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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 5:19:59 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Good answer, Lizzie. John Kerry is the man. Dont forget he's also a REAL war hero who can out-debate Bush on any military issue there is.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 5:25:34 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Ketty sure went over the top with his Washington "regime change" line today.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 7:01:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Bush isn't serious about protecting the homeland By PAUL KRUGMAN SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Thursday, April 3, 2003 seattlepi.nwsource.com As recriminations fly over Operation Predicted Cakewalk, some commentators look back wistfully to the early post-Sept. 11 era, when -- or so they imagine -- the nation stood united against the terrorist threat. On my beat, that era was brief indeed: Less than 48 hours after the atrocity, congressional Republicans tried to exploit the event to pass a cut in the capital gains tax. But on national security issues, there was at first some real bipartisanship. What happened to that bipartisanship? It fell prey to two enduring prejudices of the right: its deep hostility to non-military government spending and its exaltation of the "heartland" over the great urban states. You might have expected the events of Sept. 11 to temper the right's opposition to some kinds of domestic spending. After thousands of Americans were killed by men armed only with box cutters, surely everyone would acknowledge that national security involves more than mere military might. But you would have been wrong. In a remarkable recent article titled "The 9/10 President," Jonathan Chait of The New Republic documents how the Bush administration has systematically neglected homeland security since 9/11. In its effort to keep spending down, the administration repeatedly has blocked proposals to enhance security at potential domestic targets such as ports and nuclear plants. What Chait doesn't point out is the extent to which already inadequate anti-terrorism spending has been focused on the parts of the country that need it least. I've written before about the myth of the heartland -- roughly speaking, the "red states," which voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election, as opposed to the "blue states," which voted for Al Gore. The nation's interior is supposedly a place of rugged individualists, unlike the spongers and whiners along the coasts. In reality, of course, rural states are heavily subsidized by urban states. New Jersey pays about $1.50 in federal taxes for every dollar it gets in return; Montana receives about $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it pays in taxes. Any sensible program of spending on homeland security would at least partly redress this balance. The most natural targets for terrorism lie in or near great metropolitan areas; surely protecting those areas is the highest priority, right? Apparently not. Even in the first months after Sept. 11, Republican lawmakers made it clear that they would not support any major effort to rebuild or even secure New York. And now that anti-urban prejudice has taken statistical form: Under the formula the Department of Homeland Security has adopted for handing out money, it spends seven times as much protecting each resident of Wyoming as it does protecting each resident of New York. Here's how it works. In its main grant programs, the department makes no attempt to assess needs. Instead, each state receives a base of 0.75 percent of the total, regardless of its population; the rest is then allocated in proportion to population. This is a very good deal for states with small populations, such as Wyoming or Montana. It's a very bad deal for such states as California or New York, which receive only 4.7 percent of the money. And since New York and other big urban states remain the most likely targets of another major attack, it's a very bad deal for the country. Why adopt such a strange formula? Well, maybe it's not that strange: What it most resembles is the Electoral College, which also gives a disproportionate weight (though not that disproportionate) to states with small populations. And with a few exceptions, small-population states are red states -- indeed, the small-state bias of the Electoral College is what allowed Bush to claim the White House despite losing the popular vote. It's hard not to suspect that the formula -- which makes absolutely no sense in terms of national security -- was adopted precisely because it caters to that same constituency. (To be fair, there's one big "red state" loser from the formula: Texas. But one of these days, sooner than most people think, Texas may well turn blue.) In other words, the allocation of money confirms Chait's point: Even in a time of war -- a war that seems oddly unrelated to the terrorist threat -- the Bush administration isn't serious about protecting the homeland. Instead, it continues to subordinate U.S. security needs to its unchanged political agenda. ____________________________________________ Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times. Copyright 2003 New York Times News Service. E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 8:00:14 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

so you don't like kerry. Of course, how would anyone know what they think of Kery, since he dodges all the senate votes of any substance. If in the unlikely event you can identify where Kery stands on a particular issue, adn you disagree, just wait a few minutes, becuase he will change his stance. He and his ketchup billionare wife will do most anything to win.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 8:57:38 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I do find the views of the religious right offensive, They are straight out un-American. This country was built on religious freedom, with all manner of protestants coming to this country to escape prosecution from the State. The religious right would gladly give all that up and institute their own private implementation of the Bible, which makes the Pope look like a "ho on crack". Yet, somehow we give plenty of respect to the leaders religious right as if they were any better than, say, the chairman of the communist party of the USA or the grand-knight of the KKK.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (155233)	4/3/2003 10:18:46 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

>> Because I am looking for a socially liberal, fiscally conservative president, and the 2 political parties in power do not offer this combination << i hate to burst your bubble michelle, but that's because both concepts are both mutually exclusive. >> ...basically live and let live and observe the separation of church and state... << observe? as in one should observe the traffic laws? gosh you are ignorant for someone with a college degree. i suppose that is understandable considering where you went to college. they specialize in churning out ignorant and idealistic know-nothings. did it ever occur to you that separation of church and state does not need to be observed because it is not in the constitution? or did all that money spent in college not teach you this simple concept? >> I do find the views of the religious right offensive, << of course you do. you are either for Christ or you are for satan. you obviously reject Christ and so there is only one option left for you to pursue. you have been brought up in a selfish and decadent culture michelle and that's all you choose to know. having respect for something such as the sanctity of human life might one day be an inconvenience to you. by golly no one can tell michelle what to do, including God almighty Himself! that is the kind of attitudes you find in california.