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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (3466)	7/17/2003 8:25:22 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

He won't be able to deliver Florida...he is having problems of his own..most of the people in Florida hate him.

To: American Spirit who wrote (3466)	7/18/2003 1:33:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 10965

Bush Contributors Led by Financial Interests FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JULY 16, 2003 5:34 PM CONTACT: Center for Responsive Politics Larry Noble, Steven Weiss 202/857-0044 WASHINGTON - July 16 - Financial services giant Merrill Lynch topped the list of contributors to President Bush's re-election campaign in the second quarter of this year, with $264,750 in donations from employees and their immediate family members, according to a preliminary study of mid-year campaign finance filings by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Merrill Lynch's total already exceeds that of Bush's top contributor for the entire 2000 election cycle. MBNA, the credit card company, led all organizations with $240,675 in individual and PAC contributions for Bush's first presidential bid. Merrill Lynch CEO Stan O'Neal is listed by the Bush campaign as a "Ranger" who has raised at least $200,000 for Bush. (The Center only counts contributions from Merrill Lynch employees and their immediate families toward the company's total to Bush.) Lehman Brothers, the large investment banking firm, was second among Bush's top contributors with $152,500 in individual and PAC contributions. Haynes & Boone, a Texas law firm, ranked third with $141,400. Co-founder Michael M. Boone is a Bush "Pioneer" who has raised more than $100,000 for the campaign. Twelve of Bush's top 20 contributors are part of the finance sector, and 11 of those 12 are based in New York City. The Big Apple was one of Bush's early stops after he began fundraising for his campaign in mid-May. New York City regularly ranks as one of the most lucrative metro areas for political fundraising, second only to Washington, D.C. Bush raised a total of $34.4 million in the second quarter of this year, more than the major Democratic candidates combined, and had $32.7 million on hand as of June 30. Bush collected 14 percent of his contributions from donors in his home state of Texas. The nearly $4.2 million he raised in Texas is more than what all but four of his Democratic rivals raised in the entire quarter. But Texas contributors weren't the most generous to Bush. That distinction went to donors in California (just over $4.2 million), a crucial electoral state that Al Gore easily won in 2000. Bush raised $3.1 million in New York and $3.0 million in Florida. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean raised a reported $7.6 million in the second quarter, the most among the Democratic contenders. His total for the first and second quarter combined is $10.2 million, with $6.4 million cash on hand. His top contributors for the first and second quarters combined include AOL Time Warner ($42,225) and employees of the University of California ($25,974). The ZIP code where Dean has raised the most money is 10021 in New York City ($85,000), which was the biggest source of money outside Washington, D.C. in the 2002 and 2000 election cycles. His next highest ZIP code is 90210 in Beverly Hills, Calif. ($64,500). Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) has raised $12.9 million so far this year and has $10.9 million cash on hand as of June 30, the most among the Democratic candidates. His top three contributors are law firms, led by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, the largest law firm in the country. Employees of the firm gave Kerry nearly $77,000 in the first six months of this year. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo are second and third, respectively, on Kerry's list of top contributors. Kerry has raised 22 percent of his contributions ($2.6 million) within Massachusetts and $2.2 million from the Boston area alone. Sen. John Edwards, who led his Democratic counterparts with $7.4 million raised in the first quarter, has raised $11.9 million for the year and has $8.1 million left in the bank. The top contributor to Edwards so far this year is Baron & Budd, the Dallas-based law firm that also topped the list of contributors to Edwards after the first quarter. The firm's employees have contributed $92,000 to Edwards through June 30. Only 10 percent of contributions to Edwards this year have come from his home state of North Carolina. He has raised the most money in California ($2 million) and Texas ($1.5 million). Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) has taken in $8.2 million this year, but was left with only $4 million on hand at the end of the reporting period. He has raised twice as much money in New York City this year ($1.2 million) than he has anywhere else. Los Angeles is his next highest metro area ($593,000), followed by Stamford, Conn. ($556,000). The Los Angeles law firm of Irell & Manella, whose employees have contributed $54,200 to Lieberman this year, is the senator's top contributor. Lehman Brothers ranks second with $39,250. Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) has raised $9.8 million for the year, including transfers from his congressional account. He had $6.3 million in the bank as of June 30. More than half of his contributions from individuals have come from his home state of Missouri, California and New York. Bryan Cave, the St. Louis-based law firm, is Gephardt's top contributor for the year so far. Employees of the firm have given him $59,401. His second highest contributor is Anheuser-Busch ($42,250). Sen. Bob Graham (Fla.) has raised $3.1 million in the first half of this year. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) has collected $1.7 million; Lyndon Larouche has taken in $1.7 million; former ambassador Carol Moseley Braun has raised a little more than $217,109; and Al Sharpton has collected nearly $160,000. The Center studied contributions in reports filed yesterday with the Federal Election Commission by Bush and his Democratic challengers for the White House. The reports covered fundraising and spending activity from April 1 to June 30. The Center's analysis is based on a preliminary review of the reports. As the Center further processes the data, the numbers will change. Keep up with the latest figures on the Center's presidential candidate profiles . ### commondreams.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (3466)	7/18/2003 1:49:43 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Passing It Along ______________________ By PAUL KRUGMAN OP-ED COLUMNIST THE NEW YORK TIMES July 18, 2003 Here's another sentence in George Bush's State of the Union address that wasn't true: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations." Mr. Bush's officials profess to see nothing wrong with the explosion of the national debt on their watch, even though they now project an astonishing $455 billion budget deficit this year and $475 billion next year. But even the usual apologists (well, some of them) are starting to acknowledge the administration's irresponsibility. Will they also face up to its dishonesty? It has been obvious all along, if you were willing to see it, that the administration's claims to fiscal responsibility have rested on thoroughly cooked books. The numbers tell the tale. In its first budget, released in April 2001, the administration projected a budget surplus of $334 billion for this year. More tellingly, in its second budget, released in February 2002 — that is, after the administration knew about the recession and Sept. 11 — it projected a deficit of only $80 billion this year, and an almost balanced budget next year. Just six months ago, it was projecting deficits of about $300 billion this year and next. There's no mystery about why the administration's budget projections have borne so little resemblance to reality: realistic budget numbers would have undermined the case for tax cuts. So budget analysts were pressured to high-ball estimates of future revenues and low-ball estimates of future expenditures. Any resemblance to the way the threat from Iraq was exaggerated is no coincidence at all. And just as some people argue that the war was justified even though it was sold on false pretenses, some say that the biggest budget deficit in history is justified even though the administration got us here with cooked numbers. Some point out that Ronald Reagan ran even bigger deficits as a share of G.D.P. But they hope people won't remember that in the face of those deficits, Mr. Reagan raised taxes, reversing part of his initial tax cut. Furthermore, this time huge deficits have emerged just a few years before the baby boomers start retiring and placing huge demands on Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security system is running a surplus right now, in preparation for future demands; the rest of the federal government is paying one-third of its expenses with borrowed money. That's a record. But haven't administration officials said they'll cut the deficit in half by 2008? Yeah, right. I could explain in detail why that claim is nonsense, but in any case, why bother with what these people say? Remember, just 18 months ago they said they'd more or less balance the budget by 2004. Unpoliticized projections show a budget deficit of at least $300 billion a year as far as the eye can see. The last defense of the budget deficit is that it helps a depressed economy — to which the answer is "yes, but." Yes, deficit spending stimulates demand — but tax cuts for the rich, which have dominated the administration's economic program, generate very little employment bang for the deficit buck. Of the 2.6 million jobs the economy has lost under the Bush administration, 2 million have been lost since the 2001 tax cut. And yes, deficits are appropriate as a temporary measure when the economy is depressed — but these deficits aren't temporary (see above). Still, do deficits matter? Some economists worry, with good reason, about their long-run effect on economic growth. But I worry most about America's fiscal credibility. You see, a government that has a reputation for sound finance and honest budgets can get away with running temporary deficits; if it lacks such a reputation, it can't. Right now the U.S. government is running deficits bigger, as a share of G.D.P., than those that plunged Argentina into crisis. The reason we don't face a comparable crisis is that markets, extrapolating from our responsible past, trust us to get our house in order. But Mr. Bush shows no inclination to deal with the budget deficit. On the contrary, his administration continues to fudge the numbers and push for ever more tax cuts. Eventually, markets will notice. And tarnished credibility, along with a much-increased debt, is a problem that Mr. Bush will pass along to other Congresses, other presidents and other generations.

To: American Spirit who wrote (3466)	7/18/2003 2:43:28 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

. . Unshakable Faith _________________________________ By Richard Cohen Columnist The Washington Post Thursday, July 17, 2003 Late last month the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that George W. Bush had told the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, that he had gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq on instructions from God. The White House promptly and vociferously denied the account, but I'd like to believe it anyway. I have to. The purported instructions from God remain about the only explanation for some of what Bush has done -- not only overseas but at home as well. Repeatedly, the Bush administration has merely asserted something to be true, neglecting either to prove it or even to make much of a case for it. Iraq is a perfect example. At the moment, the brouhaha is over Bush's assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to import weapons-grade uranium from Africa. That turns out not to be true -- or at least not provable. It is also probably not true that Iraq was importing aluminum tubing for its purported nuclear weapons program. In fact, it may well be that Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program. At least none has been found. That's not the mystery. By the advent of the war, it was already clear that Iraq was not a nuclear power. It was also clear that it had no verifiable links to Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the events of Sept. 11. In the intelligence community, both here and abroad, there was no question, however, that Saddam had both chemical and biological weapons. The rest -- a nuclear program, links to terrorism -- was a different matter. No one much believed it. But Bush, it is now clear, did. He believed -- virtually without evidence -- that Saddam and bin Laden were in cahoots. Why? It's hard to say, but probably because they were both evil. Evil leaders do evil things and they do them together. The evidence for this is lacking, to be sure, but you have to take it as a matter of faith. Bush did. Similarly, it was a matter of faith that once the United States invaded Iraq, it would crumble. That was a given. This explains why an insufficient number of troops were on hand when the war started. It explains further why, once the war was won, an insufficient number of troops were available to control the country. The result has been a catastrophe -- the constant loss of American lives and an occupation that is costing about $4 billion a month. Faith -- or whatever you want to call it -- is about the only explanation, too, for the rush to go to war in the first place. An argument could be made for war with Saddam -- and I and others made it. But since the threat from him was never imminent and was limited in any case to biological and chemical weapons, there was no need to rush. The French, the Germans, the Russians -- indeed, much of the world -- pleaded for more time. Bush, though, was acting as if he had received urgent instructions. It is the same domestically. The White House this week projected a $455 billion deficit for the current fiscal year. This is a tad off the original mark -- a projected surplus of $334 billion. In the near future, the deficit is expected to grow even more until, suddenly, it will decrease. Why? Because that's what Bush insists. Somehow, if taxes are cut even further, the economy will do something in some way that will erase the deficit, make the desert bloom and bring happiness to boys and girls everywhere. Economists may scoff, but they -- as you know -- are men and women of little faith. As Bush knows, just because the numbers don't add up doesn't mean they don't, well, add up. Alas, they don't. The Clinton administration produced four straight years of budget surpluses -- and the economy boomed. Maybe the vigorous economy was unrelated to the surplus and maybe a little deficit spending is in order. But Bush has gone on a bender -- cutting taxes, increasing spending and putting the government deeper and deeper in debt. By 2008, it will be $8.6 trillion in the hole. The favorite Bush grammatical construction is the tautology: Something is bad because it's bad. A synaptic leap is made in which a certain cause will have a certain effect -- never mind why. Things are stated with certainty, but the proof of them is not apparent. This may explain why Bush seems so sanguine about presenting evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program that later turned out to be not true. It doesn't matter. Because it ought to be, it is. © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (3466)	7/18/2003 7:49:38 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10965

A Black Month of July ______________________________ By Jean-Marcel Bouguereau Le Nouvel Observateur Thursday 17 July 2003 For George Bush, this month will be the worst of his presidency. A black month of July. Added to the Pentagon telegrams announcing to their families the deaths of 82 American soldiers since the first of May when Georges Bush had declared the end of hostilities is a record deficit of 455 billion dollars due to the expenses of a never-ending war and a recovery that has not so much as shown the tip of its nose. The result: the American President’s popularity has seriously declined, favorable opinion falling 14 points since the war’s end. The situation on the ground in Iraq is looking more and more like the worst nightmares: yesterday a series of rocket-launcher and grenade attacks came to “celebrate” the anniversary of Saddam Hussein taking power 26 years ago. The day before, the Pentagon had pushed the return to the United States of a part of the prestigious 3rd infantry division, some 10,000 men, back to the fall, Georges Bush himself having acknowledged that there was a “security problem” in Iraq. All this comes at the worst moment when the White House, with regard to the weapons of mass destruction, is in the process of rather clumsily “defending the indefensible”, as the New York Times writes, trying to stop up the leaks opened by the gross forgeries the intelligence services supplied with regard to Saddam Hussein’s uranium. Alarmist reports written by Donald Rumsfeld’s special envoy in Iraq indicate that troop moral is starting to sag. That the daily pigeon shoots make an army uneasy that was rather well prepared for war, but in no case to be a police force, nor a fortiori an army of anti-insurrectionist repression. Because that’s what it’s about: the report sent to Donald Rumsfeld describes the situation as “continuous looting on an industrial scale by bands of Mafiosi who are taking over Iraq” while escapees from Saddam’s militia and the Baath party harass the soldiers and pressure the population. Up until now Bush had sailed on the emotional wave of September 11. That page appears to be imperceptibly turning. ------- Jean-Marcel Bouguereau is Editor-in-Chief of the Nouvel Observateur. He is also an editorialist for the République des Pyrénées, for which this article was written. Translation: TruthOut French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher. truthout.org