simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).
Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some more
by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some more
people.

todd

"joe" wrote in message
...
: simply view this graphic and tell me why
:

Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail for
250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:36:12 GMT, "joe" wrote:

simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif


Here is the only answer that makes sense for me: Choosing leaders is truly
about making choices.

It is not whether we are pleased as punch about Leader X; it is whether,
overall, he/she is better than available Leader Y or Leader Z. This is
why, in a cynical, yet perceptive and even clever way, in CA some people
want Gov. Gray Davis' name on the ballot of all potential replacements if
that very same Gov. Davis loses the recall. So, let's say 60% vote in
favor of the recall. Clearly, then, "The People of California" would say
that they do not support him. Yet, on the replacement side of the ballot
if Davis got 36%, that would probably be enough to "win" by a plurality,
which is all that is necessary. Then, under the rules established by the
People of California, these same "People" would have said they support Gray
Davis for Governor. (And if The People don't like that outcome, they can
have another initiative to require run-off elections until someone wins a
majority.) As they political saying goes, "You can't be somebody with
nobody."

I don't know if the CA courts will allow Davis to run on both sides of the
ballot. There would be something poetic about Davis literally running on
"both sides", while letting him do it would seem counter to the notion of
the recall system. Yet, while I would never support Davis, there is a good
1st Amendment argument to be made for him being allowed to run for
"election", IMO. (I am not familiar enough with the CA Constitution to
know what arguments could be based on it.) Consider that in the recall
part of the ballot he might lose because 60% of the voters voted against
him and then he might face the prospect of being replaced by a plurality
winner who, arguably, had 65% voting against him/her -- i.e., winning with
a 35% plurality.

But, if Davis is allowed to do this and I were betting on the results, I
would wager big that he would "win", as winning is defined by the rules of
this game -- and he would probably win by a wide margin over the next
candidate, even if it was "just" a 36% to 25% win.

In this scenario, you could well ask "Why do people continue to support
this [Governor]?" Well, they do and they don't.

That may not "answer" your question, but it is my answer -- since you
asked.

Agreed -- he inherited more than a weakened economy -- he inherited an
overheated economy, with a massive tech balloon that was not sustainable. We
quickly forgot about all the discussion of the "New Economy" (that was such
thing) in the late nineties. According to the people who are responsible for
officiating such things, the recession began in March 2001 (article attached
below), and many of the surrounding indicators started to show major
weakness in summer 2000. If you remember, this is why Bush got so much
criticism for "Talking down the economy" in his election campaign.



------------------------------------------
Posted 7/17/2003 8:54 AM Updated 7/17/2003 8:12 PM



It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
WASHINGTON (AP) - The committee that puts official dates on U.S.
economic expansions and contractions said Thursday that the economy pulled
out of recession in November 2001 and since then has been in a recovery
phase.
The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research's
Business Cycle Dating Committee confirmed what many economists have
believed: that the economy has resumed growing, albeit slowly.

"At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business
activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001," the committee said
in a statement Thursday.

The committee, which consists of top academic economists, met in
Cambridge, Mass., to discuss the issue.

The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement
makes it an eight-month downturn.

The committee said the length of the downturn was "slightly less than
average for recessions" in the post World War II period.

In its statement, the dating committee stressed that its announcement
of when the downturn ended did not mean that the economy's hard times ended
at that point.

"In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee
did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been
favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity,"
the panel said.

The panel said it was determining only that in November 2001, the
recession - which it defines as a period of falling economic activity spread
across the economy - came to an end and the economy began growing again.

After contracting the first three quarters of 2001, gross domestic
product or GDP, the country's total output of goods and services, began
growing again in the fourth quarter 2001 and has been rising since, although
in a zig-zag pattern that has not been strong enough to keep unemployment
from rising.

The committee struggled for months to reconcile the fact that while
the U.S. economy resumed growing in late 2001, as measured by the gross
domestic product, unemployment continued to rise.

While the determination of the official ending date for the recession
is of interest to economic historians, it is likely to bring little comfort
to the nation's unemployed. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of
6.4% in June.

While an often-used thumbnail definition of a recession is two
consecutive quarters of falling GDP, the NBER uses a more complex procedure
that looks at a variety of monthly statistics to determine when recessions
begin and end.

In the past, it has not used GDP to determine the beginning and end
points for recessions because that statistic from the Commerce Department is
compiled on a quarterly basis.

However, because of the unusual nature of this downturn, where growth
resumed so far ahead of an improvement in the unemployment rate, the
committee decided to look at GDP as well as four other indicators -
employment, real income, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales.

The NBER in its statement said that it waited to call an end to the
2001 recession because it wanted to be sure any subsequent downturn would be
a separate event and not just a continuation of the 2001 slump.

"The main reason that the committee's decision in this episode was
particularly difficult was the divergent behavior of employment," the NBER
said. "The committee felt that it was important to wait until real GDP was
substantially above its pre-recession peak before determining that a trough
had occurred."

The so-called jobless recovery surpasses in duration a similar jobless
recovery that George W. Bush's father had to endure in the months after the
recession of that period ended, in March 1991.

The NBER did not declare the 1990-91 recession over until December
1992. By that time, Bush's father had lost his re-election bid to Bill
Clinton, who had made the economy's poor performance the centerpiece of his
campaign.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------

"todd" wrote in message
news
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).
Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
people.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
news
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Because he inherited a weakening economy from the last administration that
was hurt further by the events on 9/11/01?
Because the president doesn't have nearly the control over the economy
that
you think? (Hint: if you want to talk to someone with real power over the
economy, his initials are AG).
Because he happened to take office right at the end of the tech bubble?
No, let me guess...taxes are too low. We need to punish the rich some
more
by increasing their taxes. That will get them in the mood to hire some
more
people.

todd

Hi Todd,

i thought you would see the paralell; Hoover was an idiot too ...

I find it funny, that a nation can rush to war in the modern day only to
have the companies that
benefit from it outsource the work to foreigners and then cry like babies
for more tax breaks. ww2
did wonders for putting people back to work, and though we can spend the
equiv dollars
on Iraq our economy only gets worse ... and better yet, when things just
start to turn around the
nation is put on high alert for a terrorist attack when the shrubs
popularity is in the gutter again. ( the
last time was shortly before 911). I pray to god that does not happen again,
and when looking for someone
who brought the entirety of it on the US you can blame a Bush. (remember
OBL's beef stems from the
first Iraqi war)

take a long look at Roosevelt's record ... and cry because this nation will
never be as good
(or as bad off hopefully) as that again. maybe if we're lucky we'll elect
someone as brilliant as that after the shrub
leaves office. also Harding had very little natural opposition to success,
the nation was clearly poised
for expansion, until of course the financial experts (conservatives) decided
to create the ponzi scheme
and set the wheels in motion for the depression. I would have chalked that
up to an American growing
pain if it weren't for the fact that we let these clowns repeat it.

Alan greenspan has done more to save your hypothetical butt than most will
ever know. you're right
on one count: if the shrub had more control over the economy we'd be in
worse shape, the bit that
he does have control over (mostly favoritism for gubberment contracts and
whether or not we go into
an expensive war in the middle of a recession) he managed to completely
screw up.

Ben Siders flat out states:

You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.

I've got a tendency to believe about half of what I read, but this one is a new
one for me. Substantiate it, please.


Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:

snip of a reasoned understanding of how the economy REALLY works

People who attribute a successful and/or failing economy entirely to the
President simply don't understand basic economics. This isn't an attack
or an insult; most of don't have any real need day-in and day-out for it.
Economies, especially in capitalism, follow waves of expansion, recesion,
and sometimes depression. It's all but inevitable, although some things
will influence (wars, especially). When Bill Clinton took office, the
American economy was well out of recession and recovering grandly, but
there's a lag between economic indicators and people starting to get
jobs and raises. It also depends on where you live - economic
fluctuations are felt far less severely in the flyover parts of the
country than on the coasts.

snip of still more of that stuff

Anyway. If you're quoting the NYT as evidence to back up your opinion of
the President, I suggest that you've already decided you don't like him
and are looking for good reasons to think so. That's fine, but understand
that the economy is about where it SHOULD be. The tech bubble was very
overinflated and the nation's economy was overvalued. The same thing
happened in the late 80's and it culminated with a big dive and there were
dire predictions of how close we came to another 1929. Obviously, we got
over that.

Look at our economic growth, especially in industry, since 1980, and
just shave off the tech spike and the nation's economic growth is still
incredible. Deficits? They're no larger as a percentage of the nation's
productivity than they've ever been. I'm afraid you're the victim of
media FUD.

There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of how
money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people who
actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who think
that any one government body has much control of the money. They consider
them more of a "speed bump" on the road to forward progress. They have a
real understanding of how money works. And to those who think Greenspan has
saved you grits...do some real research on interest delay cycles and such,
and you will find that his actions were too fast on the interest raise, and
changes made in the other direction did not take into consideration the
delay to the street.

In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy getting
the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can find)
are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the government,
but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.

Digger

Digger




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

While the NYT did publish this graph, the two sources of the data are quite
credible. If the source were Fox News I would still ask the same question.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif


You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.

Why do people support this president? I don't know. I support some of
what he does, and oppose some. I support lowering taxes, I support the
elimination of the marriage penalty, I suppose tax credits, I support more
breaks for businesses, less government involvement and taxation of the
economy, and more freedom and liberty for people to improve themselves and
for entrepreneurship and personal initiative. I believe many of the
President's domestic policies encourage the things that I believe are good
for America and good for our economy and people.

I oppose him on various things that I think are going to neutralize or
stunt the economic growth of the nation.

People who attribute a successful and/or failing economy entirely to the
President simply don't understand basic economics. This isn't an attack
or an insult; most of don't have any real need day-in and day-out for it.
Economies, especially in capitalism, follow waves of expansion, recesion,
and sometimes depression. It's all but inevitable, although some things
will influence (wars, especially). When Bill Clinton took office, the
American economy was well out of recession and recovering grandly, but
there's a lag between economic indicators and people starting to get
jobs and raises. It also depends on where you live - economic
fluctuations are felt far less severely in the flyover parts of the
country than on the coasts.

Anyway. If you're quoting the NYT as evidence to back up your opinion of
the President, I suggest that you've already decided you don't like him
and are looking for good reasons to think so. That's fine, but understand
that the economy is about where it SHOULD be. The tech bubble was very
overinflated and the nation's economy was overvalued. The same thing
happened in the late 80's and it culminated with a big dive and there were
dire predictions of how close we came to another 1929. Obviously, we got
over that.

Look at our economic growth, especially in industry, since 1980, and
just shave off the tech spike and the nation's economic growth is still
incredible. Deficits? They're no larger as a percentage of the nation's
productivity than they've ever been. I'm afraid you're the victim of
media FUD.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif


You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.


Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a left-wing
think tank. smirk

"C Wood" wrote in message
...

"joe" wrote in message
...
: simply view this graphic and tell me why
:

Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
for
250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.


No. Put the money toward your life insurance payments. The Repub-controlled
congress just yanked $100-something million OUT of the air marshall program.
They say it won't affect security or services rendered. Zzzzzzz........

I've got a tendency to believe about half of what I read, but this one is a new
one for me. Substantiate it, please.

Jason Blair.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a left-wing
think tank. smirk

I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
effectively.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
think tank. smirk

I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions. It's combination of factors, including his actions, as well as a
billion other factors that nobody can predict or even really analyze
effectively.

what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
: "C Wood" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "joe" wrote in message
: ...
: : simply view this graphic and tell me why
: :
:
: Well, do the economy a favor and when you get your check in the mail
: for
: 250-$400.00, go buy a new tool with it.
:
:
: No. Put the money toward your life insurance payments. The
Repub-controlled
: congress just yanked $100-something million OUT of the air marshall
program.
: They say it won't affect security or services rendered. Zzzzzzz........

I don't think acts of terrorism are covered in some situations

Get caught under a rock? Their affirmative action hire was discovered to
have plagiarized and fabricated stories and pieces of stories over about
three years. In spite of reports and doubts, the editor stuck with him.
Firings, resignations, and apologies followed. Now the "reporter" is
saying he deliberately scammed the public and the paper.

One might easily assume that this type of practice is everywhere at the
Times whose new motto could be "it's only news if it fits our opinion."



"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Ben Siders flat out states:

You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.

I've got a tendency to believe about half of what I read, but this one is
a new
one for me. Substantiate it, please.

NONE, though some are more obvious than others.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"George" wrote in message
...
New York Times, eh? Snicker.

Which newspaper do YOU feel provides totally unbiased reporting? :-)

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Many Americans are not very bright and think he's doing just dandy.
-- Ernie

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif


You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.

Rather say that they practiced diversity and affirmative action above and
beyond the call of sanity. A WASP reporter would have been canned long, long
before Mr Blair was.
-- Ernie

"George" wrote in message
...
NONE, though some are more obvious than others.


I see.

There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of how
money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people who
actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who think
that any one government body has much control of the money. They consider

My major concern about money and our government is how much of OUR money
they get, and how inefficiently it is spent. I'd like to see less
taxation, and more government agencies privatized. NASA is #1 on my list
of organizations that need government regulation but not ownership.

In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy getting
the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can find)
are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the government,
but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.

Nobody likes rich people, but we all want to be one. Poor men don't
hire you to fix their roof, replace their siding, fix their car, or
landscape their yards. It's the middle class and wealthy that create
opportunities for wealth distribution. Were I in charge, I'd just
eliminate the Federal Income Tax for the lowest tax bracket entirely, it
accounts to a tiny, tiny faction of just our tax income.

The problem is that if you were to eliminate taxes on anybody who makes
under $32,000 and lower marginal rates by 3-5% for the top two brackets,
the same politicials and media figures would be up in arms over "unfair"
tax cuts for the rich.

What's unfair is that people have to fork over their money in the first
place in order to pay for four hundred offices full of senate and house chamber
lackeys running documents all over the Mall and all of the unreasonable
waste and inefficiency of our government.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:06:09 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Right. The source of the data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a
left-wing
think tank. smirk

I never claimed or implied that. I said that I cannot take anything
printed as fact in the New York Times at face value. And if you accept
whatever statistics you are spoon-fed by a government agency, there's no
point in continuing this discussion. I think the BLS is probably fairly
accurate, but I have no reason to believe the NYT is reporting their
claims accurately. Even so, it's all immaterial. The economy today is
not entirely or even mostly the consequences of our current president's
actions.

1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
recommendations.
2. He gave massive corporate welfare to the steel industry, textiles and
agrobusiness.
3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike Gulf
I.
-- Ernie

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:23:20 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:

what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.

Honestly? Very little. I like to read a variety of publications with a
variety of political motivations, and see which facts are most consistant
among them. These have the best likelihood of being rooted in truth.

I think Charlie Self said this earlier - you have to approach half of what
you hear with skepticism, but eventually you have to take for granted that
something is probably true and base your opinions on it.

If I see a Fox News story, I'll usually go look it up on news.google.com
and see what other news outlets have to say about it. The themes and
figures that resonate in other media tend to be reliable enough to form an
educated opinion.

"Ernie Jurick" wrote in message
...


1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
recommendations.

....while breaking virtually every financial promise he made after 9/11 to
fund improvements for local-level first responders.

"Ernie Jurick" wrote in message
news

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Many Americans are not very bright and think he's doing just dandy.
-- Ernie


It's because he calls them "folks". That's the equivalent of giving a free
box of fruit roll-ups to a toddler.

In article ,
says...
"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:00:24 -0500, todd wrote:
"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif
You can't trust anything from the New York Times as being a "fact."
They've made it clear that practicing racism is more important than the
integrity of their journalism.
Rather say that they practiced diversity and affirmative action above and
beyond the call of sanity. A WASP reporter would have been canned long, long
before Mr Blair was.

Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
because of that.
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett

Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
because of that.

The people in charge of this debacle at the NYT flat out admitted that
they kept him around because of his race.

Wanna start, the economy takes years to revive/receed. Think of an
aircraft carrier, you don't turn them on a dime. It's also like a snow
ball rolling down a hill, it gains size and momentum. Clinton was the
benefactor of the 87 tax cut. Why do you think all the tech stuff went
nuts, because there was available capital to spend. Money is available, it
gets invested, a company gets started or offers a new product, they catch
on, hire people, spend more capital, more people working, more things
needed. GW was the poor sucker that got stuck with the 90's tax increases.
Take the peoples money, they have less to spend, no buying, business get
slow, inventories build, companies stop spending capital, people get laid
off. It's about that simple! Interesting how the Clinton administrations
figure for his last two years had to be recalculated. Basically they lied,
the economy was going south two years before GW was elected.

joe wrote:

simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
recommendations.

The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.

2. He gave massive corporate welfare to the steel industry, textiles and
agrobusiness.

I hear you on this. I'm really getting weary of corporate bailouts. On
one hand, manufacturing got hammered over the last few years, but this
kind of constantly fiscal meddling violates the principles of a free
market.

3. He started a war that we had to pick up the entire tab for, unlike Gulf
I.

I don't agree with this statement in letter or spirit, but it's a matter
of perception, and a debate on it will be circular and pointless. You
certainly won't change my mind, and I doubt I'll change yours.

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:23:20 -0400, 4 out of 5 dentists wrote:

what do you find authoritative then ? just curious.

Honestly? Very little. I like to read a variety of publications with a
variety of political motivations, and see which facts are most consistant
among them. These have the best likelihood of being rooted in truth.

i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.

even when that guy who was making up **** in the NYT was writing articles
it was still better than the best factual FOX report I have ever read ( or
seen )
and that goes for the weather on FOX as well ...

i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
really
have to hand it to the BBC,

I think Charlie Self said this earlier - you have to approach half of what
you hear with skepticism, but eventually you have to take for granted that
something is probably true and base your opinions on it.

If I see a Fox News story, I'll usually go look it up on news.google.com
and see what other news outlets have to say about it. The themes and
figures that resonate in other media tend to be reliable enough to form an
educated opinion.

like i said, fow news is off the list. i might be missing something here and
there
but for the most part it just seems a waste of time.

i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.

Based on these two examples, you seem to have me pegged as a Republican,
which isn't quite true. I've found some nuggets of truth in Fox News, but
I ignore any of their political discussion, just as I ignore CNN and
newspaper editorials. I used to soak it up because I thought it was
intelligent, educated content by knowledgable people, but it's not. Most
of it is just political moving and shaking by people with agendas. Seems
obvious to me now. Journalism has nothing to do with reporting facts and
relaying news any more. It's about sensationalism and ratings. Cable
news is entertainment first and truth second, and newspapers are getting
to be that way, too. This is why I try to accumulate sources and find the
one vein of truth that is consistant across all stories and draw my
opinions from that. Quotes are the hardest thing to deal with for me,
because I know that they're almost always taken out of context to serve
the aims of the reporter.

even when that guy who was making up **** in the NYT was writing articles
it was still better than the best factual FOX report I have ever read ( or
seen )

I don't agree with that. I've seem Fox at least report things that are
true. Blair was making up landscapes, towns, people, and interviews that
never existed and/or took place.

and that goes for the weather on FOX as well ...

Amen.

i tend to watch the BBC and read the NYT and the washington post, but I
really
have to hand it to the BBC,

What's sad is that the BBC has more information in its reports on what
goes on in America than most American news agencies.

In article ,
says...
Not necessarily. One little-reported connection that may well have
counted for more than race in the case of Blair is that he came from the
U. of Maryland journalism school; several of the top people at the Times
came from that program, and often return there to speak. Blair came
recommended by professors in the Maryland program, and I strongly
suspect there was a fair amount of pressure to let him do his thing
because of that.
The people in charge of this debacle at the NYT flat out admitted that
they kept him around because of his race.

And you believe them about this, but doubt everything they print in
their paper? Fascinating.
--
Mike Jones http://18minutegap.blogspot.com
If this is class warfare, my class is winning.
-- Warren Buffett

Ben Siders responds:

I've got a tendency to believe about half of what I read, but this one is a
new
one for me. Substantiate it, please.

Jason Blair.

Racism? Maybe reverse racism. Guy was fired because he was lazy, incompetent
and not exactly up front. The only thing the NYT did wrong (other than hire him
in the first place) was keep him beyond his time.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:43:44 +0000, Mike Jones wrote:

And you believe them about this, but doubt everything they print in
their paper? Fascinating.

Go back and re-read the thread and see if you puzzle out why this is a
really asinine statement.

Can't say that I disagree with anything you said.

Dig

"Ben Siders" wrote in message
news

There you go Ben, trying to counter a rant with a good understanding of
how
money works. How silly of you! LOL It's interesting that the people
who
actually wade around in the money every day, just laugh at those who
think
that any one government body has much control of the money. They
consider

My major concern about money and our government is how much of OUR money
they get, and how inefficiently it is spent. I'd like to see less
taxation, and more government agencies privatized. NASA is #1 on my list
of organizations that need government regulation but not ownership.

In a sideways sort of way, the people who bitch about the wealthy
getting
the breaks, and gripe about their taxes (and anything else they can
find)
are right. What they don't understand is that it's also not the
government,
but the fact that they understand what I mentioned above. They also use
that understanding to deal with those conditions where government can be
taken in it's proper light. But then again, this is all off topic.

Nobody likes rich people, but we all want to be one. Poor men don't
hire you to fix their roof, replace their siding, fix their car, or
landscape their yards. It's the middle class and wealthy that create
opportunities for wealth distribution. Were I in charge, I'd just
eliminate the Federal Income Tax for the lowest tax bracket entirely, it
accounts to a tiny, tiny faction of just our tax income.

The problem is that if you were to eliminate taxes on anybody who makes
under $32,000 and lower marginal rates by 3-5% for the top two brackets,
the same politicials and media figures would be up in arms over "unfair"
tax cuts for the rich.

What's unfair is that people have to fork over their money in the first
place in order to pay for four hundred offices full of senate and house
chamber
lackeys running documents all over the Mall and all of the unreasonable
waste and inefficiency of our government.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

4 out of 5 dentists responds:

i see your point, you kind of have to in order to get something remotely
close to the story. i just find it strange that you said something to this
effect
about the NYT, when i've all but marginalized FOX for being the most
sensationalized and often the most irresponsible reporting i have ever seen.


You have to remember, though, that not long ago someone popped up here stating
with pride that he got most of his political facts from Sludge...whoops,
Drudge, who is an admitted fabricator.

like i said, fow news is off the list. i might be missing something here and
there
but for the most part it just seems a waste of time.

I have trouble believing the level of bull**** in most news programs, but Fox
is so incredibly bad in ALL respects, I've taken to going on by quickly. The
only time I watch it is when I have to wait for a VA doctor. Seems like every
TV set in every VA clinic and hospital is permanently fixed to Fox.

Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

Ben Siders writes:

1. He gave out tax cuts during a recession against every sane economist's
recommendations.

The recession is over. It has been for a while now, and this isn't just
me saying, "I think it's over", by the definition of an economic
recession, it's been over for months. In any case, I think tax cuts are
one of the best things for the economy at almost any time.

Puredee nonseense, Ben. If the recession is over, why are we losing jobs so
quickly? And, more to the point, what is Bush & Babies doing about the job
losses other than to blame them on Clinton's policies?



Charlie Self

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating
plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."
George W. Bush

If Jesus was alive today he'd kick your sorry ass.

Huh? Oh! Sorry. Wrong thread.

UA100

1. Because I believe it's a lot better than it would be if the last idiot
was still around or if his flunky had won

2. I believe very little published in the NY Times


"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif

Am I the only one here that knew the economy was due for an "adjustment"?
The economy can not grow like it did forever. It was going to take a dump,
regardless of who is the president. It was due, Bush got stuck with it.
Greg

"joe" wrote in message
...
simply view this graphic and tell me why

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...3JOBSch450.gif