[NA] Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

[Eamon]

12345678910

 

[MSmith]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Just to keep it light ....

One Played the Sax, Played with woman

Don't you have a quantity problem there? Shouldn't it be "women"?

 

[bstratt]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

In my experience open mindedness, etc., is not confined to any one political spectrum, nor was the lack of it confined to one.

Also, open mindedness is not general across all subjects with any one individual. We all have our firm beliefs, whether fiscal, religious, societal, etc. where we are not as open as we would like to think we are, and our subjects where we only hold opinions rather than beliefs, thereby allowing us to entertain alternate thoughts.

From my brief exposure to Toby's prior posts I don't believe he intended to "slam" those who broadly paint themselves as conservative. I believe he was free thinking as he was typing.

 

[Gary]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Sorry Eamon, I'm really lost as to what you are trying to say here.. Is this a comparason between Bush and Clinton, or between gay pilots, conservatives and liberals?


Gary

 

[Eamon]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Sorry Eamon, I'm really lost as to what you are trying to say here.. Is this a comparason between Bush and Clinton, or between gay pilots, conservatives and liberals?


Gary

It was a joking reply to a question put forth.

Kind of hard to follow from one thread to another, I know..........

Eamon

 

[poadeleted3]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Your premise is incorrect. Clinton did nothing to bring prosperity to this country. He and his wife came into office, proposed massive communist inspired economic and medical care programs that would have destroyed us and were were shot down by the Republican legislature. Then they sat back and rode the wave of economic prosperity that the Republicn legislature's policies brought this nation. Prosperity that is continuing to this day. As for peace, Clinton chose to destroy this nation's military power and intelligence capabilities, and ignored the ongoing slaughter of Americans abroad and at home to avoid engaging in the war that needed to be fought. It is my sincere belief that he, and those who support his policies, are directly responsible for emboldening our enemies to the point that they felt secure launching the most deadly attack on our soil that a foreign enemy has ever been able to. Further, he sold nuclear and missile secrets to China in return for campaign funds, and in order to appease North Korea long enough that he wouldn't have to deal with them he provided them with the nuclear material they intend to use to endanger every man, woman and child in this nation.

Funny stuff.

 

[Brian Austin]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

And GWB just sold stuff to Pakistan. A real stable country.


Pakistan mob kills 'blasphemer'

A mob of angry villagers in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province has killed a man accused of blasphemy, police say.
Aasheq Nabi was shot dead in Nowshera district, 30km (18 miles) from Peshawar, after reports he had burnt a copy of the Koran - Islam's holy book.

Oh Yea... These guys need our F-16's

Pakistan, regardless of its internal politics, is still an ally. China and North Korea have never qualified in that respect. Don't you see a difference there? Especially when it was ANNOUNCED that we sold Pakistan the planes vs an investigation that had to turn up the fact that secrets were given to China?

Most people I know are now just getting back to work from the depression that Bush brought about. They all lost their 200K a year jobs, their IRA's & Stocks & Bennies & are now working for 50K with no Bennies.

Great build of the economy

Eamon

Just about every economist I've read and even taken classes with recently have said that the economy was on the downturn in March of 2000...eight months before the elections. Having been part of the dotcom boom at the time, I got out after I started watching start up stocks nosedive from the artificial bubble that had been created with the IPO frenzies.

The IT industry took a needed salary adjustment. You can't pay a 20-something year old web page designer $100K+ a year plus stock options to design a page that any twelve year old kid with Frontpage could do in 30 minutes. Even with a large database structure behind it, that's a $50K job in the real world. Those guys weren't living in a real world. BTDT...and still have the T-shirt.

 

[Brian Austin]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Here's a different opinion on when the recession started...but still too early for Bush:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38826-2004Jan22?language=printer

 

[Brian Austin]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Pakistan can say they are our Ally till that are blue in the face & it still doesn't mean it is true. They hold the exact same beliefs as Iraq & Afganistan. Most Paks think of OBL as a war hero, FACT

We are going down a bad road that we went down before with Iran.

What doesn't GWB get about that?


Didn't Nixon open up China as an Ally?

Eamon

Personally, I don't think we should have sold F-16's to Pakistan either. But it was a valid business deal, not some behind the shades trade for political cash. And we are working with Pakistan on levels we've never worked with China.

Nixon opened up TRADE with China. They are not and haven't been considered an ally since World War II (before they went Red).

 

[Brian Austin]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Still after Bush was elected Na Na, Na Na LOL


Eamon :dance:

Elected and inaugarated are two different things.

 

[corjulo]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Your premise is incorrect. Clinton did nothing to bring prosperity to this country. He and his wife came into office, proposed massive communist inspired economic and medical care programs that would have destroyed us and were were shot down by the Republican legislature. Then they sat back and rode the wave of economic prosperity that the Republicn legislature's policies brought this nation. Prosperity that is continuing to this day. As for peace, Clinton chose to destroy this nation's military power and intelligence capabilities, and ignored the ongoing slaughter of Americans abroad and at home to avoid engaging in the war that needed to be fought. It is my sincere belief that he, and those who support his policies, are directly responsible for emboldening our enemies to the point that they felt secure launching the most deadly attack on our soil that a foreign enemy has ever been able to. Further, he sold nuclear and missile secrets to China in return for campaign funds, and in order to appease North Korea long enough that he wouldn't have to deal with them he provided them with the nuclear material they intend to use to endanger every man, woman and child in this nation.

Funny stuff.

Joseph, with all do respect...

That's what we mean by no independent thought. You just perfectly regurgitated the same GOP, paranoid Social conservative talking Point memo jibberish we hear all day on AM radio or Fox news. Give us something original and intellectually honest but not so mean spirited. Last week you called me (not personally but as a Democrat) a freedom hater, this week, as a Clinton supporter, I'm responsible for 9/11. I mean the hateful speech is helping the Democrat, so for that I thank you, but your soul dude, your soul?

And one word about your comments on the Clinton Health care plan. By every possible measure this countries health care system is in crises. We pay more, we don't live as long as other G7s, our infant mortality rates are 11th in the industrialized world (we do beat Turkey) and we have 40+ million uninsured. I mean, good thing the GOP saved us from Clinton's commie plan.


Peace

 

[Brian Austin]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Joseph, with all do respect...

Uh, it's "due", not do.

That's what we mean by no independent thought. You just perfectly regurgitated the same GOP, paranoid Social conservative talking Point memo jibberish we hear all day on AM radio or Fox news. Give us something original and intellectually honest but not so mean spirited. Last week you called me (not personally but as a Democrat) a freedom hater, this week, as a Clinton supporter, I'm responsible for 9/11. I mean the hateful speech is helping the Democrat, so for that I thank you, but your soul dude, your soul?

Odd. All of the things that Joe said are accurate. Why does independent thought preclude the truth?

- Presidents have little to do with economic prosperity, despite what the press makes of it. Economies cycle. Fact of life. Yes, cycles can be shortened or lengthened based on legislative moves. Bush's tax cuts didn't break the recession but, imho, they did contribute to the shorter than predicted recession.
- Employment is a lagging indicator of a recovery. Again, fact of life for those who want to throw out the "my friend still doesn't have a job" ball.
- Clinton did reduce the military and intelligence budgets considerably. Again, that is a lagging effect since old hardware must be repaired instead of replaced, morale is reduced, and enlistment goes down with no adequate pay increases. Eamon mentioned that Clinton balanced the budget. Since defense is the most significant item in the budget, where do you think the money for a lot of the balancing came from?
- Instead of taking a hard line against repeated overseas attacks (embassy bombings, the housing in Saudi Arabia and the Cole immediately come to mind), the ineffective response allowed OBL and friends to continue business as usual. The planning behind the World Trade Center attack didn't happen overnight. That was years of planning, moving money and getting people trained...here.
- The China/campaign funds issue is a fact. Why is reiterating it not "independent thought" while mentioning GWB as continuing "daddy's economic plans" considered independent thought?

And one word about your comments on the Clinton Health care plan. By every possible measure this countries health care system is in crises. We pay more, we don't live as long as other G7s, our infant mortality rates are 11th in the industrialized world (we do beat Turkey) and we have 40+ million uninsured. I mean, good thing the GOP saved us from Clinton's commie plan.


Peace

You lost me on this one.
- The health care system is in crisis for a number of reasons, one of which is the high price of medical malpractice insurance required now to protect doctors from lawsuit hungry lawyers (just watch daytime television for the ads if you don't believe me). If we had a national healthcare system, I wonder if the govt would allow that to continue? Probably not. After all, you can't sue the government for a lot of liability stuff like that.
- We pay more in insurance costs and at the doctors office...but we also have the highest quality of medicine in the world. I live in AZ, near the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Hospital in Scottsdale. A lot of their patients are actually foreigners from Canada and Europe that come over to have surgery that is either delayed or denied by their countries' medical system. I'm not talking about elective stuff either. Socialized medicine (which is what the Clintons proposed) works fine at some level...but get to the serious stuff or in a situation like some countries and it begins failing. Why would a doctor capable of making several hundred thousand dollars a year in the US choose to work for $50K in England with their socialized system? They don't. Doctors are getting scarcer there.

While I agree that the health system needs some reform, throwing it in the hands of the government is hardly the answer. Put some significant tort reform through Congress, work with the drug companies to lower their prices (I paid $80 for 30 tablets of Allegra-D while Canadians get it for $20?? Why don't we each get it for $50??), get the insurance industry to stop playing games with the HMO management practices of profit over lives (some, not all), etc.. Small stuff but it would add up over time.

 

[wbarnhill]

Well, I will agree that conservatives are just as capable of independent thought as liberals, but I must ask this question, and I'm eager for a response:

In reference to the whole "Clinton stole the Republican policy wave! He was horrible, etc etc etc", Can someone please point me to a bit of factual information? Excuse me for not taking it at face value, but I'd love to see some data backing this up. Because if Republican policies cause such economic growth, one would logically conclude that the economic growth would've continued through Bush's election. I'd just like to see some hard data, preferably from a scholarly journal of economics (so please note that anything from any opinion based website or blog will be immediately viewed as biased/skewed, regardless of side.)

I've heard people say "The president's policies don't effect the country until they've left office!" to account for both bad things happening to their guy and good things happening after their guy had left office. And yet every single time, I've yet to see any shred of data to back up the claim.

If I can get my economics professor to sit down and discuss this with me, I'll see if I can get his viewpoint, but once again, without data (which I'm hoping he can point me to) I am not going to just accept statements.

Any takers?

 

[SCCutler]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

One Played the Sax, Played with woman & brought the country to more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus.
Eamon

Eamon, as the old expression goes, it is sometimes better to be lucky than good.

The upswing in economic activity which President Clinton enjoyed was well under way before he ever took office. Sadly, many try to credit presidents with achieving results which are utterly unrelated to their policies and actions. And, as for unemployment, we are near historic lows now, with the difference being that we are no longer heavy on the unsustainable VC-fed pseudo jobs which were so prevalent in the tech sector (dot bomb) during President Clinton's era.

I have some experience with socialized medicine, as my sister lives with one of the vaunted single-payor systems. In the twenty-plus years she has lived there, she has always arranged for significant health care matters to be dealt with when she visits the states, because of long waits and rationing of care. From my observation while visiting, the care is good and about on par with what one gets in the county teaching / welfare hospitals here. Perhaps, then, what we need is to have a compulsory reduction in quality and access to care for everyone? Our health care system works fine, and health insurance is readily available to pretty much everyone who shops for it (unless, of course, your image of health insurance is the no-copayt, low-deductible model).

As for President Clinton's womanizing, although that habit is a clear breach of trust (a sacred trust) and a relevant indicator of character, well, that's really his business... or should I say, it was his business until he chose to try to assume the moral high ground by denying, first publicly and then under oath, that he had dipped his pen in the company well. Never forget, Nixon fell not because he broke in to the DNC offices - he knew nothing about it - but because he tried to cover it up and in the process, lied and obstructed justice.

Lastly, no one who has ever had to endure the expense and disruption of defending against an EEOC accusation, prosecuted by that agency of the Executive Branch of the federal government, finds amusement in the fact that the President claimed having sex with a subordinate employee in the workplace was somehow "private," anyway. There are plenty of reported cases in which the actions of consenting adults still formed the basis of a hostile workplace environment claim.

By the way, I don't claim Clinton was a disaster as President, but to suggest that he has some meaningful qualitative advantage over President Bush is ludicrous.

Quick show of hands, here: How many of you think a President Gore would have had the guts to step up like President Bush has done after 9/11?

 

[Brian Austin]

In reference to the whole "Clinton stole the Republican policy wave! He was horrible, etc etc etc", Can someone please point me to a bit of factual information? Excuse me for not taking it at face value, but I'd love to see some data backing this up. Because if Republican policies cause such economic growth, one would logically conclude that the economic growth would've continued through Bush's election. I'd just like to see some hard data, preferably from a scholarly journal of economics (so please note that anything from any opinion based website or blog will be immediately viewed as biased/skewed, regardless of side.)

If you're worried about bias, wouldn't you be better off searching for it yourself? If I send you four links and you don't agree with them, you just write it off to bias. You're on the Internet, too. I get a plethora of links from Googling "republican democrat economic effect". Go crazy.

And I don't think ANY policies cause the effect, regardless of source. I think they encourage the effect to go in one direction or another but it's dependent on a lot of other factors.

I've heard people say "The president's policies don't effect the country until they've left office!" to account for both bad things happening to their guy and good things happening after their guy had left office. And yet every single time, I've yet to see any shred of data to back up the claim.

If I can get my economics professor to sit down and discuss this with me, I'll see if I can get his viewpoint, but once again, without data (which I'm hoping he can point me to) I am not going to just accept statements.

Any takers?

You'll find some stuff in that same search.

Economics isn't the study of one particular thing. It's a series of relationships and how things affect one another. Oil is skyrocketing right now...so why is lettuce higher because of it? If lettuce is higher, then your salad increases in price, right? If that increases in price, your usual 15% tip (you do tip, right?) just went up a few cents, increasing the waitress's takehome. She, in turn, now has a little extra money to put in her gas tank. Not that it will matter because everything else has gone up, too...which will require a raise on your part since your cost of living is going up...which means your employer will have to raise the cost of the product you produce/sell to cover your costs. A vicious cycle, isn't it?

Or, what about this one? Oil prices are increasing but production hasn't necessarily changed. What's causing oil to increase? Think supply and demand (wait for the curves if you haven't studied this one yet). China and India are both emerging into what the US went through in the latter half of the 20th century. Oil has always been a commodity but now we're getting into a bidding war with an economy that is beginning to outpace ours. The high price of gasoline isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Back to your comment about Presidential economic effects after leaving office. Not necessarily but it's definitely lagging. Think of the economy as a huge oil tanker. Ever watch one of those things turn? Or stop? It takes a LONG time to turn them underway at full load. Mass and inertia. Our economy functions the same way. Make as big of a change in our tax structure as you want. It's still not going to put any money in people's pockets TODAY...which is the only way to see an immediate effect.

Bush's tax rebate had a small effect using that principle, btw. It wasn't drastic but it was seen as "free money" by a lot of people and they went out to spend it...boosting the economy by a smidgin.

 

[wbarnhill]

Quick show of hands, here: How many of you think a President Gore would have had the guts to step up like President Bush has done after 9/11?

Step up? Like attacking the people who attacked us, only to stop short of our goal to go after another country who was no threat to us (and almost completely ignoring country #3 who keeps stating he'll bathe his neighbors in a "sea of fire").

Kinda confused there. And if you mention anything about Saddam being so horrible to his people, let's take a look around the globe and any of the several situations (Africa, Korea, etc) where people are treated horribly and ask ourselves why we didn't solve THOSE problems?

There's a difference between "stepping up" and "failing the primary mission", which I believe was to locate and capture Osama bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.

 

[Brian Austin]

Step up? Like attacking the people who attacked us, only to stop short of our goal to go after another country who was no threat to us (and almost completely ignoring country #3 who keeps stating he'll bathe his neighbors in a "sea of fire").

Kinda confused there. And if you mention anything about Saddam being so horrible to his people, let's take a look around the globe and any of the several situations (Africa, Korea, etc) where people are treated horribly and ask ourselves why we didn't solve THOSE problems?

There's a difference between "stepping up" and "failing the primary mission", which I believe was to locate and capture Osama bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.

While I don't necessarily agree with the shift in priorities to Iraq, I'm glad they're fighting over there and not over here. No one could have predicted what would have happened if Gore had become President instead of Bush...but I'm glad Bush was in office. He took the fight to them, regardless of where it is.

 

[poadeleted3]

Step up? Like attacking the people who attacked us, only to stop short of our goal to go after another country who was no threat to us (and almost completely ignoring country #3 who keeps stating he'll bathe his neighbors in a "sea of fire").

Kinda confused there. And if you mention anything about Saddam being so horrible to his people, let's take a look around the globe and any of the several situations (Africa, Korea, etc) where people are treated horribly and ask ourselves why we didn't solve THOSE problems?

There's a difference between "stepping up" and "failing the primary mission", which I believe was to locate and capture Osama bin Laden, NOT Saddam Hussein.

The mission is NOT to capture Osama bin Laden. That is short sighted, and ineffective. The mission was to wage war on terrorists, and remove the threat to our soil posed by a large, growing group of people who have spilled forth before on a mission of world conquest, which is again their goal.

Our war in Iraq has paid huge dividends toward the real mission. While capturing Osama bin Laden would have been a nice feel good thing, the kind of action that has accomplished nothing over the last decade but lead to more dead Americans in increasingly bolder attacks. Osama bin Laden is neutralized, and on the run. He's been behind precisely zero major attacks since 9/11. Our war has destroyed the terrorist regime in Afghanistan and accomplished a peace that the Soviet Union was unable to accomplish with a decade of warfare. Libya has surrendered it's weapons of mass destruction, turned it's back on terrorism, and taken steps to rejoin the world community. Saudi Arabia has been forced to face up to the terrorists using it's country as a breeding ground, and is fighting a war against them instead of pretending the problem is someone else's. Lebonon is poised to regain democracy, and reject the reign of terror they've been living under. Iran and North Korea have been forced back to the bargaining table to deal with their weapons of mass destruction. Negotiation IS better than war, right? Don't you think we should give it a try while the nations are willing to talk?

George Bush could indeed have settled for just capturing and trying Osama bin Laden. The mastermind behind the FIRST Al Queada attack on the WTC is sitting in a US prison to this day. That didn't accomplish much, did it? Instead, President Bush made the hard decision to lead this nation into a full fledged war, and thus far the results have been spectacular, and the number of terrorist attacks on our soil? I'll let you answer that one.

Finally, I will mention how "horrible" Saddam Hussein was to his people. It is frightening how easily some people are able to just blow off mass murder, mass rape, torture on a vast scale of women and children, etc. How irrelevant using children for target practice is, how uncaring they are about people butchered en masse for fun, literally. They really don't seem to care, and I don't understand how that can be. Saddam Hussein is as purely evil a person as has ever walked it, and folks are feeling sorry for the poor guy. As for the claim that the US isn't engaged in the rest of the world trying to solve the problems their, it is simply not an accurate claim. There is no other nation on this planet so heavily engaged with money, manpower and know how as the United States.

 

[wbarnhill]

After looking through some articles on InfoTrac the consensus seems to state that the president has a more indirect way of controlling the economy. The specific article that I've found is from Presidential Studies Quarterly, Sept 2004 v34 i3 p573(34) "Presidential rhetoric and economic leadership." by B. Dan Wood.

Wood focuses on how presidents use their access to the media to help guide the economy. Wood shows information on number of speeches involving four areas: economy, unemployment, inflation, and deficit. One table from the article:

(Insert Table here that I couldn't get to show up properly since the board doesn't like whitespaces )

It's apparent that w/ 50 sentences a month on the deficit, Clinton believed and fought to get rid of deficits. Bush appears to be a little less focused upon these four areas, although the data only exists through 2002 and are more than likely affected by 9/11 and the focus thereafter on terrorism.

The article does not come to a definitive conclusion on the effect of presidential rhetoric, but it might not be a stretch to make the assumption that a president can help fuel public opinion which in turn would provide pressure upon the legislature as well as hopefully influence people to help boost the economy in the short term by spending/investing/saving.

 

[wbarnhill]

The mission was to wage war on terrorists, and remove the threat to our soil posed by a large, growing group of people who have spilled forth before on a mission of world conquest, which is again their goal.

Osama bin Laden is neutralized, and on the run. He's been behind precisely zero major attacks since 9/11.

...and the number of terrorist attacks on our soil? I'll let you answer that one.

Our soil? None. Of course major attacks by Al Qaeda on our soil prior to 9/11 was also none. But it still depends on your idea of "major attacks".

As for around the world...

9/11/2001 Destruction of WTC, attack on Pentagon. 4/11/2002 Explosion at ancient synogogue in Tunisia leaves 17 dead, including 11 German tourists. 5/2002 Car explodes outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens. 6/2002 Bomb explodes outside American Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. 10/2002 Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, kill 202, mostly Australian citizens.

Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, kills 16. 5/2003 Suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Four bombs kill 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco. 8/2003 Suicide car bomb kills 12, injures 150, at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. 11/2003 Explosions rock a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17.

Suicide car bombers simultaneously attack two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds. The following week a British bank in Istanbul is bombed. 3/2004 Ten terrorists bombs explode almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400. A Moroccan affiliate of al-Qaeda claims responsibility. 5/29–31/2004 Terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, then take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound. After a stand-off, three of the four assailants escape, leaving 22 people dead, all but three of them foreigners. 6/11–19/2004 Terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson, Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nearly a week after his capture, photos of his body are posted on an Islamist website. Saudi security forces find and kill four suspected terrorists, including the self-proclaimed military leader of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, after they are seen dumping a body. 12/6/2004 Militants, believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda, drive up to the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, storm the gates, and kill 5 consulate employees, none of whom were American. Saudi security forces subdue the attackers, killing four.

There's a good number of occurrences of the word "American" in the above listing. Our soil is not the only place we should be concerned about. But anyhow, this whole thing is getting off the topic of presidents and economy. So I'm going to leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[poadeleted3]

Our soil? None. Of course major attacks by Al Qaeda on our soil prior to 9/11 was also none. snip

Wrong.

....

 

[wbarnhill]

How so Joe? The only other attack by Al Qaeda on our soil was in 1993:

2/1993 Bombing of World Trade Center; 6 killed.

If that constitutes a Major Attack, then you must be joining me and stating that they MUST be stopped for they are continuing to this day to perform major attacks on the entire world!

 

[Brian Austin]

If that constitutes a Major Attack, then you must be joining me and stating that they MUST be stopped for they are continuing to this day to perform major attacks on the entire world!

Taking OBL off the Al Qaeda rosters is hardly going to stop them. It's an organization, not a single man.

 

[Brian Austin]

But anyhow, this whole thing is getting off the topic of presidents and economy. So I'm going to leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.

Presidents and economics wasn't the subject in the first place.

"Independent thought, sense of adventure, or self determination" regarding conservatives vs liberals was the topic.

 

[wbarnhill]

In some ways I agree, and I could expand on that logic and attach it to Hussein, but as I said, we're getting sidetracked from the economy discussion, and I apologize for perpetuating it.

EDIT: Okay, nevermind on the topic change. We'll just bounce around til we get tired?

 

[Brian Austin]

In some ways I agree, and I could expand on that logic and attach it to Hussein, but as I said, we're getting sidetracked from the economy discussion, and I apologize for perpetuating it.

You were just kidding about that "last word" thing, weren't you?

 

[wbarnhill]

You were just kidding about that "last word" thing, weren't you?

Actually I keep trying to slip away to get some sleep, but I can't go five minutes without checking the forum. Stupid addiction.

 

[Brian Austin]

Actually I keep trying to slip away to get some sleep, but I can't go five minutes without checking the forum. Stupid addiction.

Just realized that you're three hours ahead of me. Better get some shuteye!

I'm outta here for the night. :cheerio:

 

[Richard]

Well, I will agree that conservatives are just as capable of independent thought as liberals, but I must ask this question, and I'm eager for a response:

In reference to the whole "Clinton stole the Republican policy wave! He was horrible, etc etc etc", Can someone please point me to a bit of factual information? Excuse me for not taking it at face value, but I'd love to see some data backing this up. Because if Republican policies cause such economic growth, one would logically conclude that the economic growth would've continued through Bush's election. I'd just like to see some hard data, preferably from a scholarly journal of economics (so please note that anything from any opinion based website or blog will be immediately viewed as biased/skewed, regardless of side.)

I've heard people say "The president's policies don't effect the country until they've left office!" to account for both bad things happening to their guy and good things happening after their guy had left office. And yet every single time, I've yet to see any shred of data to back up the claim.

If I can get my economics professor to sit down and discuss this with me, I'll see if I can get his viewpoint, but once again, without data (which I'm hoping he can point me to) I am not going to just accept statements.

Any takers?

William, there is a highly regarded economist who tackles what you seek head on. Forgive me, but all I can remember right now is his first name, Peter....uh, anyone?

 

[Greebo]

How so Joe? The only other attack by Al Qaeda on our soil was in 1993:

William,

Our Soil extends to Our Embassies - which have been attacked in foreign nations by terrorists more times than I can effectively remember. (When you are in a US Embassy anywhere in the world, you are in the US, just as if you go to a Canadian Embassy in Washington DC, inside those grounds you are in Canada.)

And even beyond our soil, how about the countless terrorist attacks on Our Military, including the very notable bombing of one of our ships in Yemen?

And why is it that Terrorist attacks only seem to count when they are against us? What about Our Allies? Doesn't it matter that terrorists are waging war not just on Our Country but on Our Friends and Our Economic Partners?

 

[woodstock]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

snip



While I agree that the health system needs some reform, throwing it in the hands of the government is hardly the answer. Put some significant tort reform through Congress, work with the drug companies to lower their prices (I paid $80 for 30 tablets of Allegra-D while Canadians get it for $20?? Why don't we each get it for $50??), get the insurance industry to stop playing games with the HMO management practices of profit over lives (some, not all), etc.. Small stuff but it would add up over time.

I agree with some kind of reform but definitely not socialized medicine. remember, making us all "equal" doesn't mean we are all equal at the top - we all get dragged down to the middle or worse. there is a funny PJ O'Rourke quote that covers this and I'll be danged if I can remember it (yes, I have all his books, they are a hoot if you can get your hands on them now).

To his point above (which I deleted by mistake) health costs aren't ONLY the lawyers it's the sense of entitlement people in this country have (and that cuts across both GOP and Dems) and in part yes it's due to the MARKETING lawyers (and others) put out. when they started to dumb down the professionalism regs for lawyers is when things slowly started to go to hell in a handbasket. but not the only cause.

not sure I 100% agree with tort reform, in the case of doctors, yes, but not big business b/c one case I studied in law school had to do with how Ford factored into their decision to how to build the Pinto, how much money they might lose in death lawsuits from their gas tank placement (a paraphrase from a case I read ten years ago). in other words they did a cost benefit analysis using death /lawsuit costs as a factor and decided they could afford XX number of deaths due to the design and went ahead with it. again, a really rough paraphrase of a case but all in all when things like that come down to business decisions the consumer has to have some sort of protection - in this case punitive.

 

[woodstock]

btw, not touching the rest, just reading.

 

[Anthony]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

in other words they did a cost benefit analysis using death /lawsuit costs as a factor and decided they could afford XX number of deaths due to the design and went ahead with it. again, a really rough paraphrase of a case but all in all when things like that come down to business decisions the consumer has to have some sort of protection - in this case punitive.

Don't we do this analysis as an individual every day? Doesn't every product or process have a level of risk involved where there is a dollar amount cut-off for the next margin of safety? Ford may have been negligent in their design, but I think every manufacturer, especially of vehicles has to do this or they would have to overbuild every vehicle in the name of absolute safety which is only an ideal, not a reality. We will have no companies willing to build cars, planes, VACUUM PUMPS, gyros, etc if we follow this logic as it could never be profitable enough to stay in business. The only priority of any company is to make a profit and stay in business.

 

[woodstock]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

Don't we do this analysis as an individual every day? Doesn't every product or process have a level of risk involved where there is a dollar amount cut-off for the next margin of safety? Ford may have been negligent in their design, but I think every manufacturer, especially of vehicles has to do this or they would have to overbuild every vehicle in the name of absolute safety which is only an ideal, not a reality. We will have no companies willing to build cars, planes, VACUUM PUMPS, gyros, etc if we follow this logic as it could never be profitable enough to stay in business. The only priority of any company is to make a profit and stay in business.

I think the point of this lawsuit (it made our case books, to study, so you know it's an outlier) was that it was so egregious, and so in-your-face. they were trying to hit exact numbers on cost, and they purposely put the gas tank (I use the term tank loosely, I think it was something apart from strictly the 'tank" but I cannot remember) in the spot they did because it kept it under a magic number - even though they determined a small move would have made it much safer and only blown the numbers a little bit (but magnified by xxx numbers of cars sold...) I think there were even internal memos about it - i.e. PR disaster too. I'd have to go back and re-read everything, because it's been ten years and I'm pretty foggy on it - but that was the gist of what I took from it. it shows intent and purpose - which is what consumers need to be protected from.

you make good points though - if we all drove race cars there would be very few deaths, but can we all afford a race car.

 

[Anthony]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

I think the point of this lawsuit (it made our case books, to study, so you know it's an outlier) was that it was so egregious, and so in-your-face. they were trying to hit exact numbers on cost, and they purposely put the gas tank (I use the term tank loosely, I think it was something apart from strictly the 'tank" but I cannot remember) in the spot they did because it kept it under a magic number - even though they determined a small move would have made it much safer and only blown the numbers a little bit (but magnified by xxx numbers of cars sold...) I think there were even internal memos about it - i.e. PR disaster too. I'd have to go back and re-read everything, because it's been ten years and I'm pretty foggy on it - but that was the gist of what I took from it. it shows intent and purpose - which is what consumers need to be protected from.

I've read a little about the case too, and Ford did seem negligent about the extent of risk in the gas tank position. I should have stated that before. Also, (its been a looong time for me too) didn't they try to cover up the design deficiency and internal memos and that led to more punitive damages?

 

[wsuffa]

The Pinto gas tank is a well known case. There are others that are similar. The upshot is that a financial analysis by Ford was done comparing the cost of a recall and redesign of the gas tank system (along with the noted admission of a bad design) against the cost of human lives & the amount the company expected to pay out in settlement. That analysis formed the basis of a decision to proceed or not proceed. As part of that analysis, they assigned economic values to different kinds of persons and made assumptions as to the kinds of people who would buy the car. Had this been a Lincoln Town Car (with higher values assessed to the human lives because the earning potential was higher), the economic balance would have tilted.

It's not the first time, and will undoubtedly not be the last time, this happens.

In my opinion, this drove public opinion, and in turn drove legal arguments, about whether human life should be valued in that manner. Again, IMHO, it contributed to some of the tort issues we face today.

To the best of my knowledge, most product decisions are made based on solving a particular problem (the engineering solution) without a specific focus on whether it's cheaper to pay death settlements vs redesigning the product.

 

[poadeleted3]

Re: Way to political for any other fourm I guess.

I think the point of this lawsuit (it made our case books, to study, so you know it's an outlier) was that it was so egregious, and so in-your-face. they were trying to hit exact numbers on cost, and they purposely put the gas tank (I use the term tank loosely, I think it was something apart from strictly the 'tank" but I cannot remember) in the spot they did because it kept it under a magic number - even though they determined a small move would have made it much safer and only blown the numbers a little bit (but magnified by xxx numbers of cars sold...) I think there were even internal memos about it - i.e. PR disaster too. I'd have to go back and re-read everything, because it's been ten years and I'm pretty foggy on it - but that was the gist of what I took from it. it shows intent and purpose - which is what consumers need to be protected from.

you make good points though - if we all drove race cars there would be very few deaths, but can we all afford a race car.

You are correct, it wasn't exactly the gas tank. It was one bolt holding the bumper on, and it's relationship to the gas tank. When hit from the rear, the bumper would drive the bold forward, and the gas tank's position caused the bolt to have an easy shot at it. The bolt would puncture the gas tank, spraying gas all over hot exhaust, etc.

I don't think any version of tort reform being bandied about today would have saved Ford nor, IMHO, should they have. This wasn't a case of doing the best they could and being caught by something unforeseen, not a case of a product performing as it should only to fail when abused by operaters, not a case (like an airplane) of putting a product with inherent risk on the market, or any other reason where Ford had any kind of excuse. They were negligent, pure and simple. They knew their product was badly designed, and knew it would kill someone. They just decided they could still make a profit killing poor people. IMHO, of course.

 

[corjulo]

One question for Joseph

How exactly does one win a war on terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic. How do you fight a war on a tactic? Even Bush said as much right before the GOP convention. It was one of the more honest thing he said last year. The problem with a war on terrorism is it can go on as long as the republicans (or the democrats if they take control) want it to, which means forever.

And what about the State department report on Terrorism the administration decided not to release to the public last week? The one that showed a 18 year high in terrorist attacks in 2004? Isn't a surge in worldwide terrorism exactly what critics of the Iraq war warned against?

Joe, be honest. You know if the roles had been reversed and it was Al Gore attacking Iraq you would be screaming bloody murder about what a fools errand it was and how Bin Laden was the enemy. Want proof? look at the statements by republicans when Clinton launched the Bosnia operation.

And for the record the first attack on the WTC was not Bin Laden. Bin Laden was the Embassies and the USS Cole. Remember the USS Cole? Bush had literally NO reaction to that one. And it really wasn't his fault. Lets face it. The American Public didn't have the stomach necessary to really go after these guys. No president or party was really going to be able to do anything until a disaster shock us from are complacence. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11. I blame Bin Laden, imagine that.

Now Joe, If you ever fly this far north we're going to have to go to my favorite Italian Cafe and fight this out over the strongest Espresso and best canollies you have ever had. KHFD is right next to the Italian section of Hartford. Nothing beats a patrician political argument in an outdoor Italian cafe.


Peace

 

[corjulo]

About the increase in Doctors insurance rates. It hardly all do to Jury awards. That's a myth we here in the insurance capital of the world try to keep quiet. It was the deregulation of the Insurance industry and subsequent terrible investment decision that has driven up the cost of all premiums. In the 90's insurance companies were so hot to get doctors financial business that they grossly under priced medical malpractice rates. Some tort reform is needed, but only if it includes a mandatory lowering of malpractice rates, and so far the insurance industry has refused to support that.

The problem with all these republican reforms is there is no balance.
I mean, does anyone seriously think Credit card companies are going to lower their rates or cut back ridiculous fines or obscene lending practices because of the bankruptcy bill. They wrote the bill for god sakes. Same with tort reform, where's the balance? I once read, but can't confirm, that 90% of all medical malpractice claims are against the same 10% of doctors. Is that correct? If so how is the AMA going to address that. I would like to know who these doctors are.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

Now Joe, If you ever fly this far north we're going to have to go to my favorite Italian Cafe and fight this out over the strongest Espresso and best canollies you have ever had. KHFD is right next to the Italian section of Hartford. Nothing beats a patrician political argument in an outdoor Italian cafe.


Peace

Looking at Golden Eagle flight planner, that would actually be a nice flight to make some day.