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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (2091)	12/9/2003 4:58:49 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

And Bush is directly responsible for the dearth of capex, he and his warmongering have made corporations shy to invest. The fact that telecommunications and other networks were extremely overbuilt (as compared with actual demand growth) from about 1995-2001 surely had nothing to do with it? The uncertainty created by 9/11 had nothing to do with it? The collapse of the Naz and the dotcom stocks (the majority of which occurred before Bush even took office) had nothing do with it? The huge buildup in computer related capex spending due to Y2K in 1998-1999 (leaving companies with newer equipment which didn't need replacing) had nothing to do with it? Your points about the jobs recession are the usual points mentioned by Bush supporters. The fact is that jobs in many areas, not just technology are below 1992 levels. Silicon Valley employment is below 1994 levels (the year they started tabulating the numbers) and that was pre-internet, coming off yet ANOTHER recession. There really isn't much of a way to explain the Bush economy, other than this guy keeps starting wars and spending incoherently causing the dollar to collapse leading to global uncertainty. As far as last years worst retail season in 40 years... is that the telecom depression that caused that, or what? Here we are a year later with 8% GDP and this is another lackluster christmas- something doesn't jive does it? Maybe the problem is Bush, in fact I think it is. As far as the Ohio poll I will take a look, maybe that is a better poll than my poll. I have contacts in 2 cities in Ohio and there is a lot of anti-Bush sentiment there, but maybe you are right and they will vote for Bush anyway. Ohio is a large job loss state and that does mean Bush is vulnerable, at any rate. As far as what the west is composed of- I calculate the west as being CA, WA, OR, NM, possibly NV and Colorado. Those are the states where I think any challenger to Bush will win. I believe polls understate voter anger for the most part. They favor incumbents... I have seen this myself twice, once with the recent CA elections and also in 98 when the republicans were tossed en masse. In both cases there was a lot of voter anger and polls didn't register it. Well, this time voter anger is directed correctly straight at Bush. Most polls are underestimating the damage this anger can cause to him. But, we won't know until Nov 04. I expect a bunch of tremendous democratic attack ads which may be very successful at demoralizing Bush. First, a whole set on the mission accomplished and "turkey has landed" theme. Then, another one showing the Brits overturning a Bush statue and throwing shoes at it plus the protests over there. Then another one showing the job loss under Bush relative to every past president. Its pretty easy to point Bush out to be the loser that he is.