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 : Vote Bush out - here are the reasons why -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (331)	9/22/2004 11:14:03 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 383

Novak Says Bush Wants to Flip-Flop Again on Iraq: Robert Novak's Monday Chicago Sun-Times column, "Quick Exit From Iraq Is Likely," would make Mickey Mouse proud. Novak is claiming that Team Bush is eager to bail out of Iraq following reelection, as if the administration's unwavering commitment to the war turns out to be as phony as Saddam's massive stockpiles of WMD. "Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. "Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal." On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett shot the claim down: "There is no truth to that story. The President and his team are committed to getting the job done." Bear in mind that Novak did have the high-level sources to help the Bush White House take down CIA operative Valerie Plame over the Iraq-Niger uranium scandal. But why would the Bush camp want to leak this loony tune about fast withdrawal? Some election watchers have already speculated that it's a cheap ad buy of sorts -- a way to hedge in favor of unsettled swing voters who are increasingly skeptical of Bush's war. (Even if there isn't an ounce of truth to the claim.) That theory is certainly bolstered by the utterly bizarre, if not incoherent rationale Novak alleges is behind this astonishing and heretofore untold Bush plan: "Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out. The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations. "This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed." Novak might want to double-check his analysis with Frank Gaffney. The Washington Times columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy is ripping into Kerry for all talk of bailing out of the quagmire in Iraq. "The Democratic candidate has evidently decided to run against the conflict in Iraq by arguing it is even more fouled up than the last war that became hugely unpopular, Vietnam. He is betting (not unreasonably) the situation on the ground there will get uglier in the next six weeks... "The United States could -- and did -- walk away from many of its friends and allies in Southeast Asia. The result was pretty awful for them, but of no grave strategic consequence for us. It is the height of irresponsibility to think a similar prospect awaits us if the United States once again follows John Kerry and abandons Iraq to its fate. Turning the Iraqis over to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein's loyalists, Saudi- or Iranian-backed Islamists and/or foreign fighters of other stripes will not simply ensure their country remains a festering sore in the Middle East. It is certain to subject us to a vastly intensified war by emboldened terrorist enemies with global reach." We distort, you decide Online watchdog Media Matters for America notes that at least one right-wing cable news reporter peddled bald-faced lies about Kerry's speech on Monday. Though Kerry used no such language in his speech, Fox News Channel chief political correspondent "Campaign" Carl Cameron claimed that Kerry called President Bush a "warmonger" who wants "a perpetual state of war." From the Sept. 20 edition of Fox's "Studio B With Shepard Smith": "CAMERON: This is a very bold attack from Senator Kerry today. He basically said today that if President Bush is reelected, there will be more war, and he will continue to make these mistakes that Senator Kerry says he's made in the Iraq war, and he suggested there will be continued wars elsewhere on the planet. In effect, saying -- John Kerry accusing George W. Bush of being a warmonger who wants a perpetual state of war around the world. Big stuff."

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (331)	9/29/2004 1:39:54 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 383

Why did you ban me from your thread (John Kerry for President) for a second time? What standards did I violate? Why did you continue to post to me after you banned me without any warning? All I did was stick to the issues & support my POV with credible verifiable evidence. Why is that a bannable offense? I look forward to your honest answer.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (331)	9/29/2004 4:03:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 383

Hey Chinu - Here are some more "lies & propadanda" from that liberal rag, the New York Times...... :-) Where Did All the Jobs Go? Nowhere By DANIEL W. DREZNER - NYT OP-ED Chicago — John Kerry is making the outsourcing of jobs by American companies a centerpiece of his campaign, telling audiences that "because of George Bush's wrong choices, this country is continuing to ship good jobs overseas." President Bush's team has in turn accused the senator of hypocrisy, noting that many of Mr. Kerry's supporters in the business world run companies that are sending jobs offshore. Yet as each side angles for votes, neither is addressing the real issue: is the outsourcing of jobs a problem? The answer, surprisingly, is no. For about a year now, Americans have become fixated on the idea that the Internet had enabled firms to easily subcontract business services - including call centers and software development - overseas. I've read countless newspaper articles with anecdotes about American computer programmers who trained their Indian replacements and were then let go. The phenomenon landed simultaneously on the covers of Time, The Economist and BusinessWeek. Politicians have been equally interested. On this page in January, Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, suggested that outsourcing rendered the law of comparative advantage null and void. When I.B.M. announced plans that month to fire up to 5,000 American workers and "offshore" their jobs to low-wage countries, politicians and pundits fell all over each other to denounce the company. When N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said that outsourcing was simply another form of trade, Republicans and Democrats alike blasted him for his naïveté. Not surprisingly, all this coverage had an effect on public opinion. This month a poll by Zogby International for the Foreign Policy Association found that 71 percent of Americans believed outsourcing was hurting the economy. It also found that 62 percent of American workers believed the federal government should penalize companies that send work offshore. Now, however, we can add some actual figures to the overheated debate. The Government Accountability Office has issued its first review of the data, and one undeniable conclusion to be drawn from it is that outsourcing is not quite the job-destroying tsunami it's been made out to be. Of the 1.5 million jobs lost last year in "mass layoffs'' - that is, when 50 or more workers are let go at once - less than 1 percent were attributed to overseas relocation; that was a decline from the previous year. In 2002, only about 4 percent of the money directly invested by American companies overseas went to the developing countries that are most likely to account for outsourced jobs - and most of that money was concentrated in manufacturing. The data did show that from 1997 to 2002, annual imports of business, technical and professional services increased by $16.3 billion. However, during that same half-decade, exports of those services increased by $20.5 billion a year. In 2002 alone, the United States ran a $27 billion trade surplus in business services, the sector in which jobs are most likely to be outsourced. The G.A.O. correctly stressed that it is impossible to compute exactly how many jobs are lost because of outsourcing, but unless its figures are off by several orders of magnitude, there's no crisis here. Many companies moving jobs overseas have also received a bum rap. Lost in all the clamor about I.B.M.'s outsourcing plan was the company's simultaneous announcement that it would add 5,000 American jobs to its payroll. For the second quarter of this year, the company reported a 17 percent increase in earnings, allowing it to trim its outsourcing plan by a third and raise its overall hiring plans by 20 percent. The conclusion is obvious: I.B.M.'s outsourcing of some jobs helped it reduce costs, increase earnings and hire more American-based workers. None of this is to dismiss the pain endured by those who lose their jobs to lower-paid workers abroad. But the magnitude of these job losses must be placed in the proper perspective. Technological innovation is responsible for a far greater number of lost jobs than outsourcing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that in the first quarter of this year 4,633 workers were laid off because of offshoring. In the same period Kodak, for example, announced layoffs of 15,000 workers because the growth of digital photography reduced demand for film. Few Americans suggest technological innovation be stifled for the sake of preserving old jobs. Yet during election years, restrictions on outsourcing are considered fair game. This is not to say there aren't steps we can take to help those who lose their jobs. For example, Trade Adjustment Assistance, a federal program to compensate and retrain workers displaced by import competition, at present covers only those in manufacturing. It should be expanded to include service employees. The American economy has some formidable challenges in the coming decades - rising health care costs, a ballooning federal budget deficit, failing schools and the need for greater investment in new technology and innovation. The voters should concentrate on the candidates' plans to overcome those obstacles, not on needless hoopla over outsourcing. Daniel W. Drezner is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (331)	9/29/2004 4:28:21 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 383

More bad news for the Kerry Kamp, which means good news for America.......... :-o 2nd Quarter GDP Growth Stronger Than Expected More good news on the economy was announced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis today, with GDP growth during the 2nd quarter being larger than expected. The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) notes: The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) announced today that GDP grew at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 3.3 percent during the 2nd quarter, up from a previous estimate of 2.8 percent growth. Major contributors to the growth in GDP were business investment, consumer spending, and private inventory investment. Business investment, the lack of which drove the economy into recession in 2001, increased by 12.5 percent in the 2nd quarter and has now increased for five consecutive quarters. GDP has increased for eleven consecutive quarters. Some highlights... During the 2nd quarter of 2004, GDP grew at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 3.3 percent. Over the past year, GDP has increased by 4.8 percent. Business investment was stronger than expected, growing at a robust 12.5 percent annualized pace in the 2nd quarter. Export growth was strong and the revised 2nd quarter trade deficit was slightly smaller than previously estimated. Residential investment, primarily home building, was also revised up and is now estimated to have grown at a very strong 16.5 percent annualized rate. This is the second strongest quarterly growth in home building in eight years. I blame the Bush tax cuts... UPDATE: An economist on Capitol Hill tells Blogs For Bush in response to the media bias on this news: During the 1990s, average quarterly GDP growth was 3.3 percent. What has it been over the past year? 4.9 percent. That ought to put our recent growth context. Last quarter's growth was the same as the average growth throughout the 1990s. Is the media going to suggest that economic growth was subpar during the 1990s? mattmargolis.com

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (331)	9/29/2004 5:17:53 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 383

Hey Chinu, could you explain this to me? Did Kerry flip flop, or has he been consistent about Iraq? Kerry - 07/29/02: I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq... Kerry - 08/31/03: ...and the fact is, in the resolution we passed, we did not empower the president to do a regime change...* ______________________________________________________________ Kerry - 09/14/03: Just prior to the vote... [When asked ...will you then vote against the 87 billion?] I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops, and recklessly leave Iraq... That's irresponsible...I don't think anyone in the congress is not gonna not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves... Kerry - 10/17/03: [On 87 billion appropriation for Iraq & Afghanistan] NAY* Kerry - 03/16/04: *I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it.* Kerry - 01/06/04: [Asked Are you one of the anti-war candidates?] Uh, I am..? Yeah.