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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (711893)	11/8/2005 6:04:50 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

US workers have taken a beating for the past 30 years except for 1995 to 2000. (Clinton years) with one exception, workers in the United States have been taking a beating for the past thirty years. The single exception is roughly the period from 1995 to 2000. From 1995 to 2000, wages (unless otherwise indicated, wages will refer to “real” wages, a measure of the purchasing power of our wages) began to grow significantly after two decades of stagnation, especially for those workers at the bottom of the wage distribution. Poverty rates declined and unemployment rates fell to thirty-year lows. The gap between both black workers and Hispanics and whites declined, in terms of wages, family incomes, unemployment rates, and the incidence of poverty. However, this rebound in some of the most basic indicators of working-class well-being ended with the onset of recession in March 2001 and the beginning of what has accurately been described as a “jobless recovery” in November of that same year. During the recession and the recovery, unemployment rose and has stayed well above 5 percent up to the present. The gains made by minorities and those at the bottom of the income distribution have eroded. Most of the increases in total income have gone to the owners of capital; very little has found its way into the hands of workers. Most disturbingly, many months after the recovery began, employment remains stagnant and wages are once again falling behind the rise in prices. monthlyreview.org

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (711893)	11/8/2005 9:07:25 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

Looks like GW's visit to Virginia sealed Kilgore's defeat, LOL. sbe.virginiainteractive.org

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (711893)	11/8/2005 10:21:30 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Some democrats and principled republicans seem worried that President Bush might pardon Scooter Libby. I don't think that should be a worry. President Bush is a man of honor. If Libby is found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers, an honorable man would recognize the process of law must be honored, even if he disagreed with its decision, and accept it. This is especiallly true of a conviction that occurs in his administration. Since President Bush is an honorable man, he cannot pardon a convicted Scooter Libby. What would be dishonorable would be to pardon someone before the legal system can finish its process. George Bush would not do this. He would agree that as a nation of laws, we must let the legal system act for the good of the Country. Therefore, he cannot and will not pardon Scooter Libby before trial. So, if President Bush, being an honorable man, could not pardon Scooter Libby if he is convicted, or before he is convicted, and there is no need for pardon if he is acquited or the charges dropped, why won't President George w. Bush simply now state that he will not pardon Mr. Libby? This would make it easier on Scott McClellan, who will have to face the question again and again.