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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (135001)	3/27/2001 1:19:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571434

First, CA had more $$$ to spend because it grew very quickly in the 80's. However, its not fair to say that prop 13 was not a limiting factor nor that CA spent as much as it needed to to maintain its quality of life. How fast does government spending have to grow to maintain quality of life? Spending went up in real (inflation adjusted) per-capita dollars. Why would "quality of life" start to due to a lack of government spending when spending is growing? In fact, I would argue that it did not based up the deteriorating infrastructure during that period. As for being short of funds because they spent too much on another category, what is the detail you used to come to that conclusion? I am assuming the shortage of funds for education and infrastructure based only on the posts by you and Scumbria here. I am assuming you are correct. If you are wrong then the whole arguement was pointless. So assuming we have crumbleing infrastructure and inadiquate education spending during a period where spending was large and growing quickly one would have to assume that either the money was somehow wasted or it was spent on other things. Tim