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 (543361)	1/12/2010 7:10:37 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574649

>So you do have a limit on how much power you want the incumbent party to have. No, that's not it. I just bristle at blatant political opportunism. The Dems made such noise about the Republicans trying the "nuclear option"... I don't want rules changed for political convenience unless absolutely necessary. I felt the same way about Bloomberg -- I'm against term limits, but I didn't feel it was OK for Bloomberg to work to extend his tenure. >Either way, by growing government and making it a bigger percentage of the GDP, you are by definition giving it more power to control our lives. Doesn't matter how many checks and balances you add to the system. That will only make reform that much harder. I'd rather dollars go to the government than to bodies that don't have any intention of doing good with them in cases when good really needs to be done, as with the health insurance companies. >Case in point: The CIA and the TSA. Did they grow because they had more money? -Z