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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1278)	1/13/2003 9:15:38 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

MASSIVE OPPOSITION TO THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE --UK, 77% Oppose Assualt Without UN truthout.org nytimes.com UK, 77% Oppose Assualt Without UN By Reuters Sunday 12 January 2003 LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to insist on Monday that he has a ``clear strategy'' for tackling Iraq amid growing unease within his own party and the public over the possibility of a war without U.N. backing. A YouGov poll for the ITV network published on Monday showed that 53 percent of Britons would back a U.N.-sanctioned attack on Iraq but only 13 percent would support action by the U.S. and Britain alone. The poll comes a day after International Development Secretary Clare Short said London should not join a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq and that it was Britain's duty to restrain Washington. In his monthly televised press conference later on Monday, Blair is expected to seek to calm unease by spelling out his belief in the United Nations disarmament process. ``Whether we look at Iraq or the fight against terrorism or tackling crime in the UK, the prime minister will set out that we have a clear strategy on these areas,'' a Downing Street spokeswoman told Reuters. ``It's important people remember that. He will restate that where we are on Iraq is the right thing to be doing.'' Britain, which dispatched its flagship aircraft carrier Ark Royal to the Gulf on Saturday ahead of naval exercises in the Far East, has backed President Bush's tough calls for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm. But Blair softened his rhetoric last week, saying the U.N. inspectors currently scouring Iraq for signs of weapons of mass destruction should be given time and space to do their job. Short's comments took on added significance when sources said Blair would meet President Bush after a January 27 report by U.N. inspectors on Iraqi compliance with weapons searches. British newspapers said the meeting could turn into a council of war if Baghdad failed to satisfy U.N. teams on questions about its arms progress. ``I think all the people of Britain have a duty to keep our country firmly on the U.N. route, so that we stop the U.S. maybe going to war too early, and keep the world united,'' Short, one of the most dovish member of Blair's Labor cabinet, told Britain's ITV network. Blair and Bush are the chief prosecutors in the case against Iraq, saying they have intelligence that Baghdad possesses banned weapons and threatening war unless he comes clean. But for many countries, particularly in the Muslim world, the jury is out until clear proof is produced that Baghdad has biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Blair's softened stance drew condemnation from the main opposition Conservative Party, with leader Iain Duncan Smith accusing him of ``wobbling'' and failing to convince Britons of the need for British involvement.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1278)	1/14/2003 10:10:12 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 25898

Almost everything a President does or does not do has a substantial effect on the economy Really? Let's take "everything the President does" apart regarding economy: His tax cut (1) As the dividends received by corporations and tax-free pension plans were already exempt from dividend tax, this plan favors the rich who did pay dividend tax in other accounts. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that the wealthiest 1 percent of all taxpayers could capture as much as 42 percent of the benefits of a dividend exclusion. washingtonpost.com The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes of $374,000 or more, would get 28.3 percent of Bush's tax cut, for an average savings of $24,428, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The 20 percent of Americans in the middle, earning $29,000 to $46,000, would get 6.1 percent of the benefits from Bush's plan, an average tax saving of $265. kansascity.com (2) The tax-cut will NOT help the economy, because the rich are NOT going to increase their spending just because their get more dividends a year from now. Since the goal is "economic stimulus", it should have increased the income of the lower income groups that live hand to mouth, who would then consume more. His Homeland Defense initiative and his Iraq initiative; His spending on the Iraq offensive; Are you under the impression that huge defense spendings are good for a country's economy? That is very strange. How about you look at it this way - America was already on the brink of recession at 9/11 and thanks to the costs associated with the disaster AND the pumped up defense spending since then, has fallen deep into it. Face it - Bush Administration's lavish spending on defense is an economic disaster AND Americans are no safer than they were a day after 9/11. His budget cuts and his budget spending Oh and you think he has done something really commendable there? How interesting. And here is the whole financial community thinking there is no way we will see a budget surplus in the next two years, indeed expecting the USD 237 bn budget surplus he inherited to turn to USD 275 bn budget DEFICIT this year, thanks to his "He tried to kill my daddy!") vendetta on Iraq and the costs of the tax cuts. Budget DEFICIT will be a RECORD USD 325 bn in 2004. Yeah. I real economic achievement on the budget... His leadership in Congress on economic matters Got examples? Because, frankly, I don't see anything positive there. His actions and failure to act on corporate corruption ... especially in regards to his own insider trading of his oil company. Still, I don't see anything commendable there. Yes a President does have an economic policy and does have his hands on the economy. Of course a President does have influence on the economy of a country. My point was more like THIS PRESIDENT has not done anything to merit half the country approving his handling of the economy. . Yes a President does have an economic policy and does have his hands on the economy.