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.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (1448)	8/8/2008 1:55:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 3816

Tim, to call it nit picking is disgusting Nonsense. considering the out come.shame !shame!shame! those involved were honored veterans! Which is irrelevant. If I was arguing about how some area had a low crime rate, you might find some wonderful and honorable person in that area who was brutally abused and then killed, by criminals. But that wouldn't change the point that the crime rate was low. Similarly we had almost no entitlements at that time. How honored and or honorable or otherwise worthy the recipients of that minuscule entitlement where, doesn't refute the point. Since I said "no entitlements", your technically right, because apparently there where entitlements, but they where so minuscule compared to today's entitlements, that we had "essentially no entitlements", and its not unreasonable to say you where nitpicking when you use that example to reply "wrong tim". Actually now that I think about it, I'm not even sure you where technically right. The spending was authorized and than granted to the veterans, that doesn't make it an entitlement program. And entitlement program is when new additional spending is automatically called for and carried out each year by law, forever (until canceled), without any further action by congress or the president. This program doesn't seem to qualify.