LOST - Are they trying to Boil the sea?

POSTED BY: SheWolf
UPDATED: Saturday, August 21, 2004 13:33
VIEWED: 9802
PAGE 1 of 1

SHEWOLF

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:39 PM (P)

I recently have come across some information that has me concerned. It is true, you have to do the research yourself to see whether you believe or not. This is for the many wonderful people here who have many different views about our upcoming Presidential race. I have no problem saying I'm for Bush. Alot may not agree, but that's what is wonderful here, you don't have too. I'm not sure Bush supports this, I have read that Kerry does. The LOST stands for The Law of the Sea Treaty. This treaty was killed during the Reagan years, it came back up during Clinton, and now again during Bush. If I understand this correctly, this would give the UN control of the sea. What sea you ask? All of it, 70% of the mass of the Earth. That is a scary thought. What is the UN? I know it stands for the United Nations, but are they a government and if so who do they govern. I don't remember anyone asking me to vote for a UN election. So why should they control our borders that are on the coasts. Think of the possiblity, could they decide if you fish, would you need a permit. Can they tell us when, where and what we can drill for off of our coast. I live in a state that drills off of it's coast for gas and oil, I have no problem with them doing it. We do need alternative sources though. And why don't we drill off of Cailfornia or Florida, it it because it could mess up a beautiful view. The UN could also impose new taxes on things that are being shipped over the sea. Who would that effect, everyone, no country would be exempt. But who would get the larger taxes. The good old USA. The UN office is in New York if I'm correct, why? Is it for the prestigous honor to say they are here. I read where they were remodeling there offices but the USA was paying for most of it, why? If it stands for the United Nations then the group as a whole needs to fork out some money, instead of the USA footing the majority of the bill. I understand they do some great things but we have our own programs and problems that our tax money should go for. They could also decide what ships we could board and ships we could not, there is whole new threat for terrorism. Not that it's not there, but it we were attacked by sea, could we blame the UN, of course not.

Please read about it for yourself, It was very easy to find on the internet. There are so many that are informed, that have great discussions about issues, on this site, and can tell you where to find out for yourself. It gives a new reality to Boil the sea.

SheWolf
LoUiSiAna

HAKEN

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:50 PM (P)

Yeah, but because of that money, the US owns the UN.

SHEWOLF

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:08 PM (P)

Then why do we need to ask for there permission to defend ourselves. I don't feel we own them, yeah some higher ups do, but who's interest do they serve.

MCFLY

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:23 PM (P)

Okay... Right now (correct me if I'm wrong) all countries with a coastline 'own' the first 100 miles or so of ocean off their coast, it's considered territorial waters. Everything after that isn't owned by anyone... I think there's some maritime laws that apply out there, I dunno.

Anyways, do you know if they intend to do away with the territorial waters bit, or if they're just talking about the open ocean that nobody 'owns' ???

100 miles isn't alot, but allows for some defence and patrolling.

Hack the planet!

RATNUT12

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:26 PM (P)

Like all political organizations whether it be the UN, the US government or the AFL-CIO, they all start with good intentions and achieve mild success, then become bloated and corrupt. I do believe the UN serves a valuable purpose but it's time for a big @ss overhaul.

BTW Bush does support this treaty, much to the dismay of hardened conservatives.

SHEWOLF

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:00 PM (P)

I hope Bush doesn't support this. I did read that a Republican had reintroduced it to be voted on. I'm a conservative, but I can make up my own mind, I don't blindly follow the flock. But for those of us that are Republican in name, doesn't look good that they would support this.

We do have a certain amount of sea that we would consider "Our" waters, I believe it is 100 miles. I just think this needs some looking into.

Government is ok to an extent, we need laws, but it seems like everyone doesn't have to follow them. Just the few, the proud, the poor, middle class.

There are only two things I have to do.
Pay taxes and die.

HAKEN

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SheWolf:
Then why do we need to ask for there permission to defend ourselves. I don't feel we own them, yeah some higher ups do, but who's interest do they serve.

So that we look like we followed the rules in the eye of the public?

And, really, I don't know if asking for permission was exactly what we did. It was more like we wanted to do this, and if whichever country don't let us, we're not going to support them in anything they want in the future--like blackmail.

Besides, and we could probably debate this forever, going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan was defending ourselves.

Invading Iraq and going after Saddam was not.

When it comes to politics, I'm a bit of a cynic.

RATNUT12

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:36 PM (P)

From my understanding of this treaty it focuses more on undersea mineral deposits than anything else. I also understand that it has been rewritten several times. Just a guess but I'll bet it now allows US oil companies greater access to drilling. Personally I'd like to see a giant floating derrick right off the coast from Barbara Streisands Mansion!!!!

And yes the issue was pushed through by longtime Indiana Republican Richard Lugar chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
And Bush's support of this comes from White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

FREAKYSINS

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
Quote:
Originally posted by SheWolf:
Then why do we need to ask for there permission to defend ourselves. I don't feel we own them, yeah some higher ups do, but who's interest do they serve.

So that we look like we followed the rules in the eye of the public?

And, really, I don't know if asking for permission was exactly what we did. It was more like we wanted to do this, and if whichever country don't let us, we're not going to support them in anything they want in the future--like blackmail.

Besides, and we could probably debate this forever, going after Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan was defending ourselves.

Invading Iraq and going after Saddam was not.

.

Pretty much took the words right out of my mouth, Haken, thanks.

Peace

FS

... like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:48 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
Yeah, but because of that money, the US owns the UN.

There is no emoticon to express just how funny ( and silly ) that statement is...' the U.S. OWNS the U.N.'...too funny! roflmbo!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

LEXIBLOCK

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:04 PM (P)

SheWolf , I sure as hell hope you are a child or seriously drunk ! Otherwise you are seriously stupid and uninformed!

It is called the UNITED NATIONS because it is an organization for nations (ie. countries) who WANT to united!

After the second world war everybody didn't want any more wars, death and destruction, they founded the United Nations with the these Goals:

To prevent war
To assure human rights
To promote better living standards in a life of freedom
To persuade countries to follow international law

Its not a government, they can't tax things or any of that shit. Its a democratic (which has nothing to do with the democratic party, if you are that dense) organization. ALL countries who have chosen to be part of the UN send representatives to the meetings, and the all vote on what they do.

They don't just decide you need a permit to catch a fish. But if there was a good reason NOT to fish they might wish to do something about it. And good reason is good for the planet, not just your personal bank account. All the member states would work to make a new treaty - including the people from your country, who are sent by your government, who is democratically elected by your people. In the end they vote, usually by then all the countries have agreed, or most of them. Yes, sometimes you have to live with something you don't like much, that's called compromise - that's called democracy - that's called living with other people - just like living in the United States! In fact just like that, just like there are some laws all states must follow they also have a lot of individual laws. Same with countries, they make their own laws, but for a few things there are higher laws they need to follow. Mostly because they themselves have signed them, but sometimes other countries force them (mostly the US threatening to blow them away - though the rest of the world is trying to get them to act a bit more sensible)

But nobody forces anyone to be part of the United Nations.
If a country doesn't want to work to prevent war, to assure human rights, promote better living standards and equality among humans and ignore all laws, they can leave any time they like, and nobody could do anything about it - except go to war, and only the US does that at a drop of a hat. And while most of the world feels that Bush doesn't care much human rights and international laws the United STATES hasn't left the United NATIONS yet.

And when the many countries of the UN got together to talk about the oceans, its because this is an area with potential for problem, not only are we (the planet) still polluting them to a dangerous degree, it could also be an area which starts new wars (it has already been close a few times), because countries keep extending "their area" out into the sea, and end up bumping into other areas which could lead to all kinds of messiness.

The UN has as its goal to make the world a bit better, and all the people from all the different countries who are agree - sure they may wish a bigger cut for themselves, but they have to reach an agreement, because the alternative isn't too good.

And how many countries are in the UN?

Of all the countries of the planet earth? All of them, except TWO!

All except Taiwan, and Vatican City (which technically is a country)

Be glad there is a UN - if you think the world is dangerous today, just think how bad it could have been if they hadn't prevented tons of problems already.

FREAKYSINS

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:14 PM (P)

This would have been an excellent post, save for this line:

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
SheWolf , I sure as hell hope you are a child or seriously drunk ! Otherwise you are seriously stupid and uninformed!

Insulting comments do nothing to forward your opinion.

Peace

FS

... like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick.

SHINY

Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:34 AM (P)

And here I thought you were spoiling a strange plot twist for ABC's upcoming adventure show:

http://abc.go.com/primetime/schedule/2004-05/lost.html

(note my boy Daniel Day Kim is co-starring...)

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

SGTGUMP

Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
SheWolf , I sure as hell hope you are a child or seriously drunk ! Otherwise you are seriously stupid and uninformed!

That is uncalled for! We all have our own opinions, and this message board is a place for all of us to be able to discuss things in a welcome and orderly manner. If you don't like what SheWolf said, tell her why you disagree, not that she is stupid.

www.badnarik.org
www.lp.org
Vote Libertarian.

PIRATEJENNY

Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:55 AM (P)

I'm just curious how anyone who isn't an elitest can support Bush he doesn't give a rats ass about this country or the hard working people in it..Bush and the Bush admistration are not republicans..their not conservatives either they are something else altogether

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that I'm curious how anyone can support Bush I'm serious!!!

because as it stands now I see anyone who supports him as having some serious charactor flaws..either that..or they are just ingnorant and uninformed who don't know whats going on..or they make a whole lot of money and are elitest themselves and just don't give a damn!! either way its a charator flaw!!!

if your uninformed and ignorant then let me clue you in to somethings

their whole family is corrupt...with ties to the nazis..George Bush Sr.'s father was working for the nazis he was the banker for the Nazi Germany and had direct ties to Hitler during wwII...so bascially he was a trader to his country..was proscecuted but was allowed to keep his money..so the Bush money comes from Nazi facist

The Bush's are tied in with the FreeMason's and masonic groups ( elitiest)Skull& Bones ring any bells

Jeb Bush was involved in some shady real Estate dealings

Neo Bush is also a crimnal embezzeling money..that name is somehow fitting

George Bush Jr. himself was involved with the SL scam..stole 4 million dollars and never made any attempts to pay it back

not only that but is an admitted alcholic, and had a coke snorting problem and had several DUI's
( is it any wonder he can't put together a sentence)

his daughters seem to be picking up his bad habits

his wife Laura Bush..killed her ex boyfriend ran him over and was never even booked into custody
( must be nice)

and this is just some of the stuff thats known to the public..their whole family is crime ridden and sick..

now on to bigger topics....War Mongering and and profiting and stealing from us tax payers

911...ummm they knew it was going to happen and didn't try to stop it..The Bush admistration was going to get their excuse to go warring on Iraq at any cost ..and they didn't mind using innocent American lives to do it

lied about the reasons for going to Iraq

gave most of the defense contracts to Halleburton, ( reminds me of the Blue sun corp)
halleburton has been stealing from us left and right Dick cheny was the CEO of the company and still is tied to Halleburton..

they sent our American troops over to Iraq under false pretenses and lies...gave most of the defense contacts to Halleburton..and our troops can't even get protective gear bullet proof vest and don't have enough bullets to protect themselves....not only that..but they aren't getting decent meals

all the things that Halleburton is suppose to provide..since they are being given billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars to provide
these things

every company that gets defense contracts are suppose to go through an audit..but Halleburton refused to do this(..wow must be nice to be able to refuse to do an audit) speacial concessions are being made for Halleburton they don't have to do the audit...seeing as how they were charging $80.00 for a peice of ply wood and can't account for billions and billions of dollars I fully understand why they wouldn't want to do the audit..whats not acceptable ..is that they don't have to...

( wow this government really cares about the troops don't they)

Military families aren't being taken care of , and are struggling

you've also got defense contractors from Halleburton over in Iraq running the miltary..giving soilders orders to torture people.... this is a travesty

then look at all of the deregulating that the Bush admistration is implementing..on our enviroment water resources media outlets..its very scary

or the so called homeland Security measures which give the government the right to put people in jail with out a trial...or gives them the right to tap your phones for any reason or look into your libary or computer files..

alot of these unconstit

SGTGUMP

Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:07 AM (P)

It's really amazing, Bush is our president. Is this really the best we can do? Is Kerry any better? Name a President in the last 30 years that was actually worth a damn. I still can't believe John McCain lost the nomination to Bush. It is sick.

www.badnarik.org
www.lp.org
Vote Libertarian.

PIRATEJENNY

Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
It's really amazing, Bush is our president. Is this really the best we can do? Is Kerry any better? Name a President in the last 30 years that was actually worth a damn. I still can't believe John McCain lost the nomination to Bush. It is sick.

www.badnarik.org
www.lp.org
Vote Libertarian.

I don't like Kerry either or Mcain for that matter...but its not like we have much of a choice..at this point just about anyone is a better choice then Bush and the current administration..I do think that Clinton made a diffrence..with the econmy and having a surplus instead of a deficit..that is something that this Country had not experienced in decades..more people were able to purchase homes during his 8 years then they had in decades..the middle class grew.. people can fault Clinton on alot of things but not the econmy so in 30 years I would have to say that he did make some diffrence

if there are going to be any real changes in this country..it isn't going to come from politians... politics is too boggled down with special intrest and corporations...the public servants don't serve the public..they serve special intrest

whats that saying for the people by the people..thats a joke..its all about the Speical intrest and Corporations...

and the average common folk..is to busy being petty so wrapped up in Repbulican and Democrate..instead up whats best for the country as whole..instead of focusing on whats best for the average American citizen as a whole were all fools some more then others but where all fools we have tremdous power and we don't use it..and its only a matter of time before we loose it..all of it!!

we Americans have gotten lazy..we've forgotten that all the good things all the freedoms and the things that we hold scared ..didn't just happen ..it wasn't just given to us..people fought and died and shed blood for every good thing about this country everything that we enjoy and take pride in..even the little things like working and 8 hour day instead of a 12 or 15 hour a day..came because someone fought and died..or that we have unions...so many things

We as Americans are going to have to realize that we have the power..and stop giving our power away because if we keep up the way we are one day we are going to wake up and be like what in the hell happened ..we are going to be living in our own little Nazi Germany...people think it can't happen it can...America is a young country..just ask all those other countries its happened too..greed and Power is very desirable and there are those out there who will do anything to get it

We Americans are going to have to take back the power stop sitting on our ass and make our public servants be accountable to us for what they do.. and until we do..not much is going to change.. sad but true!!

was it Ben Franklin who said those that give up their freedom in the name of security ..don't deserve freedon..

we can whine and cry all day long about how nothing is going to change....but its not going to change anything

ok I'm getting off my soap box now!!

LEXIBLOCK

Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
SheWolf , I sure as hell hope you are a child or seriously drunk ! Otherwise you are seriously stupid and uninformed!

That is uncalled for! We all have our own opinions,

Yes, and INFORMED opinions are worth respect (even if people believe something you don't) Uninformed opinions (ie, total shit which has nothing to do with reality) are not worth ANY RESPECT - only contempt.

FLYINGTAMS

Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:53 PM (P)

Bush actually happens to favor LOST (perhaps nobody explained it to him ;-)
The rabid objections to it are from people who are politically to the right of Bush. Since Bush is waay beyond the fringes of right-wing radicalism, there is not much room there other than the lunatic fringe.

LOST MAINTAINS almost all established traditional maritime custom including control of national borders and national ownership of territorial waters. A great deal of the law that guards against piracy, dumping of toxic or radioactive waste, and access to international waters is based on CUSTOM - the purpose of LOST is to have a signed agreement among nations to honor that custom. It PROTECTS the US and all other nations from violations by other nations.

The writer argues that the UN might tax our trade. The UN has no legal ability to tax anyone anywhere, and has never sought that ability.

The writer argues that the UN would determine which ships the US can board and which they cannot, making the assumption that the US SHOULD have the right to board ANY ship if it thinks that ship might be connected to terrorism. If the US has that right, what prevents any other nation from claiming the same right to board US ships? Does she seriously want to void the provisions of maritime law that would protect US ships from being boarded and presumably searched by our enemies and competitors?

WHISPERING

Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
All except Taiwan, and Vatican City (which technically is a country)

Taiwan is not really a country, it has an autonomy, but its still part of China.

DANFAN

Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:25 PM (P)

I'm not sure yet who I support in the upcoming election. But, wow… that's quite a list of allegations. Perhaps you read some of this in newspapers and TV. If you are like most of us, you got a lot of your information from the internet.

Regardless what your information source, as I read your list, I found myself wondering if you had researched each of these items to their source, or if you had relied upon other people’s articles about these topics. This is a very real problem when dealing with any information outlet… there’s no authority reviewing everything out there for accuracy. So it’s easy to read an article or opinion piece put out by some group with an axe to grind. And who knows if that author researched their topic to the source or if they were simply relying upon someone else’s opinion piece, who was relying upon someone else’s article, ad infinitum…

Chasing each of the allegations you expressed to their source could take days. I decided to choose one that that I had never heard of before and see what I could find. I chose one that looked very disturbing to me (given that I am a father of two sons):

“or what about the Bush administration signing a bill to test public school children for pychological problems and then medicate them .... seeing as how they are working with the pharmacitcal companies..they've found the perfect way to make money off the American people in the most disgusting and diabolical way”

My initial search turned up a zillion articles written by various organizations with agendas (both for and against). But I didn’t want to formulate an opinion based upon someone else’s opinion based upon someone else’s opinion. So I kept digging and finally turned up the Report to the President from the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-0
5.htm

When I searched it for screening, this is what I got:

1) It references a model program that screens schoolchildren with parental consent.

2) Is supports providing screening services for youth, adults and elderly people in stressful environments (criminal justice system, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.).

Note that there is no explicit mention that such screening would be mandatory (in fact the model program referenced explicitly requires parental consent). Also note that there is no mention in this report as to how to deal with any mental health issues uncovered. There’s certainly no “medication preference” flavor to it.

Finally, note that there is no mention of a “bill” in that report. In researching for bills, I came across HR3063 “Children's Mental Health Screening and Prevention Act of 2003.” See:

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3063.html

Is this the bill that you refer to? It offers grants to orgnizations to set up programs to perform mental health screenings of children. However, it appears to be targeted at providing referrals to health care providers to develop treatment plans for mental health problems that are found, and collecting statistics regarding the prevalence and types of mental health issues in children. It certainly doesn’t mandate participation in the screening. And again, it doesn’t mandate pharmaceutical solutions. The bill seems "solution agnostic." It seems to be more focussed on finding mental illness than in promoting a particular treatement plan.

Even more interesting, the bill was introduced by a democrat (Rosa DeLauro) with a number of co-sponsors. I didn’t look at all of them, but the first co-sponsor was Mr. Waxman (another democrat). The remaining co-sponsors could be a mix of dems and repubs… I stopped looking so I can't say one way or the other. Let’s assume that it is supported by such a mix.

Where does that leave us? One could debate the value, legality, or ethics of the locations/situations where the report from the president’s commission recommended mental health evaluations be performed (criminal and juvenile justice programs, hospitals, etc.). There are interesting arg

RATNUT12

Thursday, August 19, 2004 9:08 PM (P)

RE: DANFAN

That was the most refreshing post I've read in years

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, August 20, 2004 12:10 AM (P)

I rarely pay any attention to anything thats on the t.v..if your looking for real information and truth your not going to find it on t.v our media is as much a propaganda tool ...everything I've said about Bush is true

the medical stuff comes from a london medical journal..I also read alot..everything I've said can be backed up researched and checked out...most of the info is already known

also if you really want to find out whats going on, a good way to do it ..is check to out all the sources espeically foreign..

Quote:
Regardless what your information source, as I read your list, I found myself wondering if you had researched each of these items to their source, or if you had relied upon other people’s articles about these topics. This is a very real problem when dealing with any information outlet… there’s no authority reviewing everything out there for accuracy. So it’s easy to read an article or opinion piece put out by some group with an axe to grind. And who knows if that author researched their topic to the source or if they were simply relying upon someone else’s opinion piece, who was relying upon someone else’s article, ad infinitum…

the internet is a tool...and you have to be able to tell the chaf from the wheat..I don't mind advice..but it seems your using the internet alot more then I am for your information so maybe its your own advice you ought to be taking

also, I don't mind getting up on my soap box from time to time..everybody should do it its good for the soul... the iformation is out there...people are going to believe what they want to believe..its all pretty much a lost cause so I don't have anything to gain..nor am I intrested in spinning any truths to my own bias..I don't care what the truth is I'm only intrested in knowing it whatever it maybe...

ARAWAEN

Friday, August 20, 2004 4:50 AM (P)

I personally think a lot of Clinton's economic success was the fact that big business was booming under the questionable accouting practices that have recently got them into so much trouble. They weren't new practices when a few of them got caught, in fact I think most big corps were doing it, just not all were going bankrupt on top of it.

Couple this with the tech stock overinflation and most of the boom is accounted for.

The gap between the rich and poor continued to increase unabated through Clinton's two terms, with little to no improvement for the middle and lower classes.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, August 20, 2004 7:45 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I personally think a lot of Clinton's economic success was the fact that big business was booming under the questionable accouting practices that have recently got them into so much trouble. They weren't new practices when a few of them got caught, in fact I think most big corps were doing it, just not all were going bankrupt on top of it.

Couple this with the tech stock overinflation and most of the boom is accounted for.

The gap between the rich and poor continued to increase unabated through Clinton's two terms, with little to no improvement for the middle and lower classes.

Arawaen

B]

I'm going to put it in as simplest terms as I know how...because it doesn't take a brainiac to see the writting on the wall its real simple

4 years of Bush sr..econmy= bad
8 years while we had Clinton in office the econmy...= pretty damn good....
4 years of Bush jr..econmy= bad

how hard is that!!

apparently it does make some diffrence who is in office

I'm not here to sing anyones praises..but I do believe in giving credit when and where its due and the ecomny during Bill Clintons reign was pretty damn good his record speaks for itsself and who are you or anybody to try to take away from that..if you weren't one of those people who flourished during the Clinton economy..then I'm sorry for you..but millions of people did ..I was one of those people and I saw plenty of people around me flourish ..it was good times for everyone and if someone wasn't getting a peice of the pie its because they weren't trying because the opportunity was there

you can't tell me that things weren't better..becuse it was...

We had a surplus, something they said could not be done..More people were going to college.. more high tech higher paying jobs were being created..we got welfare reform..the middle class got and poor got tax breaks, intrest rates were lower then they had ever been.. more people were able to buy their own homes during the 8 years of Clinton econmics then they had been since the 1940's and 1950's the middle class grew

thats just a fact..you can hem and haw about this or that..but it doesn't add up..do the math because its not that complicated

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, August 20, 2004 8:25 AM (P)

SGTGUMP

Friday, August 20, 2004 10:20 AM (P)

Quote:

4 years of Bush sr..econmy= bad
8 years while we had Clinton in office the econmy...= pretty damn good....
4 years of Bush jr..econmy= bad

Can anyone tell me 3 ways that any president can influence our economy?

ARAWAEN

Friday, August 20, 2004 1:55 PM (P)

It is not really a good economy if the money is being made by underhanded accounting that tricks people into investing. (The bubble will burst eventually).

It is not really a good economy if it is based upon the overvaluation of certain types of products. (Again the bubble will burst eventually).

Clinton didn't start these problems, but he didn't try to stop them while he was in either.

I am opposed to Bush so I am not being partisan.

Yes the economy seemed strong and growing, but it appears that it wasn't growing on true merits but corporate chicanery.

I am not saying the economy was really bad under Clinton, just not so glowing as we might want to think.

If you want to oversimplify and dwell in partisan land be my guest. I am not your conservative-pundit opponent and bantering with you does nothing for me.

Arwaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

ARAWAEN

Friday, August 20, 2004 2:05 PM (P)

Apparantly everytime he opens his mouth, he can affect the stock market. If they didn't like what he said, stocks go down. If they liked what he said, stocks go up.

He is part of the equation that makes up economic policies: including taxes, budgets, and spending.

He is a major factor in whether we go to war (haven't heard of our troops being deployed against the President's wishes). This can have a huge impact on the economy depending upon the size and duration of the conflict.

There isn't a lot the President can do all by himself when the rest of government is opposed to him, we do have checks and balances in our system (they may not be perfect, but do prevent tyrrany by one man).

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

DANFAN

Friday, August 20, 2004 2:29 PM (P)

Aircraft carriers at flank speed don't turn on a dime. It takes miles to do that. I've always suspected that the economy of a nation as large as the US is a lot like that aircraft carrier. The sitting president inherits a lot of momentum in the economy from the administration, congress, and events that went before.

That's not to say that he doesn't begin having an impact right away... but I don't think the economy is fully "his" until his second term (if he gets one). Again, this is a theory... I've not done any research to prove it. It seems sensible to me though... in my experience, large systems of any kind have that sort of momentum.

Also, with regard to the economic slump that we are still struggling to recover from... at least one significant contributor was that never in our nation's history was more economic power (money) lost in a single day as we lost on 9/11. One of the main economic centers in the world was totally destroyed. An entire multi-billion dollar industry (composed of many corporations) was stopped dead in its tracks in the space of a couple of hours. And kept that way for a significant time racking up debt. Of course, the bail-outs, the military expenditures, and a number of other economic policies that followed contributed their part.

One way to achieve an immediate course change in an aircraft carrier at flank speed is to run it smack into a continent. That technique comes at a high price.

DANFAN

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:43 PM (P)

Thanks for the kind words, ratnut12.

PIRATEJENNY

Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:12 AM (P)

Quote:
If you want to oversimplify and dwell in partisan land be my guest. I am not your conservative-pundit opponent and bantering with you does nothing for me.

Arwaen

I like to discuss and I'm a pretty striaght foward person.. I don't care if someone is a conservative..or Liberal or whaterver..I could careless about that bi partisan bullshit..because thats what it is and anyone who buys into that crap is doing themselves a diservice IMO..I said at the beginning of that post that I was going to put it in as simplest terms as I could and thats exactly what I did..

we could banter all day..basically what your saying is ..things could always be better...

which is fine...things can always be better..but that doesn't detract from the fact that things were pretty good ecomny wise when Clinton was in office..and this is just my opinion..but I believe that if Gore had of rightfully taken his place as President..that things would have been just as good and maybe even better...we'll never know..because that didn't happen..

But one thing we all know...for sure...is that things aren't good now and they are only getting worse..that we all know for sure!! right!!..right!!

the hows and whys at this point makes little or no diffrence..so when I see or hear people..passing the buck and making excuses and not taking responsiblity ..much like the current admistration..its a waste of everybodys time

we all know the economy is bad and getting worse..but instead of hearing people say ..well this and this happened and hemming and hawwing..I want to hear what can be done about it now..( something that the Bush Admistration hasn't addressed at all and have no intentions of doing)I don't want to hear excuses..tell me about whats going to happen now ..how is it going to be fixed..because all I know for sure is that things were pretty damn good during the 8 years of the Clinton admistration and the 4 years of the Bush admistration its been bad from almost the 1rst day he took office and its getting worse by the second... and when I say second I mean that literally.

the facts are the Clinton administion made choices that stimulated the economy.. and thats why things were good ..they taxed the top 5 percent they gave tax breaks to the middle and lower classes..they supported programs that helped develope a strong consumer base..which resulted in more small business being started...these were choices that the Clinton admistration chose to do..

The Bush admistration didn't chose to stimulate the econmy ..actually they made the choices to do the exact opposite..for example.. starting a war on Iraq.. giving tax breaks to the top 5 percent ..giving big business tax breaks to take our jobs overseas .. taxing the middle and lower classes and and cutting programs that supported a strong consumer base..which results in downsizing loss of business and jobs,... Creating a trillion dollar deficit thats only going to result in higher inflation and high intrest rates.

The only reason that the bottom hasn't completely fell out...is because Alan Greenspan has kept the inflation down and intrest rates relatively low..but if Bush cheats his way into office again..I'll bet you $50 dollars intrest rates will go threw the roof!! with our surplus completely wiped out by the Bush administration and the deficit now into the trillions of dollars thanks mostly due to Bush's war mongering..you can be sure that its going to go up!!

you say you don't support Bush and his admistration..well then don't make lame ass excuses for them!!

P-jenny

ANOTHERSHEPHERD

Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:33 PM (P)

Hi I'm new.

SgtGump had a good statement earlier about the actual influence of the president. The head of the federal reserve has a lot more influence than the president. And I'm fairly sure that the same guy has been running through the Clinton administration and the current Bush administration. Just food for thought. If anyone knows more about the role of the fed, I'd like to hear more of that.