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 (135100)	3/29/2001 5:46:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1581840

You are like your hero GWB...you put together a few facts that fit your view of the world and then you run with it. No matter what I post or anyone else for that matter, you pull up another fact that out of context invalidates the new piece of evidence and makes your view work. So fine, what doe it matter that I lived in CA and saw first hand what was going on and you live 3K away. Forget that the subject matter falls in the area where I have an advanced degree. Forget that I am fiscally conservative and would not want to see $$$ pssed away for no good reason. GWB is not my hero. I just prefer him to Gore or Clinton. Fine, you live in CA and you have an advanced degree related to this subject matter. So I don't chalange you when you talk about CAs problems. I'll assume you are right as you have reason to know and I have no reason to think you would be dishonest. However when you make specific statements that are verifiably false I'll call you on them. CAs taxes have grown as a percentage of personal income and have strongly grown if you just consider real per capita taxes, so when you say CA has been "one of the most agressive places to reduce taxation in this country" it is not only false but is obviously false. Unless you are just talking about the last budget and even then I don't think the cuts are particuarly aggressive as a percentage of income. They are only large because CA is large. As a % they are not even close to being aggressive. Whether its taxes, the environment, traffic, the poor etc. Reps. find a way to blame it on a misconception or misunderstanding, and that it has nothing to do with money spent.* And when taxes andspending explode upwards democrats find a way to call it an agressive cut. Its one thing to argue that spending growing by 14% a year is not enough. I would disagree but your statement while questionable would not be obviously false. Its something else entirely to claim these big jumps actually are cuts. Tim