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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61254)	5/8/2005 3:17:04 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 81568

"I also can't post a link because its javascript. Go look it up yourself." Well, being a techie, you should at least be able to link the page where you found the link to the javascript info you claim as fact. But I understand if you prefer not to have to back up your "facts". I would resist, too, if I were you. "This is commonly understood, all over the press..." Gotta love a good argumentum ad populum. "and why you don't "get it" and can't decipher what is meant by "naz" is beyond me." The "naz", Lizzie, commonly refers to either of the two major indices of NASDAQ stocks, the NASDAQ 100 or the NASDAQ Composite. Alternatively, it can be used to refer to the virtual marketplace where NASDAQ listed stocks trade, as in "CSCO was the most active loser on the Naz today." In any case, I'll have to admit to being unable to decipher whatever it is you want me to "get" from your use of the word "naz". Were you referring to A) all OTC stocks as of 1982 and today, B) NASDAQ National Market System stocks in 1982 and NASDAQ National Market List today, C) NASDAQ National Market System stocks in 1982 and NASDAQ National Market List together with the NASDAQ Small Cap Market List today, or D) something else entirely? "Trying to defend Bush's dismal financial record still?" Are you still trying to prove this is the worst economy ever, even after three and a half years of strong economic growth? "BTW this january period in stocks was the worst since 1982 also." Hmm. Just for grins, let's check that "Dizzie-fact" as well. Measuring by the S&P 500, the index most widely referred to when talking about general stock market performance, this January saw a 2.53% loss in stocks. So, how does that stack up? "The worst since 1982", you say? OK, first let me "decipher" a bit and interpret what you meant as "the worst [January] since 1982." Is that what you meant? (Hint: It would be pointless and foolish to suggest otherwise as that would make you even more wrong.) Liz, so sorry to have to tell you this, but it's not even the worst January THIS DECADE, much less since 1982. That honor goes to January 2000, when your boy Bill was riding high on bubble-mania and the S&P lost 5.1% in a month. As for 1982 itself, the S&P lost only 1.8% that month, so I am at a loss as to why you'd compare to that January at all. But as you said, I just "don't get it". I guess I just don't have your imagination. One might even say it's "beyond me."

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61254)	5/9/2005 10:57:15 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

BUSH's BUBBLE BURSTS _______________________ For almost five years, Bush aides have been effective and efficient in shielding the president from any and all dissent. The president may be aware of the fact that there are some people who disagree with him, but he doesn’t have to see them and — perish the thought — he certainly doesn’t have to answer any of their questions. Ever. But someone on Bush’s staff apparently made a tragic error over the weekend and the president started taking questions from some young people who hadn’t been pre-screened for ideology, hadn’t signed a loyalty oath, weren’t prepped by a White House advance team, and had questions that the president didn’t care for. Unfortunately, this occurred in the Netherlands, so it wasn’t Americans who got to ask their president questions, but it was compelling anyway. “I have a question … concerning the terrorism,” said the first student to be called on, a young woman. “And you made many laws after 9/11, many — many laws and many measures. And I’m wondering, will there be a time when you drop those laws and when you decrease the measures?” “Look,” Bush replied, “a free society such as ours, obviously, must balance the government’s most important duty, which is to protect the American people from harm, with the civil liberties of our citizens. And every law we passed that was aimed to protect us in this new era of threats from abroad and the willingness for people to kill without mercy has been scrutinized and, of course, balanced by our Constitution.” Another student asked Bush about the cost of the Iraq war, which is when the funny part happened: reporters were ushered from the room. Media were then asked to leave, though the meeting, held in a window-lined room at a glorious chateau near Maastricht, went on for another half-hour. What happened in that other half-hour? American journalists were barred from listening in and — you guessed it — the White House has not released a transcript of the meeting, despite providing transcripts for every single “townhall meeting” and scripted “conservation” Bush has hosted since becoming president. It’d be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic. It’s the first time in recent memory the president spoke with people who weren’t pre-screened sycophants, and the moment the Bush team gets nervous about what these students might say, it’s time to start “controlling the message” — which means cutting off the public’s access to the information. It’s not just that the Bush White House has abandoned any sense of authenticity; the offensive part is, once again, the president needs a bubble to shield him at all times from inconvenient questions and the risk of public embarrassment. The real shame, I suppose, belongs to us: he’s our president. thecarpetbaggerreport.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (61254)	5/11/2005 4:37:27 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

It's that horrific tax "cut for the rich" that's going to radically cut tax receipts, drive up the deficit & it's going to ruin our economy!!!!! <VBG> U.S. April budget surplus swells to $57.71 billion Wed May 11, 2005 02:07 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States posted a greater-than-expected $57.71 billion budget surplus in April, the largest surplus since April 2002, as tax receipts swelled, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday. Wall Street analysts had expected a $55 billion budget surplus in April, a month when revenues are traditionally higher due to the April 15 income tax filing deadline. The monthly surplus was more than $40 billion larger than the $17.58 billion surplus the U.S. recorded in April 2004 and put the government on track for a narrower budget gap in fiscal 2005 than the last year. Government receipts grew to $277.61 billion in April this year compared to $220.09 billion in April 2004. reuters.com