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: TimF who wrote (284887)	4/22/2006 6:09:04 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572206

CA doesn't have enough money to run the state. CA has plenty of revenue to run the state. And you know that how? Its one of the few states in the union where tax revenues from real estate are restricted substantively, but you just know that it has more than enough revenue to run the state. Forget that it has one of the largest illegal populations in the country with all the inherent costs that a state must foot, but still you know it has enough revenue. Its the only place in the country with a steady stream of earthquakes that continually undermine the infrastructure, but nonetheless, you are convinced its got more than enough revenues. If the truth be known, in your rather limited world view, you believe any gov't has more than enough money to operate and every corporation is lean and trim and fighting to keep its precious earnings from being taxed by big, bad gov't. Much like many of the urban myths created by the right, they too are not the truth. They may be frittering it away on waste and corruption, or by getting involved in unnecessary areas. If so the answer is to address the waste and corruption and unnecessary spending, not to toss more money in to the system only to have a lot of it be wasted as well. How about we get VA to take on its share of illegals? Let CA know how many VA can take. I don't think DC is even in the top 5; maybe not even in the top ten. LA is rated as having a worse problem than DC but DC is number 3. forbes.com; That's the only time I heard of DC being third. Here are some other examples: insurance.com usatoday.com hispanicprwire.com bizjournals.com www1.eere.energy.gov electrifyingtimes.com Secondly, I find it weird that DC comes in third when the components that led to that rating suggest a congestion level more around 8th....and that would be in keeping with the other studies: mobility.tamu.edu Having said all that, I could care less what DC's rating is.