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: Alighieri who wrote (558732)	4/4/2010 3:57:02 PM
From: Sdgla	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575653

We are broke because guys like you, You respond like a spoiled child Al. You want what you want regardless of the cost. Once again you dodge the point that we do not have the money.. your response is blame GW. An extra $1100.00 is BS as well. The $130K number comes from the actual debt. Never been to NYC and seen the debt clock ? The amount I gave you comes from the thought that you might have 3 in your family.. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Apr 2010 at 07:41:45 PM GMT is: $13,000,000,000,000.00 The estimated population of the United States is 308,133,829 so each citizen's share of this debt is $41,465.07. brillig.com I am not bitching about taxes. I'm bitching about fools like you who cant stop spending everyone else's money in the guise of big government. You didnt read Ryans proposal based on your quip.Read this : So let's examine these "philosophical differences" of government. Progressivists say there are no enduring ideas of right or wrong. Everything is "relative" to history, so our ideas need to change. Progressivists say the Founders' Constitution including its amendments, with its principles of equal natural rights, limited government, and popular consent is outdated. We should have a "living constitution" that keeps up with the times. Progressivists invent new rights and enforce them with a more powerful central government and more federal agencies to direct society through the changes of history. And don't worry, they say. Bureaucrats can be controlled by Congressional oversight. Would you like an example of how successful Congressional oversight is? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (or GSEs), underwrote trillions of dollars in junk mortgages. Year after year their officials and others from HUD, Treasury, and other agencies who supervise them marched up to Congress for hearings. Red flags were raised. The oversight committees had other priorities and dismissed them out of hand. With the housing market already tanking, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said: "This ability to provide stability to the market is what, in my mind, makes the GSEs a congressional success story." Less than 18 months later, the 'market-stabilizing' GSEs went belly-up due to their shoddy business practices, collapsing the mortgage credit industry and sparking the worldwide financial meltdown. No one knows the ultimate cost to the taxpayers but it will be gigantic. If Congress can't control what a few mortgage finance bureaucrats do with your dollars, why would anyone trust Congress to control what tens of thousands of bureaucrats will do with your health? My goal is to get Ryan elected as POTUS in 2012. Read the rest of his speech here :http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=89309491492 This is about the difference between those who want to have a nanny state and those who want to be responsible for their own lives. I get it. You feel fine with the government running the country into the ground. So you have good health and that makes it ok to destroy the best health care system in the world.. in your mind. Foolish at best.

To: Alighieri who wrote (558732)	4/9/2010 12:17:20 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575653

Yes defense costs money but your focused on a shrinking part of the problem heritage.org In my life time defense has gone from about three times as much as entitlement spending to about one half as much. If things are not changed it will go down to one tenth as much or less in a few more decades. A severe cut to defense spending might cover 2% of the entitlement spending. Even a 100% cut, totally eliminating all military spending, would only give you enough for perhaps a tenth of entitlement spending. Whatever you do with defense, whatever you do with any other category of spending, we can't get fiscal sanity unless we reign in future entitlement increases.