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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TTOSBT who wrote (137541)	7/24/1999 7:10:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

TTOSBT, Chuzz's point was that there were (could have been) a wide variety of reasons for selling. You added another reason. Another might have been somebody at Goldman hit the sell button by accident and the lemmings followed which made it a great trade. (It's happened <g>). I mentioned one earlier that the NAS was up 20% in the last month (off 6% now) and any reasonable investor would expect a correction...It can't go up 20%/month indefinitely. IMHO, everyone is right! That is, there was selling for all the reasons stated and probably a lot more. Let's not forget either that the NAS was down 100 points for the period Mon through Wed (before Greenspan)and 90 points down for Thursday and Friday (after Greenspan). I listened to part of Greenspan's testimony and I heard him quite distinctly say that he would raise or lower interest rates just as swiftly if the economy indicated. I've yet to hear/or see any rendition in the media mentioning that particular point. But heck, the Fed lowered interest rates 3 times last year, so they could raise them twice more and we'd be back where we were and I doubt that the global economy will collapse around us. RE:"That is why he is stepping out of his republican shoes and criticizing his party for lowering taxes now. His logic as stated by him is wait til the economy crashes then stimulate by lower taxes."...He already stated on several occasions that he would prefer to see the debt paid down some. As I recall, paying interest on the debt is the second largest federal expenditure after social security. Re:"But the republicans can not wait because they do not want to put surplus cash in Clinton's hands which he will spend for his causes." Yo...TTO...you've been brainwashed by political hype...there isn't a soul around that believes the (or any) significant tax related legislation is going to be enacted before the election. The tax bill, the patients rights bill, etc., are issue posturing for the election, nothing more, nothing less. Even if enacted, significant tax cuts don't go into effect until well after Clinton is gone. Beyond that, doesn't Congress authorize expenditures? The Prez, whoever that may be in 2000+ can't spend a dime of the surplus without Congressional authorization through appropriations. Though the Rep Congress hasn't done a shabby job in spending money if it is available either. Sorry...you hit on an annoyance of mine...that is "the rhetoric" ... if we have a Republican pres and a Democratic Congress it's Congress that spends the money...if we have a Democratic pres and a Republican Congress then the Pres spends the money....the reality is the Pres has a proposed budget, the Congress authorizes through appropriations (or supplementals)and the President signs the bills...I would say that the President probably "guides" the allocation more than the Congress but both branches spend the money. I find it remarkable that all the tax relief dialogue is based on "accurate" predictions of the surplus over the next 10 or 20 years; where, as we have seen over this past year projections aren't even accurate for a six-month period. Best Regards, Jim