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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (278170)	7/20/2002 12:28:02 AM
From: JEB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Bingo! ...;-)

To: greenspirit who wrote (278170)	7/20/2002 2:14:32 AM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

<<The questions you should really be asking now is; has Bush's policy initiatives accelerated, or caused in the short term the market to decline? Unfortunately, the answer largely depends on your own political/economic philosophy. I would say he has helped the economy by allowing people to keep more of their own money, and thereby stimulating businesses to invest in plant production, thus preventing a recession. Others, (who are largely looking at it through partisan political eyes), would probably say the miniscule tax-cut was the sole cause of the deficit increasing, which caused wall-street to abandon their investments and go short. Still others (who are completely partisan blind in my eyes), would say the auditing problems are the sole fault of Bush, and have been the main reasons investors lost confidence in their portfolio's.>> I think you're constructing a bit of a strawman here. After all i haven't heard anyone say that the dishonestly labeled tax rebates are the sole cause of our return to deficits. It's the future tax-cuts which are greatly hurting future revenue projections. So projected deficits can absolutely be tied to the tax bill. After any long expansion, or any long bull market, there's going to be a slowdown or a bear market. That has nothing to do with politics. That's just the way it is. I give Clinton credit for running surpluses during the last expansion. Reagan ran unprecedented deficits for anytime, but even more incredible that he did it during an expansion. So like it or not Clinton gets some credit for our low interest rates, low inflation, and the fact that we're in relatively good fiscal shape going in to this slowdown. Bush is doing a lot of things wrong. His budgets are dishonest, that doesn't inspire confidence. His administration is very close to many of the corporate "evildoers." That doesn't inspire confidence. Wall Street doesn't like his economic team, they long for Robert Rubin. Harvey Pitt was lead attorney for Andersen, Enron's CEO got to help pick the head of the FERC which would regulate Enron. These things don't inspire confidence. This lack of confidence in our current team leads the dollar to slide which leads foreign money to leave our soil which only exacerbates the problems. The economic cycle certainly isn't Bush's fault (nor is it Clinton's or Reagan's), but Wall Street isn't confident that Bush is the right man or that he has the right team to guide us through these waters. I think most would agree with that. It's fairly obvious from the behavior of the market. One thing's for sure. If things do get worse, if we have an actual recession, Bush will get the blame and his ratings will follow the stock market down. That too is just the way it is. Steve

To: greenspirit who wrote (278170)	7/20/2002 11:08:02 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Michael, the point I was trying to make dealt less with the reality of the degree to which the politicians can affect the market, and more with whether the GOP would be trying to make hay out of the tough times we are experiencing if the Dems controlled both the White House and one house of Congress. I think we both know the answer, and so their high-handedness about the Dems doing the same thing is hypocritical but not surprising. The GOP wants to emphasize the importance of GW's leadership on those issues where they poll the strongest, and say it doesnt matter in those areas where the public trusts him the least; the Dems want to do the opposite. Anyway, all of the stream of consciousness was done without the benefit of any caffeine, so I consider myself immune from any criticism of its content.

To: greenspirit who wrote (278170)	7/20/2002 3:09:01 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

"When Clinton went after Microsoft in a big way." A stupid statement in my opinion. This statement to me is the typical style used by all the smear mongers here to attack PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. "The timing of the attack was ill advised. It did effect the technology sector. To me another stupid observation." I would love someone to explain how there is some connection in time to msft and the economy going south because of the y2k fraud purchase bubble. By the way how many hundreds of millions of shares has the msft float increased as billy gates, paul allen and others have and continue to sell millions of shares a month after month. Does a half a billion share increase in the float decrease the price of the stock????? No it's the justice department. Does having no products that really give enhanced features thus slowing sales decrease the share price? No it's the justice department. And far superior linux as a server operating system had little to due with killing msft fud method of sales. Also linux trained administrators by the hundreds of thousands who also by the way are unix trained did not also reduce the cost of ownership of all other unix based systems in the server market place. msft server products seemed to have features the would increase productivity, but the crash prone and infection prone weaknesses of the products blunted the positives with a real net negative. The ability of msft software to competitively lead in productivity increasing systems software started to wane after windows 3.1 On inertia and anti competitive methods is still grew. Now it's a company with billions of shares and no product to sustain revenue growth. If msft had been left unchecked it would have engaged in more anticompetitive actions to lock out advancing technology and competitors. How ever normal market forces, linux unix and the unsuitability and limitations of msft products to advance productivity would still take the toll. And a half a billion or is it a billion more shares in the float would depress the price. Mike, on so many issues you see so clearly. I wonder if your substantial ignorance of linux and unix and it's stability and security cause such a screwed up analysis. I've used nt 4 service pak5 and nt 2000 service pak 3 as OK workstations. I judge both to be about as stable as 1993 linux. They still have 1/2 to 1/4 the performance at multi tasking with many small tasks. Linux multitasking performance has not dramatically improved over time. It went from great to greater. Msft performance has decreased, somewhat, increased and remained stagnant over time. Evaluation depends on the metric. But the stunning improvements in X86 PC's over time blurs observations of the progress of computer systems.