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: brushwud who wrote (208767)	10/26/2004 6:50:18 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575740

Brushwud, Are you for increased public borrowing or against it? I think she's for soaking the rich even more, such as Prop. 63, a measure cleverly formulated so that if you're against it, you must be pro-millionnaire and anti mental-health. Tenchusatsu

To: brushwud who wrote (208767)	10/27/2004 1:23:20 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575740

Brushwud, I don't want to talk about stem cell research because that's a sensitive topic for Steve Harris that I will respect. But getting back to your post, you had asked me a general question about whether or not I am for borrowing. Proposition 13 is on the table apparently looking to be chopped I hear. Buffett said prop 13 would generate a few billion dollars. So there we go. Regarding your last question, it's irrelevant who borrows the money. It is important whether or not the leader has indicated what he's going to chop in order to put it on the table. Bush hasn't chopped anything as far as I can tell, though you may be able to shed some light on what he's cut. Meanwhile, Arnold has chopped and he said he's going to look at putting prop 13 on the chopping block. On a completely different note, this country has a strong track record investing in Research and Development - look at where the Internet came from. But the USA has recently lost the leadership position around 1987 for the amount of RND funded into universities. There are two more recent metrics that deeply concern me even more. Investing in Research and Development isn't an option if a country wants to stay ahead. We can argue about what should or shouldn't get researched, but if you step back I believe you would concur that we need to invest as much RND as the top competitor does. Regards, Amy J