If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Crappy economy grew at rate of 8.2 percent in third quarter   (money.cnn.com) divider line 612
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

4585 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2003 at 12:25 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



612 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-11-25 03:53:38 PM
That last post of mine was addressed to jdave. Sorry!

And it's voodoo, not vodoo.
 
2003-11-25 03:54:01 PM
/rant
Why is it people have these strict allegiances to one party or another. I say don't trust either side. We as a people should try to think for ourselves and stop letting one side or another tell you what to farking believe. Face it, when it comes to the truth both sides have their own version. We should hear both sides out and sort through the bullshiat to find out where the truth lies. I see people on here who pretty much blindly follow one party or another. All I have to say is there is a lot of greedy evil people in the government on both sides of the fence. Any time one party accuses the other of doing something it seems they just always strike back with "well they were doing it too!". It makes me sick to my stomach that shiat gets justified like that. It's like stop being part of the farking problem and start being part of the solution. This government needs an enema.
/end rant
 
2003-11-25 03:55:59 PM
C.C.I.C.T.L.T. -

It's been established Clinton had a plan, detailed and ready to go, and that he gave it to the Bush people. Ask Condi Rice - she admitted it herself, although she didn't want to.

And in the cases you list, the guilty parties were arrested and convicted, in each instance. No matter what Rush and Ann may have told you.
 
2003-11-25 03:57:11 PM
re: some corrections

Actually, U.S. folks pay quite a bit more per capita for their health care than Canadians do. Yes, our system sucks anyway.

But it's cheaper than yours, and it shows. The care is generally excellent, for minor stuff. But you could get dead waiting for a heart bypass. Very often the "Good Doctors" who get their subsidized Education in Canada and then bail to the States for the Mill per year end up coming back to Canada, usually due to the excessive cost of malpractice insurance in the Land of Litigation, or they just hate all the crime.

re: Pay my way ideology.

Are you kidding? We are one of the most socialist country's int he World. Canada is becoming entirely a service economy, and that service is GOVERNMENT. The taxpayer gets the burden of usury whether he wants the service or not, and there is no shortage of public service "jobs" for these parasites to cook up. We are at a point now in Canada where people employed in "Public Service" make MORE MONEY than the average Taxpayer! - You know, the guy who 'pays their way'???

Canada is like a big experiment to see how many parasites you can pile on the host body (taxpayer) before the whole thing collapses.
 
2003-11-25 03:59:01 PM
2003-11-25 03:38:40 PM Franky17

Um, I care deeply when a non-citizen makes valid points about my nation. The nationality of the poster has no bearing on the validity of the posts.


It would be reasonable to assume that a citizen would support a decision they feel will best promote their own country. Since the U.S. is recognized as the pivotal nation in the world, it is also reasonable to assume that citizens from other nations, wanting to promote their own country, don't always represent what would be best for America.

This is not to say that noncitizens should be ignored. On the contrary, they should have a voice, however, that voice should never be louder than that of your own countrymen.
 
2003-11-25 04:01:06 PM
Dorsai:
The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush is actively trying to solve the problem. Clinton largely ignored it. I know which path I prefer.


Compare Clinton's actions vs. Bush II's PRE-9/11 actions. The real argument lies there.
 
2003-11-25 04:01:06 PM
I normally absolutely cannot stand democ-RATs, but the Republican'ts in Congress have spent the government into oblivion, taking a cue from the Dems.

This Medicare prescription drug benefit bullshiat really takes the cake, though. Ugh. Nobody on either side of the aisle will stop the spending orgy over there

I'm ready to vote Libertarian or Constitution party next year.
 
2003-11-25 04:01:25 PM
Albert

Health care costs WAAY less in Canada on a per capita basis. The US spends as much on medicare (per person) as we spend on our whole system.

greenpants

Sorry to hear about your experience. I guess for every good anecdote there is a bad one.

A less personal way of evaluating the quality of a nations health care system in my opinion is average life expectancy. The US and Canada have essentially the same average life expectancy therefore I would judge the average level of health care to be approximately equal.

The difference is we pay alot less for our health system and you never have to worry about your "coverage". Sure, if you are rich you don't get to jump ahead of some bum on welfare to see the doctor but I LIKE THAT. To me, your right to health is like your right to water. It's value is incalculable to you. Would you let some private company sell you water without any price control?

In Canada nobody ever goes bankrupt to pay for an operation, which is one of the leading causes of going broke in the US. That just ain't right.
 
2003-11-25 04:04:46 PM
Crawdaddy,

Good post. As an American, I'm sick of hearing (almost always from conservative Americans) how terrible socialized medicine is in Canada. You'll be dismissed as irrelevant, but some of us are listening.

"BTW what is the difference between corporate health plans and government health plans? They both negotiate deals with doctors and use their combined buying power to lower costs. Does that make corporations commies?"

The difference is that government health plans allow some degree of democratic participation. This is absolutely unacceptable in the U.S. whenever there's big money to be made.

A question about Canada: does the Canadian government deny you the right to seek redress in the courts if something goes wrong?

My employer switched health plans recently. As usual, I had to sign a statement that any legal problems (malpractice etc.) would be referred to third-party arbitration. Credit card companies almost never lose in arbitration, so HMOs probably fare well too.
 
2003-11-25 04:05:14 PM
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity
is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by
the handle.
--Winston Churchill
 
2003-11-25 04:05:39 PM
TheConvincingSavant :
This is not to say that noncitizens should be ignored. On the contrary, they should have a voice, however, that voice should never be louder than that of your own countrymen.


Depends on the countryman in question.
 
2003-11-25 04:06:53 PM
It's been established Clinton had a plan, detailed and ready to go,

so why didn't clinton use this "plan" in all of the years while he was in office?

hhhhmmm.... i musta missed the news about osama bin laden being arrested and convicted... dang it...
 
2003-11-25 04:07:24 PM
TheConvincingSavant
It would be reasonable to assume that a citizen would support a decision they feel will best promote their own country.

It would be reasonable to take every statement a person makes and judge it based on its merits - not the preconceived notion that a statement is inherently biased due to the speaker's nationality.

This is not to say that noncitizens should be ignored. On the contrary, they should have a voice, however, that voice should never be louder than that of your own countrymen.

How does one control the volume of other people's voices?

Also, what you are saying now is a far cry from:
[...]American citizens do not care what noncitizens think[...]
 
2003-11-25 04:08:36 PM
C.C.I.C.T.L.T. -

Because Clinton spent six of his eight years in office being relentlessly hounded by the Republicans - and every time he tried to take military action of any kind, was accused by the right of "wagging the dog".

Funny how they don't mention it when Bush blatantly starts a war to keep his poll numbers up.
 
2003-11-25 04:10:16 PM
Sven Jolly

someone pay my way idealogy

We were talking about the same thing.
 
2003-11-25 04:11:01 PM
Peeper:

There are lots of avenues of redress, but the payouts aren't as huge as in the U.S.
 
2003-11-25 04:16:33 PM
"does the Canadian government deny you the right to seek redress in the courts if something goes wrong? "

No, but the gubmint limits the amounts.

You won't be seeing any 20 Million dollar awards for trembling old ladies who spill coffee on themselves in Canuckistan.

What they really need to do is get a handle on the bad doctors. In that regard, we have the same prob as the U.S. in that the Docs regulate themselves (AMA?)...badly.

It's like the Police department investigation announcing the latest massacre of some unarmed black guy as a "clean shoot".

Sure, sure.
 
2003-11-25 04:16:54 PM
SavageWombat

Funny how they don't mention it when Bush blatantly starts a war to keep his poll numbers up.


Dude, 9/11. Slightly different comparison.

Another perfect example of trying to compare apples and oranges. There is a difference in how to handle terrorism against the US. Bush did not need to deflect from perjury, adultrey, selling technology, etc. That was "wagging the dog" not 9/11.
 
2003-11-25 04:17:36 PM
Random thoughts:

Yes, Bush has spent too much money, while Clinton ran a surplus.

Much of it is due to increased military spending necessitated by a certain event at the beginning of Bush's administration.

Clinton was President during an economic boom. Bush took over at the end of that boom. 9/11 and Enron only made things worse.

From 1994-2000, Clinton worked with a very conservative Republican Congress. They made Clinton cut spending. While Bush had a mostly Republican Congress as well, (the Senate was Democrat controlled 2001-02) they are considerably less conservative than the congress that worked with Clinton. In other words, Dennis Hastert is no Newt Gingrich.

Some things are unexcusable, like the new prescription drug entitlement added to an already overblown Medicare. However, the Democrats solution is to spend even MORE money, so that gets us nowhere.

Both Clinton and Bush are similar in that both are very concerned with their image with the voters. Clinton cut spending so he wouldn't look like a tax and spend liberal (and robbed the GOP of any sort of message in 1996) Bush spends only slightly less than the Democrats so he won't look like a mean old conservative. Clinton was a moderate Democrat, while Bush is a Big Government Republican (in the tradition of Nixon, Ford, and his father).
 
2003-11-25 04:18:08 PM
"There are lots of avenues of redress, but the payouts aren't as huge as in the U.S."

That sounds good to me, jdave34.
 
2003-11-25 04:20:11 PM
When you hit rock bottom... start digging
 
2003-11-25 04:20:33 PM
BenJaxBchFL

9/11 justified action against Afghanistan. Everything about Iraq was spun out of whole cloth.

Bush needed to distract from cronyism and criminal association, not to mention his constant attacks on the environment, civil liberties, and the like.

Bush attacked Iraq because it was politically convenient for him, and that should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
 
2003-11-25 04:20:55 PM
In the US, the dream is to score a fat lawsuit settlement and retire.

In Canada, the dream is to slip and hurt your back, score a fat Worker's Comp claim and retire.

Same dream, different paths!
 
2003-11-25 04:21:54 PM
Franky17 - I'd buy into your arguement more if this weren't simply a follow-up of sorts to the earlier story that the economy grew 7.2%. Surely in the weeks since that news came out the administration has commented.
 
2003-11-25 04:25:32 PM
wayward2 your rational observations are clogging up our - thanks for playing.
 
2003-11-25 04:27:16 PM
SavageWombat

Bush attacked Iraq because it was politically convenient for him, and that should be obvious to anyone paying attention.


Savage, that's the liberal take on Iraq. However, the obvious is not what it always appears to be. Afghanistan is strategically on the outskirts of the Middle East. Iraq is more centralized. Iraq is about 9/11. They were the door that allowed us to put the military in the region. No 9/11, no Iraq. What could not be more obvious than that.
 
2003-11-25 04:28:46 PM
There are lots of avenues of redress, but the payouts aren't as huge as in the U.S."

Heheh. That kind of rhymes.

/easily amused
 
2003-11-25 04:29:47 PM
greenpants:
I actually thought of that as I was typing it, but didn't think anyone else would notice.
 
2003-11-25 04:32:32 PM
jdave34 - Yeah, I think I've been in a Seussian frame of mind lately.
 
2003-11-25 04:36:24 PM
BenJaxBchFL

No, you're mistaken. Yes, people in our government (PNAC) wanted to attack Iraq because it enabled them to put a large military force in the area.

But this is not the same thing as saying 9/11 justified attacking Iraq in reprisal.

And if 9/11 hadn't happened, Iraq would have been attacked anyway - statements from Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the like make that perfectly clear. Rumsfeld basically said as much - minutes after the planes hit, Rumsfeld ordered his people to tie it to Iraq by any means necessary.

This is the neocon agenda - they are convinced that the U.S. should be actively attacking other countries to ensure U.S. dominance across the globe. How this is different from full-bore conquest escapes me.
 
2003-11-25 04:37:45 PM
jely
Surely in the weeks since that news came out the administration has commented.

They certainly have. It may be that the news is of interest by itself and that mention from the administration has been somewhat muted. However a Google News Search for "Bush Economy" turned up hundreds of hits, including some of the following (including PBD, NYTIMES*, VOA, and the Guardian).

To me this does not appear to be evidence of liberal bias.

*NYTIMES does not mention Bush explicitly, but blames increases on lower taxes and mortgage rates.

Google News Search "Bush Economy" (articles that mention Bush and the economic growth). They certainly


http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/11/25/rtr1160196.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/25/national/main585470.shtml

http://www.onbusiness.ie/2003/1125/US.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/economy_11-25-03.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/business/25CND-ECON.html?hp (mentions "tax cuts and mortgage rates", not specifically "bush")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1092931,00.html

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=38772DA5-27D7-421F-98E0F1A944DCC26 7

http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2003/11/25/ap/Headlines/d7v1rbto0. txt
 
2003-11-25 04:42:37 PM
2003-11-25 09:40:26 AM Wake_N_Bake

let me be the first to say that this growth is a real growth, not an artifically inflated .com bubble which was never real. our hard work and increased productivity has yielded some real gains! every hard-working employed american can pat themselves on the back for helping to pull our economy up by the bootstraps (as it were).


And for all those hard-working unemployed... get a job, you lazy bums, right Wake_N_Bake?

Note to self: Sign up for TotalFark for access to twit filter functionality.
 
2003-11-25 04:43:03 PM
2003-11-25 04:07:24 PM Franky17

Also, what you are saying now is a far cry from:
[...]American citizens do not care what noncitizens think[...]


I was making a true generalization before. Just like you, I listen to what noncitizens think. However, I realize that they are not committed to the betterment of my country in the same way a patriotic citizen might be.

And I'm not using the modern understanding of patriot here.
 
2003-11-25 04:43:49 PM
SavageWombat

And if 9/11 hadn't happened, Iraq would have been attacked anyway - statements from Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the like make that perfectly clear. Rumsfeld basically said as much - minutes after the planes hit, Rumsfeld ordered his people to tie it to Iraq by any means necessary.


I would love to read or see the evidence on this one. Minutes after? Ok, Savage serve it up. Can't wait to see this.


Also, I did not say we were justified in Iraq because of 9/11. I only said that Iraq was because of 9/11.
 
2003-11-25 04:44:28 PM
warward2:

So, basically, you're saying Clinton was a centrist? I'll buy that.

Remember, folks--this has been one of the hardest recessions we've ever known (looking at time for employment to pick up after recession has been declared over). The reason for that is the administration has done nothing (other than accelerating depreciation--a minor part of one of the tax cut packages) to encourage hiring. Things are still very fragile--the fed has no wiggle room. This is a ray of light, and I'm hopeful for our future, but we must remember that the Republican-controlled lawmakers have made this much more difficult than it needed to be.
 
2003-11-25 04:52:44 PM
BenJaxBchFL

You want it? You got it.

"With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." meaning Saddam Hussein "at same time. Not only UBL" the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."

Full story at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

And if 9/11 doesn't justify Iraq, how do you believe Iraq was justified at all? More importantly, why did Bush work so hard to convince people the one was the reason for the other?
 
2003-11-25 04:55:09 PM
This is all Bush's fault! ;) j/k, I know presidents have as much responsibility for the economy as the Easter Bunny has for the Resurrection. It's as silly to blame/praise Bush for this recovery as it is to blame/praise Clinton for the tech bubble.
 
2003-11-25 04:57:36 PM
Goodness. Nothing like a neverending flamewar!
 
2003-11-25 04:57:48 PM
SavageWombat

And if 9/11 doesn't justify Iraq, how do you believe Iraq was justified at all?


While I look up your link; maybe you misunderstood my post. Iraq happened because of 9/11. Bush worked so hard because I believe that was the plan presented to him.
 
2003-11-25 04:59:54 PM
Iraq has been needing an invasion for the last decade. If it took 9/11 to do it, so be it.
 
2003-11-25 05:02:45 PM
BenJaxBchFL

Savage, that's the liberal take on Iraq. However, the obvious is not what it always appears to be. Afghanistan is strategically on the outskirts of the Middle East. Iraq is more centralized. Iraq is about 9/11. They were the door that allowed us to put the military in the region. No 9/11, no Iraq. What could not be more obvious than that.

That take is neither liberal nor conservative. The fact is the Bush Administration had been planning to attack Iraq well before 9/11.

Click here for an outline

and here for an article.
 
2003-11-25 05:03:56 PM
Dorsai -

Ah, you're home! Welcome back to the flame war!

BenJaxBchFL -

No, I didn't misunderstand you. You said that 9/11 didn't justify Iraq - and that's what I'm asking about. I'm also saying 9/11 didn't "cause" the invasion of Iraq - it merely provided a convenient excuse. And from what Bush's advisors have indicated, they would have pushed for Iraq's invasion regardless of 9/11. See my point?
 
2003-11-25 05:05:51 PM
SavageWombat:
And if 9/11 doesn't justify Iraq, how do you believe Iraq was justified at all? More importantly, why did Bush work so hard to convince people the one was the reason for the other?


"Because they tried to kill my dad!"
 
2003-11-25 05:06:42 PM
I actually agree with SavageWombat. Iraq was in for it once Bush came into power. Personally, I'm okay with this. Iraq has been a festering problem since Bush I failed to finish the job. He and Clinton both diddled around with the UN to no effect...the military option was the way to go at that point.
 
2003-11-25 05:10:15 PM
Dorsai -

And that's why I usually agree that, if it'd been Gore's proposal, I would probably have supported it. Because I think he'd make a better case for it, and would have built a consensus with the U.N. to do it before he did. But Bush didn't go about it the right way, and, deep in my heart, I knew Bush would fark it up somehow.
 
2003-11-25 05:10:47 PM
Dorsai:
He and Clinton both diddled around with the UN to no effect...the military option was the way to go at that point.


Why? What threat did Iraq pose to us? From a humanitarian standpoint, how was Iraq any different from the countless other countries led by bloodthirsty asshats (including those we prop up)? Aside from invading a country of oil baron's over a fiscal dispute that bugged us, what else did Iraq do to gain enough of our scorn to justify military action?
 
2003-11-25 05:14:17 PM
And let's not forget that Bush had plenty of intel telling him that, despite appearances, Saddam was not a threat in any way - and chose to ignore that intel and make up his own.
 
2003-11-25 05:14:57 PM
SacriliciousBeerSwiller:

Why? Because he was a demonstrated threat to his neighbors (Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990), a demonstrated threat to our interests in the area (Israel, the oil trade), and refused to comply with UN resolutions, most notably on his weapons programs. Regardless of whether those programs were advanced enough to be a threat, he didn't come clean on them. After a decade of chances to straighten up, it was time to clean house.

And no, Iraq wasn't necessarily worse than some other countries out there. And if those countries posed similar threats to us and caused similar problems in the world at large, I wouldn't object to them receiving the same treatment.
 
2003-11-25 05:15:48 PM
Read my links, SacriliciousBeerSwiller and the reasons should coalesce before you like rainbows on an oil slick...
 
2003-11-25 05:15:56 PM
dozhdbog

We have been in conflict with Iraq, at varying levels of intensity since 1991. President Clinton smacked Iraq once in a while. We enforced the "no-fly" zones for 10 years. We launched cruise missles from time to time. Read President Clinton's Veterans Day, 1998 speech. It is utterly unsurprising that there were powerful people calling for his removal. In fact, "regime change" had been the official U.S. policy since 1999 (I think).
 
Displayed 50 of 612 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report