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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/6/2004 10:19:07 PM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 769667

well, it depends on the rate of the fall more than the amount. Fast declines leave no time for adjustment. It could cause a sell off, but it isn't likely. They are talking 135 140 vs Euro is a skiddish area.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 1:22:13 AM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

ken, What's the current YIELD on money markets? Is cash still KING???

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 1:29:58 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Texas G.O.P. Is Victorious in Remapping -- By RALPH BLUMENTHAL OUSTON, Jan. 6 — Republicans who redrew Texas Congressional districts last fall in an effort to gain seats won a crucial victory on Tuesday when a special three-judge federal panel in Austin found no constitutional grounds to intervene. Barring any action by the Supreme Court, the Congressional campaigns this fall will be fought using the unfamiliar and sometimes tortuous new lines. The judges ruled that there was no bar to mid-decade redistricting, even though redistricting normally occurs after the once-a-decade census. They also found that politics — not illegal racial discrimination — prompted the redrawing of district lines. Twice last year, Democratic lawmakers, angered by the proposed redrawing, left the state to withhold quorums that would allow Republicans to pass the redistricting plan, which seemed likely to cost Democrats several seats in the Congressional delegation. But the decision by the judges, Patrick Higginbotham, Lee Rosenthal and T. John Ward, pointedly noted that "we decide only the legality" of the plan "and not its wisdom." Judge Ward, moreover, partly dissented, arguing that in one district Hispanic voters were illegally disenfranchised and that the Legislature had to remedy the violations. Justice Department officials cleared the map on Dec. 19, finding it consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. By some counts, Texas Democrats, who had held a 17-to-15 edge in the House until Representative Ralph M. Hall announced last week that he was joining the Republicans, could find themselves in a 23-to-9 minority. The court ruled on four issues: whether Texas could redistrict mid-decade; whether the plan discriminated on the basis of race; whether it was an unconstitutional gerrymander; and whether it diluted the voting strengths of minorities. In all cases, the judges decided, it did not violate the Constitution. But they said, "Whether the Texas Legislature has acted in the best interest of Texas is a judgment that belongs to the people who elected the officials whose act is challenged in this case." The decision sent candidates scrambling to prepare their filings in the newly redrawn districts by the deadline of Jan. 16. Republicans from Gov. Rick Perry on down praised the ruling. Democrats denounced it, vowing to take the battle to the Supreme Court, which is already hearing a related Pennsylvania gerrymandering case that could have an effect on Texas. Both sides were bruised by the vitriolic remapping battle in the Texas House and Senate. At the end of the legislative session in May, House Democrats, claiming a plot to lock them in for a vote, fled to Oklahoma. Later, Senate Democrats thwarted two special sessions by going to Albuquerque. After one of their number broke ranks to provide a quorum, the others reluctantly followed for a third special session during which the Republican majority pushed through the redistricting bill. Democrats and other critics of the redistricting plan then filed suit. "The Legislature has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility," Governor Perry said after the judges' decision. The chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party, Tina Bensiker, said, "Our claims have been validated." Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the ruling "a serious blow to the Democrats" and added, "It makes their already remote chances of taking back the House slimmer than ever." Democrats accused Republicans of drawing districts to dilute the voting power of minorities. Representative Martin Frost of Dallas, a major target of Republican redistricters, said the court "effectively repealed the Voting Rights Act and turned back the clock on nearly 40 years of progress for minority Americans." Representative Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said the ruling "reinforces the Republican party's declaration of war against the Hispanic and African-American communities throughout Texas." Richard Murray, director of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston, who testified in the case as an expert witness called by the Democrats, said he found that the remapping drained some votes from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a black Democrat from Houston. But he said the judges seemed persuaded that because other minority representatives gained, the plan was not discriminatory.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 8:09:34 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Mad Cows And Democrats Vincent Fiore, 01/06/04 With much hand wringing and the dark scenario’s that were voiced with it, the media establishment has yet to come to the conclusion that the dire health consequences of one mad cow found in a Holstein dairy farm in Washington State is so far, only one mad cow. Though some 25 countries temporarily halted beef imports from the US, Americans hardly halted theirs. Burgers are still king, and nothing satisfies the appetite like a T-bone, medium rare if you please. What that say’s in essence, is that the system is working. There will be some changes in the coming days ahead from Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman regarding the US meat industry, but at this juncture, nobody can argue with the reality of having only one mad cow, can they? But bless there little dark hearts; the Democratic Presidential hopefuls will try. After taking a few days to survey the political landscape, the candidate’s surmised that the issue of one mad cow in the nation’s history can applicably be used as one more “failure” on the part of the Bush administration. After issuing a new set of safeguards, Democratic hopeful’s and lawmakers alike called for the Bush administration to take steps to protect Americans from mad cow disease. Calls for origin labeling and more Federal meat inspectors were issued from the candidates touring the Sunday talk shows. Not satisfied with a genuine show of concern over a potentially devastating issue if left unattended, the politics of repulsion once again dominated the Democratic contenders over the issue. Pronouncements ranged from cautious to caustic, all aimed at a President who governed the state of Texas where cattle production is a multibillion dollar industry, and graze on his sprawling ranch in Crawford. Front runner Howard Dean, who as of late has said things that cause Clinton guru James Carville to wonder if Dean has “undergone some kind of a political lobotomy”, once again reinforces the increasingly loud murmurings of the party faithful that the former Governor is looking more preposterous than Presidential these days. Talking to about 250 people at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Monday, Dean did what Dean does best, which is saying something he will likely regret saying: "What we are suffering now in the beef industry could have been prevented. This administration has not taken such dangers seriously and raises serious concerns about the ability of this administration to protect the safety of our nation's food supply and the health of our rural economies that depend on agriculture exports. Mad cow disease is a serious concern that has been undersold by this administration and their industry allies.” The rest of the candidates lined up to take the obligatory shot at the President as well, reinforcing the “lemming” pattern of behavior thus far exhibited by the candidates every time the latest polls come out showing Dean out in front. From Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, Oklahomans at a rally heard “We need a president who is committed to the right of American consumers to know where their meat is coming from and not to the huge special interests that are fighting to keep safety regulations out of our food supply." In a statement from the Wesley Clark camp, the retired General said that the administration "needs to do more than 'look' at the system and options. They need to take proactive steps to improve tracking and testing that should have been taken months ago." Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who somehow managed not to use those colorful words of late that he is so fond of using, dismounted his Harley and called on “President Bush to act immediately to improve our food safety and inspection process, to protect public health and restore confidence in the beef industry." Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who will offer his own plan in Iowa next week, said that the nation needs far better food protections. Senator Joe Lieberman’s camp, which did not react to the media’s single mad cow phenomenon, discovered another cow that everybody seemed to miss: "Howard Dean complaining about other Democrats questioning his record, experience, general election viability and numerous misstatements is like the mad cow calling the herd rabid." Though I'm having a little fun here, the candidates are not. One over the top statement seems to lead to another, especially when one looks at Governor Dean’s constant omissions of ignorance. I say ignorance for the simple reason of believability. I'm beginning to think that because of the rapidity of these kind of statements that candidates Dean, Clark, Kerry, etc., actually think they are reaching voters with this type of drive-by politicking. After 12 months of hearing “Bush knew” and “a war for oil” and the ever popular “Bush misled us,” you would think with all that smoke that there would be some fire. For the candidates embroiled in the heat of the primary, opportunity presents itself at the expense of civility and judgment. Taking a single mad cow and attempting to use it as an issue that divides can also be viewed as a specific type of madness all its own. I call it the primary madness, where you say anything, and hope something sticks. A candidate like Howard Dean does not limit his madness to George W. Bush. He take’s it one step further and issue’s the maddest, madness yet: "If I don't win the nomination," his million and a half supporters are "certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.” One mad cow in Washington State is nothing compared to the madness of today’s Democratic Party americandaily.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 9:25:11 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

Kenny, since you say you are an "attorney", I figured you would get a hoot out of this. Bullied 'gay' students awarded $1.1 million...... worldnetdaily.com ........Three plaintiffs who agreed to reveal their names publicly were former students Alana Flores, Freddie Fuentes and Jeanette Dousharm. Flores will receive $150,000; Fuentes and Dousharm, $100,000 each; two unnamed plaintiffs $80,000 each and the final student, $50,000, the Morgan Hill paper said. * * * * * * * * About $600,000 will go to the lawyers oh the compassion.........LOL!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 10:55:14 AM
From: JakeStraw	Respond to of 769667

Good Employment Numbers Continue to Confound Democrats by Bruce Bartlett Posted Jan 7, 2004 On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will announce the employment report for December. It likely will show a further decline in the unemployment rate -- the most politically potent of all economic statistics -- since initial claims for unemployment compensation have dropped sharply in the last several weeks. The White House will cheer and claim that the news is confirmation of the wisdom of its economic policies. To counter this good news, Democrats will have to work even harder to find a dark lining behind the silver cloud. For some time, Democrats have been arguing that this has been a jobless recovery despite a fall in the unemployment rate from 6.4 percent in June to 5.9 percent in November. They have made this argument by using different data than that used to calculate the unemployment rate. Lately, they have also taken to recalculating the unemployment rate in nonstandard ways in order to make it seem higher than it really is. To understand what is going on, one needs to know that the Labor Department collects employment data in two different surveys. The first, called the household survey, is based on telephone interviews with about 60,000 households per month. This survey is used to calculate the official unemployment rate, which consists of people not working but looking for work as a share of the labor force (those working plus those looking for work). Those not looking for work, such as retirees and stay-at-home mothers, therefore, are not counted as unemployed. The second survey is called the payroll survey and is based on the actual employment records of domestic businesses. Economists generally consider this survey to be a more accurate measure of month-to-month changes in national employment. However, there is evidence that during cyclical upturns, such as we are in now, the payroll survey misses many new business startups, causing it to understate employment growth. Eventually, the Labor Department finds these businesses and adjusts its data upward, which it probably will do for recent payroll data when revised figures are released on Feb. 6. For some time, there has been a growing divergence between the two labor surveys. The household survey has shown strong employment growth -- an increase of more than 2 million jobs between November 2002 and November 2003 (including a statistical adjustment last January). In the latest month, it showed 138,603,000 jobs in the United States. But the payroll survey has shown anemic job growth over the same period. Indeed, between November 2002 and November 2003 it shows a net decline of 235,000 jobs. According to the payroll survey, there are only 130,174,000 jobs -- far fewer than shown in the household survey. There are a number of technical reasons why the two surveys will always report different figures. Among these are people with more than one job, who may be counted twice in the payroll survey, and the self-employed, who are counted only by the household survey. Although attempts are made to reconcile differences between the two employment surveys, the gap cannot entirely be explained according to a recent BLS study. Liberals contend that the payroll survey is the only one worth paying attention to, as a recent Economic Policy Institute study argued, because it confirms their story about a jobless recovery. But conservatives will continue to point out that the more favorable data from the household survey is and always has been "official" for calculating the unemployment rate. To counter this last point, liberals have lately taken to adjusting the household survey numbers so as to get the "true" unemployment rate. One technique is to add to the number of unemployed those working part time for economic reasons, temporary workers and others marginally attached to the labor force. In November, these adjustments would have given us an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent instead of the official figure of 5.9 percent. Princeton economist Paul Krugman claimed in a Dec. 30 New York Times column that the adjusted data "indicate the worst job market in 20 years." However, the BLS shows unemployment rates as high as 12.8 percent in the mid-1990s using the same methodology. Therefore, Krugman's claim is simply wrong factually. Most economists believe that employment is poised to rise significantly in coming months. It always lags behind increases in output, but eventually catches up. That now seems to be happening, as indicated by the employment index from the Institute for Supply Management, which rose sharply in November and December. Over the longer term, some economists are starting to worry about labor shortages for demographic reasons, as the large baby boom generation retires and is replaced by a "baby bust" generation that is much smaller. Of course, job growth can't happen too fast for those now unemployed. But it really is happening, and they should take heart. humaneventsonline.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (520615)	1/7/2004 10:03:36 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

<<I read something that if the dollar falls below 101 Yen>>> CURRENCY MARKET RECAP 1/7/2004 The Dollar opened moderately higher, possibly off ideas that the BOJ was in buying Greenbacks. We have to think that more intervention fears will be see in the action Thursday because the Yen continues to hover right at an upside breakout point. Since the foreign exchange markets haven't been tracking off economic reports we suspect that the near term focus will be almost exclusively determined by the BOJ! Technical Outlook YEN (MAR): The market's close above the 9-day moving average suggests the short-term trend remains positive. A new contract high was made on the rally. With the close higher than the pivot swing number, the market is in a slightly bullish posture. Swing resistance is targeted at 94.58 and above there at 94.79, with the yen finding support around 94.21 and below there at 94.05. Studies are showing positive momentum, but are now in overbought territory so some caution is warranted. The next upside target is 94.79. so much for the foreign exchange expertise from funeral/ambulance chaser lawyer............