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: brian1501 who wrote (175254)	9/18/2003 4:24:05 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578545

And your point was Mr. Conan O'Brien? My point was if YOU remove non-defense spending that YOU consider to be "mandatory" yet you include defense spending that YOU consider to not be mandatory, of course there is an imbalance. It wasn't I that considered them mandatory; that's the term the Office of M and B uses. I take it you did not use the link I provided. I bet if I remove defense spending that _I_ consider to be mandatory and include non-defense spending that _I_ consider to be waste, then I will come out with an imbalance in the other direction. All the terms I used were those provided by Office of M and B. I guess you can do all the switching you want. So basically my point was that your point was rubbish <g> It certainly didn't make a lot of sense from the Office of M and B's point of view. BTW, hopefully things don't get much worse then they are. It's pretty manageable here now. Good to hear it.......would hate to lose a conservative to Isabel! <g> ted Subject Titles Only Full-Text Message Boards Terms of Use

To: brian1501 who wrote (175254)	9/26/2003 6:21:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578545

Its mandatory as a matter of law. There is a specific legal requirement for the spending in these programs. They are called entitlements because the beneficiaries are considered legally entitled to the money they get. Of course its not really mandatory because the laws can be changed. And in any case it being mandatory isn't a good reason to exclude it from consideration. Its still non-defense government spending and its only "mandatory" because of a vote by congress, just as all federal government spending requires a vote by congress. Tim