Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (84702)	10/30/2000 10:24:41 PM
From: Terry Maloney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, well put. You could probably pass as canuckistani, except for the gun thing ... <g> Got hockey sticks? Seriously, I'd give it back too, and in a heartbeat, if it turns out that I am one of the lucky ones. Regards, Terry

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (84702)	10/30/2000 11:12:07 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

In the battered telecom sector, I see things brightening up for WCOM. Its interesting to note, that they actually expect their capex to shrink next year. With revenues growth still going stronger than most competitors, I expect that they could be net cash flow positive fairly quick. Only the new economy guys like LVLT, WCG and to a lesser extend GBLX are spending like crazy but they will be in a serious cash crunch next year. Furthermore, WCOM has one of the best balance sheets in the industry and does not need to shell out billions of $ for wireless 3G licenses. While it may be early,I think that WCOM is definitely the best play in the telecom service industry.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (84702)	10/31/2000 2:12:20 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

mike, i have no problem with a need based system that takes less out of our pocket now. by definition, those with any type of catastrophe are covered. while the number of rich elderly is debatable, there are a lot of elderly that are well off and even more well above poverty (seems to me there are more kids in poverty than the elderly, but they don't vote, right?). those that are in need would get much needed help - probably more than they get now. folks would have an incentive to save instead of ignore their responsibilities and rely on ss after driving a new model beamer every 2 years. ok, then there is the other 99% of the population (yeah, i'm in the 1% and i don't drive a beamer). -ng- i don't need to buy bill gates' medicine. or steve forbes medicine. or for a couple making $60k a year in investments with a million in the bank. when i'm pulling $60k from my investments, i don't want some guy making $6/hr paying my way. fundamentally wrong. dubya got the words right (though i don't think he really understand them! ;-) when he said "principle, not politics."