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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rat dog micro-cap picks... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/19/2004 6:29:05 AM
From: cavan	Respond to of 48463

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top scientists and environmentalists on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that run counter to its own policies. They backed a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that said the administration had suppressed research on global warming, air quality, sexual health, cancer and other issues. The report said there had been a systematic effort to manipulate the government's supposedly independent scientific advisory system "to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda." "We are not ... taking issue with the administration's policies. We are taking issue with the administration's distortion of the process with which science enters into its decisions," Dr. Kurt Gottfried, a professor of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the UCS, told reporters. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) under former Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, said that during his tenure "I do not recall ever receiving a suggestion, let alone an order, from the White House as to how I should make a regulatory decision." "How times have changed," Train added. Neal Lane of Rice University in Houston and former science adviser to ex-president Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said scientific findings were being kept from decision-makers. "I am afraid that our leading policymakers simply don't know what they don't know given the manipulation of the science advice process," Lane told reporters. news.yahoo.com.

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/19/2004 10:02:45 AM
From: paret	Respond to of 48463

HOW TRUE. "Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times and did nothing. "

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/19/2004 10:28:55 AM
From: Bucky Katt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48463

National debt tops $7 trillion for first time Record high mark may be hot topic during election year The U.S. government’s national debt — the accumulation of past budget shortfalls — totaled more than $7 trillion for the first time as of Tuesday, according to a Treasury Department report. In its daily financial statement released Wednesday, the Treasury said the U.S. debt subject to a congressionally set limit totaled $7.015 trillion, up from $6.983 trillion Friday. The government was closed Monday for the Presidents Day holiday. The government debt ceiling stands only a few hundred billion dollars ahead at $7.384 trillion, and the Treasury would need Congress’s blessing to borrow beyond that. Treasury officials say they expect the limit to be hit sometime between June and October.

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/19/2004 10:53:07 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 48463

Bush is the worst president ever on jobs, the environment and deficit spending. Can you argue with that? Maybe Herbert Hoover was worse.

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/19/2004 2:01:43 PM
From: Buddy Smellgood	Respond to of 48463

The Oil wars in Iraq have nothing to do with 911. Even Dubya admitted that. He is certainly one of the worst presidents in history. Reagan sucked big time too. So there. phththbhthtbt

To: Findit who wrote (18395)	2/26/2004 3:25:54 PM
From: Findit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48463

Lou Dobbs 'OutSourcing' portfolio up 72% in a year. In his continuing crusade on behalf of xenophobia and protectionism, the baffling Lou Dobbs posts on his website a list of "companies we've confirmed are 'Exporting America.' These are U.S. companies either sending jobs overseas or choosing to employ cheap foreign labor, instead of American workers." Dobbs is obsessed with "outsourcing" - which is simply another word for "trade." As The Economist says in its current issue, "Outsourcing actually sustains jobs." Of course. David Ricardo figured this out two centuries ago, and, according to The Economist (and to every reputable economist), it has been "demonstrated to astonishing effect since." Outsourcing tech and other white-collar jobs is simply a canard, devised by viciously protectionist candidates like John Edwards and John Kerry, to frighten voters. Mr. Dobbs does his part. In truth, as The Economist notes, "The demand for computer-support specialists and software engineers, to take two examples, is expected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to double between 2000 and 2010. Demand for database administrators is expected to rise by three-fifths. Among the top score of occupations that the BLS reckons will see the highest growth, half will need IT skills. As it is, between 1999 and 2003 (that is, including during the recession) jobs were created, not lost, in a whole host of white-collar occupations said to be particularly susceptible to outsourcing." A quick glance at Lou Dobbs's list reveals that it comprises America's most innovative companies - many that didn't even exist a generation ago and now employ tens of thousands of Americans (Microsoft) or invented new industries (Amazon.com). Among scores of great companies that Dobbs considers evildoers: Boeing, the mega-exporter; Cisco Systems, builder of the world's Internet infrastructure; Intel, which garners 71 percent of its sales from abroad; General Electric, the most valuable industrial company on earth; Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company; and Yahoo!, the hugely popular global portal. We decided to turn the list into a virtual mutual fund, which we call the Dobbs Rogue Fund. The analysis wasn't easy since the list itself is inconsistent and sloppy - with subsidiaries listed and double-counting galore. In addition, about three dozen companies are private or unlisted on the stock exchanges. The heroic efforts of my research associate, Sharon Utz, produced a clean list but we are happy to hear of any corrections. The final portfolio includes 216 publicly traded companies. Using data from Bloomberg, we calculated that the annual return for the Dobbs Rogue Fund, if it had existed over the past year (12 months ending Feb. 23, 2004), was a remarkable 72.44 percent. That compares with a return of 39.11 percent for the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500-Stock Index over the same period. Only eight stocks out of the 216 fell in value over the past year. By contrast, 42 stocks at least doubled. I love this fund. It doesn't exist, but perhaps some smart investment firm will create it. For now, you can pick and choose among the stocks and add them to your own holdings. No guarantees, of course, but Lou is definitely on to something. We will update the portfolio's returns in the future. By James K. Glassman