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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (472141)	10/6/2003 11:27:25 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

That article is a perfect example of biased statistical analysis. It ignores any analysis of Bush's deficit spending. Or of any effect of unfunded mandates. Or of the effect of 911 and subsequent costs to some areas that are more than others. It also ignores the fact that some areas were more affected by the stock market bubble and so also more affected by it's crash. Shallow biased analysis IMO.

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (472141)	10/6/2003 11:40:57 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

re: A revolution is brewing in California, sparked by an annual state budget that is a stunning $38 billion out of balance. States like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Oregon face similar, though lesser, fiscal crises. What has happened to state budgets in these places? And who is to blame? If Davis is responsible for CA's deficit, then the governors of other states must be responsible for their deficits..... Conn.....Repub, NJ....Dem, NY......Repub, Oregon...Dem So what's your point Snitch?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (472141)	10/7/2003 1:19:18 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769670

From your posted article, Re: "The California story is actually quite straightforward. During the 1990s boom years, Gov. Gray Davis found his state revenues surging along with the stock market. He responded by jacking up government spending almost 40%. When the stock market and economy softened, revenues were no longer sufficient to maintain that sharply higher level of spending. The gigantic fiscal crisis that ensued created a media frenzy and a historic vote on recalling the governor. As for the idea that state spending is being slashed..." The Author needed hardly say more, but he did a pretty great job of it. Mark Andersons reply here notes a bunch of things, none of which refute the argument presented in any way calculable to a point of significance. VBG, gotta love the truth. Dan B Dan B