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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196260)	7/29/2004 8:45:01 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571800

Ten, re: My biggest problem, however, is not whether we are too capitalist or too socialist. Instead, it's the whole attitude of "soaking the rich," Well you must be a happy camper, because at present our policy is soaking everyone else so that the rich can be more "rich". re: Meanwhile, the extra money feeds the bureaucratic beast that continues to cripple all aspects of federal government. This includes the CIA and FBI who, among other things, missed the 9/11 clues. What are you saying? We need to make those agencies stronger. re: The social services and the safety nets will always be there thanks to the entitlement culture we have, but the more we can ween ourselves off of said entitlements, the better... And the rich and powerful will continue to get theirs, no matter whether we live in a capitalism, a socialism, or a hybrid of any form." So you accept entitlements for the rich and not for the poor? Come on Ten, that's not moral (I won't say Christian beacuse you will jump all over me). The thing that's great about this country is that we've managed to move right and left and right and left over many years, and the balance has stayed in the middle. At the moment it's time to move left, very left. Time to bury the neo's. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196260)	7/29/2004 10:25:30 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571800

>Meanwhile, the extra money feeds the bureaucratic beast that continues to cripple all aspects of federal government. This includes the CIA and FBI who, among other things, missed the 9/11 clues. You think that if the CIA and FBI had less money they'd have noticed those clues? >And the rich and powerful will continue to get theirs, no matter whether we live in a capitalism, a socialism, or a hybrid of any form. So what? I don't care whether or not they get theirs. They could live in mansions made entirely of diamonds, for all I care. I just want everybody else to have enough. -Z

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (196260)	7/29/2004 11:07:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571800

My biggest problem, however, is not whether we are too capitalist or too socialist. Instead, it's the whole attitude of "soaking the rich," because they seem to be an all-too-convenient target. It's a tempting philosophy to push as a politician, because you can get the most money while costing yourself the least amoung of votes, and you can portray anyone who disagrees as arrogant as Marie Antoinette. (Ted is fond of that.) Meanwhile, the extra money feeds the bureaucratic beast that continues to cripple all aspects of federal government. This includes the CIA and FBI who, among other things, missed the 9/11 clues. I would be opposed to "soaking the rich" if they were any where close to hurting; however, that's not the case at all. What's most intriguing to me is why you defend them so admirably since the probability of you and any of us reaching that level of wealth is not too great. ted