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: TigerPaw who wrote (454729)	9/8/2003 6:14:07 PM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks for the info, TP. I have assumed that some LARGE, very stealthy, 'transfers of the labor force,' other than through "natural attrition," have been going on @ at the splendid DELL corporation for the past two years. No layoff announcements, of course. I know a "girlfriend" of a sales manager who was transferred to Mumbai three years ago. She has nothing to do with DELL, other than knowing him. He ain't very happy being "over there," at all. I think that middle management here in Round Rock, USA might well fear -- or question, at minimum -- their job security in terms of remaining physically located in the US. I would imagine those fortunate to be subservient enough to "keep" will face the ultimatum: Move to India or hit the road. What do you think? lb

To: TigerPaw who wrote (454729)	9/8/2003 6:17:31 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<I talked to a friend who works in the publication dept. of Dell. They are being visited by a group from India. They are to train the group and then prepare to pack up and find new employment. If they don't train them in a timely fashion they don't get any severance package. Only the final editing and approval for documents will be done in the U.S.A.>> And this is Bush's fault? Do you think he should nationalize all businesses and make them federally owned?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (454729)	9/8/2003 6:22:17 PM
From: laura_bush	Respond to of 769670

Wow. I know a woman who gave up lucrative self-employment about three years ago to join DELL. Her stock options which were a significant portion of her starting compensation, are still worthless. She is in her late 40s; has three kids to support; and her husband is employed on and off. Boomers who are highly skilled in technology are facing disaster. She cannot move to India, like. Does the Bush Admin care? Shit, no. Does Michael Dell care? Shit, no. lb

To: TigerPaw who wrote (454729)	9/8/2003 7:49:05 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 769670

abcnews.go.com Was It Worth It? Poll: More Americans Think Iraq War Raises Risk of Anti-U.S. Terror Analysis By Gary Langer Sept. 8— Americans express a growing suspicion that the war in Iraq will boost rather than ease the long-term risk of terrorism against the United States, a concern that directly challenges President Bush's rationale for invading. This finding of a new ABCNEWS poll follows continued attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and on civilians elsewhere in the world, and marks a sharp turn in public attitudes. A week after the fall of Baghdad, 58 percent of Americans thought the war would reduce the long-term risk of terrorism. Today that's down 18 points, while 48 percent — up 19 points — think the war has raised the risk. At the same time, the number of Americans who say the war was worth fighting has slipped to 54 percent — a new low, down from 61 percent in mid-August and a high of 70 percent as the main fighting wound down. Such concerns, measured in interviews in this ABCNEWS poll from Thursday through Sunday evening, frame the conditions in which Bush addressed the nation about Iraq on Sunday night. The poll also found a drop in approval of his handling of the situation to a new low, 49 percent — down from 56 percent last month and 75 percent on April 30, a day before he declared the major fighting over. Bush's rating is very closely tied to perceptions of threat. Americans who think the war in Iraq has reduced the long-term risk of terrorism approve of his work there by 74 percent to 23 percent. Those who think it has increased the risk, however, disapprove of his Iraq policy by nearly as broad a margin. Troops and Casualties Concerns about the long-term risk of terrorism may be amplified by disquiet over continued U.S. military casualties in Iraq. A new high, 57 percent, term the level of U.S. casualties "unacceptable," compared with 38 percent — fewer than four in 10 for the first time — who say it's acceptable. Acceptability is clearly part of a cost-benefit analysis. Casualties are vastly more acceptable among Americans who believe the war has decreased the long-term risk of terrorism and who think it was worth fighting. There's very broad support for sharing the load — 85 percent favor supplementing U.S. troops in Iraq with troops from other countries to create an international force there. Burden sharing is so popular that a majority — albeit a much smaller one, 55 percent — say they'd favor such a force even if it meant placing U.S. forces under the command of the United Nations. (The administration, rather, has proposed a U.S.-commanded force.) Support Overall, about two-thirds of Americans, 67 percent, continue to support the U.S. military presence in Iraq. While a substantial majority, that's slipped by seven points since July. Of those supporters, nearly seven in 10 say they support both Bush and the troops, while nearly three in 10 say they support the troops, but not Bush's policy. <font color=blue>[See link to read the rest of the poll]