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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (286691)	8/14/2002 12:37:12 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769667

and don't forget the great W gives in again to the Christian Right wing at the expense of women and children of the world.....yeah.....real compassionate....as long as HE doesn't have to see what he is sowing.....and right in the face of Colin Powell AGAIN! COMMENTARY Playing Deadly Politics With Family Planning By FRED SAI, Fred Sai is advisor to the president of Ghana on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS and on the board of directors of Population Action International. Even from my office in Ghana, it was clear that the recent U.S. decision to cancel this year's contribution to the United Nations Population Fund had nothing to do with China's abortion policies and everything to do with politics. But that didn't stop my blood from boiling. How could one man--albeit the U.S. president--so easily wager human lives and human hopes for short-term political gain? This decision does nothing about China's population policies. It doesn't help the women of the world who need access to prenatal care, family planning or other reproductive health services. This decision doesn't help those most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS. The only person helped by this decision is President Bush. People say the decision was motivated by a desire to placate the Christian right and those who oppose family planning in the United States. How can a decision that will leave women and children to die be called "Christian"? This decision will undermine and erode established and new reproductive health-care programs in 140 countries, including some of the poorest in the world. The only possible results are those the Bush administration claims it wants to prevent: unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and increased dangers for mothers and infants. At a time when the world has finally begun to grasp the devastating scale and pervasiveness of the AIDS pandemic, this decision could not be more irresponsible. Today, 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS; some 14,000 more become infected each day. Ninety-five percent of these people live in the developing world, and it's precisely in these locations that the United Nations Population Fund seeks to expand its programs. As an African living in Ghana, not a day goes by that I can forget about this disease, the toll it's taking on my people or how it is ravaging my continent. I am sad for the children of Africa--11 million of whom have been orphaned by AIDS. In high-prevalence countries in sub-Saharan Africa, at least one-third of all boys now age 15 will die of AIDS before their 35th birthday. The future of this continent is dying. The population fund offers a beacon of hope in this otherwise gloomy picture. It has strong relationships with governments and local organizations; the agency is known, respected and trusted by the people it helps. Its programs are also cost-effective. In less developed countries, a dollar or two is enough to buy some medicine, pay for a medical visit or supply contraceptives for three months or more. Sometimes it's enough to save a life. Of course, the $34 million being withheld by the United States may seem insignificant to a nation that spends $100 billion a year on fast food. Regrettably, the decision also marks another step backward for the U.S. on international family planning overall. Nearly a decade ago, I chaired the main committee at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, where leaders of the world promised to help make universal access to family planning and other reproductive health services a reality for all people. The international community is still little more than halfway toward the spending goals set for 2000 at that conference. Only four countries--the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway--have met or achieved their "fair share" of the target funding. The United States trails by far. There is word that the U.S. Senate is working on language for next year's budget that will not only restore funding to the population fund but increase it to $50 million. This would be the right thing to do. I hope Congress and the American people will indeed restore funding and make clear to the president how unacceptable his decision is. Yep...that's some real Christianity at work there allright CC

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (286691)	8/14/2002 12:42:24 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 769667

The tax cuts based on some pie in the sky 10 year growth outlook based on the ONE year of actual surplus in 2000 is going to continue to WRECK the W economy.....it was a fools move and should be resinded. What this country DOES need is a massive quick infusion of REAL spending on infrastructure (that has been deciimated for the past 15 years) and massive spending in areas NOT related to the war machine. Only then will W have a CHANCE for getting out of this thing without having to hold his head in his hands politically. CC

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (286691)	8/14/2002 1:10:16 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769667

A Void in Fiscal Leadership LEAD EDITORIAL The Los Angeles Times August 14, 2002 President Bush's televised forum in Waco, Texas, on Tuesday showed his determination to avoid repeating his father's mistakes--and his fate. Bush's meeting with everyone from chief executives to plain folks was a first step toward acknowledging economic woes that his father, in an earlier presidency, cavalierly dismissed. But it doesn't take a doctorate in economics to see that far more than words will be necessary to begin mending the problems. Even as Bush held his sessions, the stock market plunged 206.5 points. Retail sales increased only slightly in July, and productivity growth slowed to a 1.1% annual rate in the second quarter, from a 8.6% pace in the previous quarter. If consumer spending plummets, the potential exists for a so-called double-dip recession. How much blame does Bush deserve? No president can fully control the economy. Despite the continued weakness in the economy, the Federal Reserve announced Tuesday it would not drop interest rates, in that existing rates provide sufficient stimulus--for now. The Fed's decision offers a reminder of how much economic policy power is concentrated outside the presidency. But Bush could at least help restore confidence. Upon entering office, he tried to pin any potential downturn on Bill Clinton. Though the Clinton era may not have been a true Golden Age--the dot-com collapse did not come out of nowhere--it holds important lessons. Clinton and his Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, reined in spending, did not carry out massive tax cuts and, as a result, ran a budget surplus. Bush has done the opposite. To be sure, as a wartime leader he has had to increase spending dramatically for homeland defense and the military. But he could display a different kind of leadership--backing away from the fiscally reckless tax cuts that he wants to make permanent. In total, permanent tax cuts, heavily weighted to the most affluent, would cost the Treasury about $4 trillion in the decade after 2012. Nothing would do more to show that Bush is serious about the economy than a return to fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, Bush engaged in grandstanding at the forum, calling for a permanent repeal of the estate tax and rejecting $5.1 billion in new spending by Congress. Abolishing the so-called "death tax" would be extremely costly, benefiting only a relatively small number of large estates, and withholding $5.1 billion hardly can be compared with $4 trillion in future tax cuts. The don't-worry-be-happy message of the economic meeting is not enough; Bush's tax cuts send no real message about fiscal responsibility. The longer the president dithers, the more it costs consumers and workers. latimes.com