided it was in our best interest if we allowed the drug companies to set whatever price they want and if a drug on any of the drug discount cards cost to much for the company they have the right to raise/remove it from the list with no or little warning. Yet, if you elect that drug card you can not change to another plan that will save you money. In other words, a drug company could state that they will sell X pill for a $1.00 and quickly/queitly raise the price to $5.00 and there is nothing we can do about it.
For Kerry, he is willing to make the drug companies bid for the clients which will directly lower the cost of the drugs and keep them down.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2004 09:33 AMYes Henry.
Kerry has a ‘plan’ for everything.
What is he going to do? Run to a microphone every time his plans aren’t being implemented and tell us, ‘I’m trying to do this for you, and they won’t let me.’
That could help or hurt the way he is viewed by us.
The President has the power of pursuasion over the votes on these issues, we know.
It doesn’t mean they get what they want all the time. Good for us or not.
Dawn,
That the Presidents job. Either Congress works together in good faith on an issue or the president has a right to use his position to go over their head and directly to the people. Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton did it all the time.
However, even the President risks losing on the issue, but America usually wins when both sides show how stupid their orginal stance on the issue is. The problem with Bush on this issue is that he has not allowed this process to take place.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2004 09:57 AMOn grants the federal government funds primarily basic research. That’s where this stem cell research is and until it can become more mature or applied it makes sense to use public funding.
The federal rules as cited by OMB A-110 would classify this as intangible property which could be patented by the grantee subject to a royalty-free license back to the federal government for its use. That’s why the drug companies do much of their on basic research.
Posted by: George at October 15, 2004 10:54 AMTHANK YOU George,
I thought I wasn’t going crazy, but I have never looked up the US Code that govern research.
Doesn’t that same rule also give the government the right to control the speed of the release of the results of that research?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2004 11:03 AMDawn —
Good point in the main post. Government corrupts and is corrupted by its involvement in science, as it is in religion.
Posted by: matthew hogan at October 15, 2004 11:07 AMIt’s been a while since I’ve done grants Henry, but most contain a “release of information” provision that would be in effect during the term of the grant. And yes the government could slow down the release of information if it wanted to. But you have to remember that most basic research is performed in the University system and in that system professors are paid to publish. Therefore, there is great pressure applied by the researching organization to release the results.
What is missing in this politicized debate is that (generally) it takes 100 basic research efforts to develop 5 viable applied research projects. And of those 5, only 1 might become a viable product or service.
And that’s what I don’t understand. Bush has answered the question that we should fund stem cell research (by his funding it). That dam is broken, and slowing it at this point seems unreasonable.
But just as unreasonable is Edward’s charge that we are further along in the research and that a viable cure is right around the corner. If that were true then the federal government should have no business in this arena at all.
George,
Thanks, and I agree with you on Edwards comments. Although I do believe that there may be a quick breakthrough in knowledge of stem cell research, I believe that any “cure” is at least 10-20 years away.
By the way, I didn’t know the ratio was that high on the research projects success.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 15, 2004 12:09 PMHenry,
I know I started this with stem cells but I want to talk about Kerry’s Health Plan.
I have read Kerry’s Plan for more affordable health care. It is vague in a lot of ways.
It says he will make the same healthcare he gets available to Americans.
If it’s true it costs the government $7700/family for the insurance, that is more than we pay now. Does it include dental and eyecare? Drug cards?
Would people qualify just because they are uninsured? Can anybody drop their health insurance they have now and qualify?
How much would people have to pay for this insurance? Based on income? Size of family? Age?
We know there are people who opt out of buying their own health insurance because they would rather take the chance they won’t get sick and keep the money for other things. Would they qualify? How much would it cost them?
He’s going to save workers/employers $1000 in premiums? It doesn’t say anything about the self-employed.
The way I read his plan it would not help us.
What would the tax credit do to help us? It says the credit is for people buying into the Congressional Health Plan. It doesn’t say how much the credit will be. I have to know how much the credit and the insurance will be to know if it would help us.
Is he going to mess with the way we deduct our premiums now? This is supposed to be going up to a 100% deductable.
He talks about prescription drug costs going up 17%. When he talks about the cost to Medicare recipients he neglects to mention that people who buy their own insurance have the option for a drug card … which makes insurance cost more.
Will the government make a profit from selling this health insurance to people? Who does the government but it from?
I cannot find answers to my questions on Kerry’s website. I won’t spend hours ‘googling’ for the information either.
His plan is just to vague for me to buy into it.
Round numbers Henry! When talking about this stuff I’m accustom to dealing with people in politics; you have to make it real simple for them!
G
George,
You are right about having to break down any issue into Alice’s Resturant’s 37 3X5 colored pictures.
Dawn,
On Kerry’s health care plan you are better off asking American Pundit that Question. The way I understand it, Kerry wants to use the umberala of the government to allow people to choose from the countless numbers of health plans offered to government employees by private insurance companies. Bush threw out the $7,700.00 as a scare tactic. As you might realize that Kerry is only talking about people who don’t have health insurance and Bush was talking about everyone in America. Therefore, Apple and Oranges do not count by Bushs own words.
How can our government go against the wishes of the people that are against the destruction of these embryos and pay for it?
How can our government not pay for it because there are some who want it?
Um… then should war also be a private sector endevour? Obviously, any time the goverment does things, there will be those who don’t agree with it!
And the government’s purpose is to provide the collective good that individuals cannot efficiently provide. Sure we could wait for everybody to eventually get around to paving the road in front of their house, and eventually built a system of streets. But that’s not an efficient way of providing a colletive good.
And in the same vein, we could sit back and wait years for people to form non-profits and fund raise to get money for research, but it takes time. And many want to see that there is some hope for the funding. So the government provides some seed money to more efficiently start the process.
Posted by: blipsman at October 15, 2004 01:27 PMHey Dawn,
Henry’s right about Bush’s scary numbers. They also don’t take into account the economy of numbers you get as more people buy into the FEHB plan - if they want to.
As for the rest, you’re not going to get those kinds of details until it becomes a bill, goes through the House and Senate committees where they’ll amend it, then it goes to the floor of both houses where it gets amended again until it’s at a stage where most legislators agree on it.
Then Kerry will threaten to veto this GOP butchered bill and send it back to them, while going to the American people to put pressure on Congress to get it right.
It’ll be a fun process made easier, of course, by having the Dems take back the Senate.
But seriously, Kerry’s plan will be better for you. The main focus is only to bring healthcare prices down. If he can get it passed, you won’t even notice, except that your current insurance premium should drop by at least 20%.
By contrast, Bush isn’t even addressing the problem. He threw out a plan, you know, because you have to. But after passing the disastrous prescription drug bill (pharmaceutical giants have already raised prices to offset the “discounts”), Bush feels he’s already done healthcare. He’s not really pushing for anything that will address the fact that tens of millions of Americans can’t afford healthcare, and the rest of us are paying more than we need to.
Here’s a quick summary of things I though were interesting about Bush’s “plan” and Kerry’s plan.
Hmm… That sounds a little pessimistic (I just woke up). Back to cheerleading mode - here’s a lazy (efficient?) cut & paste from the other side of the page:
Kerry’s plan gives you personally a healthcare tax credit that you can spend on whichever plan you want.Kerry’s plan uses government incentives and leverage to lower healthcare costs through a variety of means, including modernizing health care provider administration like Bush talked about in the debate (good ideas are non-partisan, right?).
Kerry’s plan also gives you the option to join the healthcare plan that over 9 million government employees use, if you want.
Kerry’s plan is all about reducing the cost of healthcare and giving you more options in how you spend your healthcare budget.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 15, 2004 10:02 PM
Hey, while I’m thinking about it, let’s talk about Bush’s HSAs.
Bush has proposed these tax exempt health saving accounts. On the surface, it sounds like a pretty good idea, right?
But if you think about it, HSAs don’t do anything to bring down the price of healthcare. If you can’t afford healthcare in the first place, it doesn’t matter whether the account is tax exempt or not.
BUT, an HSA makes a really good tax shelter for wealthier people who already have healthcare coverage.
In my more cynical moments, I see HSAs as just another really good way for the GOP to help the wealthy and screw the less well off - all the while spewing slogans about compassionate conservatism.
Nototh,
You said, “Charles Krauthammer wrote an interesting piece in the Washington Post on this issue.
In it, he condemns both Kerry and Edwards for their shameless exploitation of the catastrophically afflicted and describes their distortions of the whole stem cell issue as loathsome.
Mr. Krauthammer is a doctor by training and a quadriplegic.”
He was on Tony Snow’s showTony Snow’s show
today talking about this issue again. I’m sure the transcript is there by now but today he said something to the effect of ‘Mr.Edwards is a lawyer who knows how to sue doctors, he knows nothing about medicine.’
I, along with you, agree that this man knows much more about this issue than Kerry/Edwards and people should at least hear what he has to say.
AP,
Kerry has a ‘plan’ for a ‘plan to fix health care costs’ in this country.
I am supposed to believe that is going to be better for me?
He also has a ‘plan’ to raise taxes for some of us.
Kerry plans to raise capital gains tax?
This is a main source of income for us and we do not make $200,000+/yr.
Wow! Really, Dawn? What do you do? Land speculation? Day trader?
Dawn,
While I’m no CPA or tax specialist, I have not heard Kerry speak of repelling the capital gains tax. However, if he can get it through congress and sign it into law all anyone has to do to get around that law is reinvest any capital gains into a tax deffered or tax exempt account and than borrow the same amount from the bank. As long as the interest on the account is higher than the interest on the loan, you are still making money. How do you think Mrs. Kerry made 5 mil and only paid 12.8% tax rate? Over half of her money comes from tax deferred or tax exempt accounts.
Although you need to do your homework, state and municipal bonds falls into that group and is usually safe. But beware of the loads and conditions placed on several of these types of accounts.
FYI: Kerry’s plan focuses on businesses making the money the old fashion way (through profits). By allowing the middle/low income population to have more spendable cash, businesses can sell more units and thus add more money in profits, hence Capitalism at its finest. Bush’s plan wants businesses to gain the profit through the market and than pass it down to the stockholders, thus keeping wages low and causing the economy to grow slow. Check out the growth of the Dow between 1980-88 (Trickle down economy) and 1990-1999 (Trickle up economy) and you will see that the largest growth across the broad is when new ideas, tech, and inventions are steadly added to the market. Progressive yes, but the jump in potential economic wealth for everyone is amazing.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 17, 2004 11:39 PMDawn, I’m bummed that you haven’t told us what you do for a living. I’ve only me two people in my life who derived their “main source of income” from capital gains. One was a day trader, the other bought and sold properties. I’m really curious what you do.
