Terror Alert Elevated- Page 5

[LadyGuenevere]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:10pm

"Seems like they are saying the same things over and over on CNN."

It's going to be that way forever on all 24 hour news channels, unfortunately.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:12pm

ok, ok, zola, here's the $20.

and *grumble grumble* a quick peck on the cheek...

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:13pm

obviously, all it's led to is "boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

This has been addressed already, but it really pisses me off, so I will add my vote.

Who is to say that the terror alerts, and their respective activities has not already thwarted an attack? Can you imagine what is going on in the windowless hole where the terrorist with the backpack full of plastique is right now? The warnings have completely f*cked them... I imagine "chatter" is through the roof, as they try to plan an alternative.

I hate the fear, but it is nothing like the fear must've been during the Cuban situation... and great leadership got us through that one too. I think that our government is doing a wonderful job... much more must be done, but much has been done already.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:15pm

Whether it happens or not, you can't go living in a hole waiting for it. The whole point of terrorist attacks (in terrorist eyes) is to catch the people where they don't expect it and hit them hard. I mean, really, how long can people sit in their houses/apartments hiding? When it comes down to it, even doing that might not matter.

Of course they tell us some of what they know, because if they don't people won't pay attention to anything suspicious that they do see (although after the intensity of the Sept 11th attacks, I don't know if I think they're stupid enough to let anything look suspicious.) Plus, if they don't tell us what "might" happen, and something does happen, they'll end up getting fried later on for failing to properly warn the people.

The bottom line about all of it is, really, go about your lives, hope nothing happens, and be aware of your surroundings. The problem is that the majority of the population doesn't pay much attention to his or her surroundings and wouldn't notice something weird if it landed on his or her face. Then, when something does go wrong they'll start screaming that they should have been told. Well they have.

I don't blame them for telling what they know, or think they know, at least in part. The problem is, people don't realize that it's virtually impossible to 100% prevent all terrorist attacks, and no matter what happens someone will find something wrong with how it was handled.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:17pm

I'll step up. I don't care.

I LIKE JOHN KERRY. A lot. I think he's articulate and smart and thoughtful. I think he will make a great president and I believe that he will be able to bring us back into the community of nations so we are not as isolated as we are now in this war.

Will he -- or any other single individual -- be able to solve all the economic problems this Administration has caused, yes, CAUSED with their idiotic tax cuts? No. But he will put us back on a sensible economic path that returns fiscal discipline to the budgeting process. Who ever thought a Republican administration would have racked up a $450 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the United States?

I like John Kerry. He's not just the lesser of two evils to me. So, in this case, Papa, you're definitively incorrect when you say "no one really likes him." I DO. AND I AM SOMEBODY!

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 01:17 PM

[bta212]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:18pm

I agree that Kerry is un-inspiring. The standard product of the winnowing-out political process we have built for ourselves. But the people he will put in his cabinet, the judges he will appoint, and the diplomats he will send out into the world will be far less likely to be rabidly homophobic, racist, anti-abortion, misogynistic, creationist, anti-environmental freaks. The figure-head may not be stellar, but it's the support team you have to keep an eye on.

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 01:18 PM

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:23pm

If you don't like Bush or Kerry then who will you vote for? Isn't voting for the middle party just like voting for Bush anyway, since those in between votes get kinda lost in the mix?

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:25pm

I'm voting for David Hyde Pierce.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:37pm

i stand corrected, zola likes kerry. are you out to burst all my bubbles today?

however, i still would like people to clarify that when they say that the $450 (latest projections have it down to $445 from an earlier projected $521) billion deficit is the largest in history that they qualify that by saying that it is such as a percentage of gpd it is only 3.8% as opposed to the 6% at which it ran during the reagan era and projections show it being down to 1.5% of gdp by 2009. saying it's a record deficit is akin to saying that this a record gdp, the country has never made this much money before! ever!

[bta212]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:50pm

But papa, that can't be the only criterion for evaluating the success of an administration.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:52pm

That "clarification" first heard from the podium of the White House press secretary is ridiculous. I just hope the White House keeps trying to convince the workers in Ohio and Michigan all the way to the election that the economy is really in great shape despite whatever they might think.

It's fantastically stupid spin.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:55pm

No one says that the economy is in great shape. Recovering, maybe. But not in great shape. But if you come up with a Bush administration quote for that, Zola, you'll be my new best friend. :)

[bythesword84]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:57pm

You can't really determine the success of a given administration until many, many years after it has ended.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 1:59pm

True. But we have to vote this November.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:00pm

Give me a minute, Plum...

[bythesword84]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:03pm

I know that. I'm just saying, when you vote you have to vote for what you **think** will be the best thing, but there are no guarantees, it's basically blind trust, regardless of the campaigning. What it comes down to is who do you trust more?

A lot of people feel one way and a lot of people feel another way, but regardless of who makes us feel safer/better/happier right now, no one will know the actual results of a given administration until years down the line.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:12pm

i'm not saying that it is in great shape. it is in fact improving. will it get there fast enough to get relief to people who've lost their jobs? of course not.

but i was speaking to the specific notion of the deficit. it's a record number by sheer size, but when taken as a percentage, as one must when evaluating a number that is a variable of another number: the gdp. one cannot simply say that this is the largest deficit in history when this is also the largest economy in history. not that it is the best economy in history, by far, but it is also not nearly as bad as it could have been without the stimulus that was provided by the tax cuts.

to say that this is the largest deficit ever is correct in absolute number terms, just as it is correct to say that this is the largest gdp in he history of the untited states. just as it is correct to say that last year's tax revenues, even with the tax cuts, were higher than during any year of the clinton administration.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:15pm

Agreed, papa. But it's also true that Bush's trickle-down economic policy (like Reagan's) is BS.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:18pm

well, truth is sometimes a subjective thing, plumsy.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:28pm

Here you go, Plum. On July 20th, W said: "Our economy since last summer has been growing at the fastest rate in 20 years. We're in terrific shape!"

So, is what W says true? Sure, if you pick that exact time period -- the first quarter of this year and the second half of last year, to be exact -- it is technically true. Over these three quarters the economy grew by 5.4 percent, which is faster than any other 9-month period in the past 20 years. But not by much. For the last 9 months of 1999, for example, the economy grew by 5.1 percent.

But why take 9 months? If we look at the last year, it's not any record at all. Similarly for the last two years.

In the same speech, Bush also bragged about the 1.5 million jobs created since last August. This impressive-sounding number also depends on a careful selection of time period. If we look at W's whole presidential term, the economy is still down more than a million jobs. Even the 1.5 million jobs created during Mr. Bush's selected ten months are a weak performance, barely enough to keep pace with the growth of the labor force.

Of course, the Bush administration does have some real 20-year record-breaking numbers but they are not the kind that it would like to advertise. Here's the gold medal: our Federal budget deficit for 2004 is 5.6 percent of GDP. (Papa, I think to be fair about this, you need to add the borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund as part of the deficit.)

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 02:28 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:34pm

eh, reagan's was stil 6.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:38pm

Zola, you're great. Thanks for those numbers. The rationalist in me is jumping up and down in glee right now, because it can join the irrational side of me that just wants to smack Bush upside the head.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:39pm

Papa,

Your sending down the river of Ronald Reagan in order to bolster up W shows that there's a profound displacement in the universe.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:41pm

i'm not sending ronny down, i never said that deficits are a bad thing, i'm just pointing out that ronny was much more adept at running them up than georgie boy. even though ronny did have a democratic congress to assist him.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/2/04 at 2:44pm

Didn't Clinton reduce the size of government (in terms of number of employees, at least) more than any of the last 3 Republican Presients? Funny, that.