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 : John Kerry for President? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (1562)	9/29/2004 1:32:42 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3515

"Soros was one of the first to accurately predict that the Bush ecoinomic [sic] policies would hurt, not help, the country. He means this in a macro sense. That is, a debt-driven boost to the economy would not deliver jobs and would shift wealth from the middleclass into the pockets of - well - people like George." LOL. I know YOU didn't write that. Where'd you "borrow" it from? But since you'll deny plaigarism, let's see if you can defend your (or whoever's) position, shall we? First, please provide evidence in support of your first claim, i.e. that Bush economic policies have "hurt ... the country." The fact is that the economy was collapsing when Bush took office, due to the collapse of the financial market bubble and correction of the related business overinvestment in capital goods and human resources. Furthermore, fiscal stimulus from "Bush policies", together with monetary stimulus from the Fed, both softened the impact of that collapse versus what might be expected based on similar historical experiences and succeeded in reversing it, as shown by the resumption of economic growth in the Fall of 2001 and later acceleration of that growth. Second, please explain what policy you, when facing such a collapse of asset values and investment, would suggest to "deliver jobs." The fact is that fiscal stimulus, through either deficit financed spending increases or tax cuts, while a blunt policy tool, is really the only effective tool in the government's toolbox when dealing with a problem of the weight and magnitude of the collapse of the Clinton/Fed bubble. Third, please provide evidence to support your claim that Bush's policies have "shift[ed] wealth from the middleclass into the pockets of [the rich]." The fact is that, on an income basis (which is the only measure available to gauge "wealth" distribution), the top 5% of households have lost ground relative to lower income groups in terms of share of income, dropping from 22.1% in 2000 to 21.4% in 2003. Both the highest fifth (i.e. top 20%) and the middle fifth were exactly flat in terms of income shares. The 60-80% group gained .4% and the bottom tow fifths each lost .2%. More notable is the gains made by the "rich", at the expense of the middle class and the poor, under Clinton. From 1992 to 2000, the top 5% went from 18.6% to 22.1% and the top fifth went from 46.9% to 49.8% income shares, while ALL the lower four quintiles lost significant ground. census.gov As for the last part, "Soros paid particular attention to the dollar which dure enough plummeted 35% under Bush's watch and therefore has made us muich [sic] weaker in the world", you're demonstrating your economic illiteracy again. You really should take a remedial course. First, according to the Fed's index of the trade-weighted value of the Dollar (1997=100), the US currency has fallen from an index value of about 123 to about 116 since Bush took office in January 2001 - a 5.7% drop, not 35% as you claim. woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us Second, and here's where you need remedial help, a decline of the dollar makes US industry and workers MORE competitive in the world markets, not less so. Your claim that the "plummet" of the dollar, whether your exaggerated 35% number or the real one, has "made us [much] weaker in the world" is completely without merit or support. I await your informed, factual rebuttal (though I won't hold my breath waiting for it).

To: American Spirit who wrote (1562)	9/29/2004 4:27:53 PM
From: Paul Chiu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3515

Before you think Soros is all good, therefore his devotion to Kerry means he just want a stronger America, consider: 1) What do you know about Soros' philanthropy? Do you know that Soros help to fund programs that promote abortion, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, gay marriage, globalization and other liberal and radical causes? 2) Do you know that Soros' friendship with the Clintons made him a global power and at least $850 million during the 90's? 3 Why is it that Soros, a Jew, has shown such disdain for Israel and Jewish groups in general? 4) Do you know that Soros is an atheist and has made every effort to realize his vision of a world without God? 5) Do you know how he made billions from undermining Britain's economy and how he could do the same thing to America if he gets his wish with President Bush. Do you think his push now with media and advertisement is not a mean to make billions for himself? Think about it! Soros did not make billions from selling Girl Scout cookies. It's a big shame that Martha Stewart goes to jail for a simple lie, while Soros continues to abuse his rights as a world citizen.