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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bacchus_ii who wrote (66037)	12/20/2001 4:04:30 PM
From: Charles Gryba	Respond to of 275872

In both cases there was a national emergency that needed $$$$ to deal with. C p.s. I still think though that the senate did the right thing. I wrote to both my state's senators to vote against it. The bill would have given way too much money back to corporations ( even retroactively - going back 15 years - ridiculous ).

To: bacchus_ii who wrote (66037)	12/20/2001 4:09:32 PM
From: jcholewa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

> In 2000 George Bush won the Presidency promising > "limited government," reading the Constitution literally, > and rejecting the concept of "nation-building" – the > practice of imposing pro-American governments on foreign > nations. > But once in office he produced a federal budget limited by > nothing Now, mind you, I don't like the guy that much (I didn't like his competitors, either), and save for moral issues that shouldn't at all be important in an election for a member of the Executive branch of the government, he's pretty much a Democrat, but he did pretty much promise from the start that he'd both lower taxes and raise spending. That's a major peeve of mine, and it makes me wonder how people can think that the US goverment (whose total debt outdistances its yearly revenue several times over) is economically strong while a company like AMD (which has pretty much cleaned up its debt, and has a tennis match between profits and losses, but generally has a positive cash flow) is constantly teetering on the brink of annihilation. That aside, though, the debt has not worsened to the degree that I might have expected. So far this fiscal year (starting late September), the federal government has only lost seventy-five billion dollars. Given the country's poorly planned disaster recovery policy, that's not as bad as it could have been. But I'm really only being an apologist here. I say that the litmus test would be the deadline for this year's tax filings (I always forget ... whenzit, April?). If by then we're below $5.9 trillion in debt, then I will be hopeful. If we're worse than $5.95 trillion, then I will be nervous. If we've by then passed the $6.00 trillion mark in total debt, then we will have grounds for utter panic (*edit* perhaps "outrage" is a better word than "panic"). I do find it utterly unfair that the government can have so much debt, yet they're allowed to continue borrowing. When I tried to take out a loan (for recreational purposes, to see how the whole "borrowing" thing works) for a proportionately far lower amount with proportionately far greater earnings and holdings than the government, I had to go through a lot of annoyances and I didn't get nearly the amount that I was looking for! :O -JC ...maybe I should build up a military force to back me up; perhaps then banks will do what I request without hesitation.... *edit* I say that a law should be passed that penalizes the paychecks to the Senate and the House lawmakers for the debt. Every billion dollars beyond six trillion in the debt should mean that each of the lawmakers gets a hundred dollars less in their paychecks. That way, they will have an incentive to be fiscally responsible with our money.