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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RON BL who wrote (126473)	2/10/2001 4:08:42 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ron, I agre with you on number 1 about the highway system. I am not entirely clear about your answer to number 2. When you say that something is a national concern, it is unclear to me exactly how that is determined. National defense is an easy example. But how do you balance the coast guard against guaranteed student loans. There are lots of folks all over the country who would say that providing student loans so that we have an educated workforce is more in the national interest than the coast guard plucking sport fishermen out of the ocean when they run out of fuel. The FBI and DEA only serve a national need if you conclude that state and local police are somehow unable to provide this law enforcement protection, which traditionally has been a state function. You are probably right that mass transit should be treated as a state issue, although you could make the case that there is some national interest in ensuring that employees in the Bay Area for example (including silicon valley) are able to reach their jobs (and contribute to the national commerce) in a timely and relatively inexpensive way. If you live in the Bay Area, you know that it is already virtually impossible to drive anywhere during commute hours. If there were no federally funded mass transit, the system might well break down altogether, which would cause some harm to the national interest. As to 3, it seems that you are saying that you are not so much opposed to federal funding of medical research, as you are to the manner in which funding decisions are made. No one would argue with ensuring that these funding decisions (like military bases, etc) are made on the merits rather than political considerations. The taxes we pay that go for providing disaster relief are essentially insurance payments. If you examine the past 30 years, there is probably no state that has not benefitted from this program. The problem with local governments trying to deal with the aftermath of one of these calamities is that the disaster itself undermines the very tax base that is needed to fund recovery. Finally, bringing all troops home from all foreign countries is the simple answer to my question, but I think it might be more difficult than that. Is it in our national interest to bring troops home from South Korea if the result is that North Korea then invades? Frankly, I agree that with the reduced threat from the east, Europe ought to be able to sort out their own affairs. Does that mean that we withdraw from NATO? Finally, your gratutious swipe at liberals over the Bosnia thing doesn't wash. It seems to me that there were lots of protests in the Bay Area about the Bosnia situation, and they weren't sponsored by the Conservative Union.

To: RON BL who wrote (126473)	2/10/2001 4:47:50 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<<Have you ever lived in an area that received federal emergency assistance?”>>>> Oh how I object to the federal assistance for emergency purpose. How can one justify giving moneys to hurricane victims in Florida and not helping the people of North Dakota during a blizzard. As you say, it becomes the loudest voice that receives the compensation. It is impossible to be fair in all these matters. The only way to be fair is to help no one, as the Constitution does not allow it. If someone wants to send aid to a flood victim in an area let them do it. If the state wants to help people within there state so be it, but the federal government has no business doing it. People will think I am hardhearted but I am not interested in paying for the beachfront homes that are destroyed by floodtides. If people want to have the advantage of a beachfront property let them pay for it and take the risks. Just my humble thoughts.