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 (139561)	10/3/2001 9:18:27 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580690

Ted Re..Harry, if I were to say the sky is blue, would you disagree just to have an argument?<<<<<< With all of the smog and rain in Seattle, how often do you ever see a blue sky. HMMmm. I might challenge that.<g> There is no way that anyone will agree to reduce the number of missiles we have at our disposal<<<< That was one of the points of GW's plan with the soviets. Both sides would go down to 2500. But that isn't enough, so Bush wants another $35 billion on top of that to stimulate the economy; that's in addition to the tax cuts approved earlier this year. <<< First of all, it was the Dems who doubled GW's bailout for NYC and the airlines. In addition, Daschle was on tv today, saying it was a lot of money, but he had no choice, but to spend the money. Daschle also didn't volunteer to cut out any pork either, so I assume, pork will rule also. What a crock! We got attacked, not destroyed!<<<<< Future attacks will cripple or destroy us if we don't destroy them first. We need to go on the attack, and get the economy out of recession. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. My opinion is is that we can't afford it...not right now....<<<<<< Last yr, and this yr, we have had the biggest surpluses in history. If we can't afford it now, when will we?

To: tejek who wrote (139561)	10/4/2001 10:52:35 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1580690

There is no way that anyone will agree to reduce the number of missiles we have at our disposal. We already have and probably will continue to do so esp. if we put an SDI system in place (which would insure that enough missles would be likley to survive to make a retalitory strike even if we had less missiles. One of the resons for our huge arsenals of the past was the need to ensure the capability of a second strike to deter a first strike by any enemy but obviously mostly the Soviets) As for new extra spend, I understand the case for fiscal conservatism but I think you are overreacting a bit. I can agree that all this new spending has a downside, but its tiny compared to the economy and a lot of it is one time spending. The homeland defense stuff will have a a lot of continuing new programs but all the recovry effort and airline bailout money is (hopefully) one off spending. I think perhaps the bailout is a bit too big (not that airlines don't need tons of money but they needed tons of money before the attacks and we should not bail them out from their own business mistakes). Tim