| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Steward" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2004 10:17:36 AM |
| Object: |
Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
New York Times | October 12, 2004
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly
desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions
you'll hear, and the truth about each:
Jobs
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting
stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam,
when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the
course.
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the
economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up
with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news
than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did
little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country
needs and the number actually available.
Unemployment
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from
its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't
rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without
jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of
the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the
fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work
- has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January
2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
The deficit
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts
caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
The tax cuts
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third
went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1
million.
The Kerry tax plan
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes
on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be
affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the
administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that
in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber
company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently
forgot about it.
Fiscal responsibility
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new
spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent
estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the
Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the
cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess
of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
Spending
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense
discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number
is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to
have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with
reality.
Health care
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions
away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which
works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have
health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic
medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would
do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying
that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers
things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's
the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government
employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200
billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so
far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80
billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using
loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest.
He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success.
Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies
and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
.
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 12:23:15 PM |
|
|
"Steward" <ADS@ww.com> wrote in message
news:fnhqm0d7aqqlbjmfnlddsp1oatrpp4b0bk@4ax.com...
New York Times | October 12, 2004
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly
desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions
you'll hear, and the truth about each:
Jobs
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting
stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam,
when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the
course.
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the
economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up
with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news
than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did
little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country
needs and the number actually available.
Unemployment
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from
its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't
rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without
jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of
the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the
fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work
- has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January
2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
The deficit
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts
caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
The tax cuts
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third
went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1
million.
The Kerry tax plan
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes
on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be
affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the
administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that
in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber
company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently
forgot about it.
Fiscal responsibility
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new
spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent
estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the
Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the
cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess
of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
Spending
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense
discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number
is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to
have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with
reality.
Health care
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions
away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which
works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have
health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic
medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would
do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying
that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers
things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's
the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government
employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200
billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so
far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80
billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using
loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest.
He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success.
Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies
and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a list of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations from the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just "employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of 585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of the
tax cuts in May 2003.
The third Kerry jobs lie was about his own jobs record (if he can even claim
one at all as a mere junior senator). He said, "We balanced the budget. And
we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created
23 million new jobs at the same time." Sorry, senator, but the number of
jobs created in the surplus years of 1999 and 2000 was actually 5 million.
Krugman, however, does not let himself get concerned with Kerry's lies.
Krugman says, "Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers
nitpickers things to complain about. . Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of
using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct." Apparently
it's just as Krugman once said of Michael Moore - he "tells essential
truths."
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its
June 2003 peak . The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the
population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply
under Mr. Bush .
At 65.9 percent today, it's an absurd exaggeration to say that the labor
force participation rate has "fallen sharply" from where it was when Bush
took office. Back then it was at 67.2 percent. This was at the peak of the
"bubble economy" and just one-tenth of 1 percent away from an all-time high.
As Krugman himself once admitted of Bush's jobs challenge after the bubble
era, "I think you have to say that it's unlikely that Bush who came into
office with a near-full employment economy and a slower-growing population,
is going to be able to exceed that or even match it."
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused
about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, denies
that the CBO was Krugman's source. Holtz-Eakin says that Krugman's claim may
be indirectly derived from underlying CBO data, but that the "CBO does not
decompose 'causes' of any deficit estimate. The calculation is Mr. Krugman'
s." This makes the second time in a week that Krugman has lied about his
source for this claim. No doubt what Krugman has done (or what someone at
the Kerry campaign did, and Krugman uncritically parroted) is add up
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation forecasts of the revenue effects
of Bush's tax cuts, forecasts made back in 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the tax
cuts of those years. Sure enough, these total $272 billion (last week
Krugman said the number was "more than $270 billion"), which is 66 percent
of the latest estimate of the 2004 deficit of $415 billion.
CBO, JCT - it hardly matters. What's important is that when Krugman pieces
together old forecasts and calls them estimates of what's going on today,
the results are wildly exaggerated. This is because past forecasts of the
revenue losses from Bush's tax cuts have all turned out to be wrong. The
"Budget and Economic Outlook," published by the CBO in August 2003 after the
large 2003 tax cuts had been enacted (and yes, this one really is from CBO),
forecasted that personal income-tax revenues in 2004 would be $765 billion -
actually lower than they had been in 2002. In the latest "Monthly Budget
Review," published last week, the CBO estimates that 2004 income-tax
revenues will be $810 billion. At the same time, corporate and social tax
revenues - buoyed by the same strong economic recovery, are now estimated to
be, respectively, $189 billion (versus a $161 billion forecast last year)
and $753 billion (up from a $734 billion forecast). A new report from the
American Shareholder Association documents all this and more in great
detail.
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went
to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the
top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.
Well, Kerry did oppose middle-class tax cuts. He voted against the expansion
of the 10 percent tax bracket, the increased refundable child tax credit,
and marriage penalty relief. And though Bush's tax cuts did indeed benefit
the wealthy - the people who pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes
to begin with - CBO numbers prove that the middle class benefited
disproportionately. As I showed in a National Review Online column in
August, effective income-tax rates have fallen for all taxpayers - and the
wealthiest taxpayers now pay a larger proportion of overall taxes than they
did before any of Bush's tax cuts were enacted.
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on
many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected.
False support for this false claim comes from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy
Center (a source for tax statistics of which Krugman once said "the
orientation is Democratic ... but the work is impeccable"). A table on the
TPC's website shows that 71,000 small businesses with employees - about 4
percent of the total - would face a tax increase under Kerry's plan. Yet the
TPC admitted in an e-mail alert to its subscribers that its estimate
excluded S-corporations and partnerships. When those small businesses are
taken into account, "a total of 471,000 small employers would face a tax
increase under the Kerry plan." Oops. Despite this e-mailed correction, the
TPC's website still shows the "impeccable" 71,000 figure. And Kerry still
cites it, as he did in the second presidential debate.
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending.
That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates.
Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican
convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the
agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and
"far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
If we're going to use the Washington Post as an authority, then according to
an August 25 story by Washington reporter Jonathan Weisman, both the $2
trillion Kerry figure and the $3 trillion Bush figure are too high. Weisman
wrote that Kerry's "tax cut and spending proposals could still add as much
as $1.3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. That total is close to the
bottom line of Bush's plan, which could add about $1.35 trillion."
But if Krugman can cite the "impeccable" Democratic-leaning Urban-Brookings
Tax Policy Center, then I can cite the impeccable conservative-leaning
American Enterprise Institute. AEI's Kevin Hassett and Eric Engen have done
an exhaustive study of Kerry's spending proposals, and they come up with $2
trillion. Rather generously, it seems to me, they note that if Kerry fully
succeeds in his ambitious wish to crack down on "corporate welfare," the
figure could be reduced to $1.7 trillion. Hassett suggested to me that if he
had it to do over again, he'd set the cost of Kerry's proposals even higher.
He had assumed $969 billion for Kerry's health care proposals (the Kerry
campaign estimates $720 billion) - but now a new study by his AEI colleague
Joseph Antos sets that cost at $1.5 trillion.
Now, how about Krugman's claim that the Post is now saying Bush's proposals
will cost $3 trillion? Indeed, the Post did say that, in a September 14
story by Mike Allen. But Krugman is lying when he says the story is based on
"the administration's own numbers." Allen writes that only $1 trillion of
the number is "according to administration estimates." Indeed, he adds that
"The White House has declined to provide a full and detailed accounting of
the cost of the new agenda." The rest of the $3 trillion? Allen says that's
"according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts" -
none of whom are named.
The $2 trillion difference between the administration's $1 trillion and the
"policy experts'" $3 trillion is the cost of "Bush's proposed changes in
Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll
taxes in stocks and bonds." But there is no specific administration proposal
to do this - so how can it have any specific cost for "policy experts" to
calculate? Besides, private-account plans may even pay for themselves in the
long-run. In exchange for allowing young workers to divert their payroll
taxes to private accounts, those same workers opt out of the system and thus
remove themselves as a future liability, reducing the long-term net costs of
cleaning up the inevitable Social Security crisis. According to the Social
Security Administration actuary, even the most aggressive private-account
plan actually enhances the long-run fiscal stability of the system.
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary
spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even
after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget
promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.
Krugman is lying. Bush's current budget proposal is, indeed, for a less-than
1 percent year-over-year increase. But Krugman is trying to make it seem as
though Bush made the ridiculous claim that spending has increased at only 1
percent per year during his administration, which it obviously has not. What
Bush said was, "today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working
together to try to bring this deficit under control."
Krugman Truth Squad member Caroline Baum pointed out to me how ironic it is
that Krugman is willing to forgive far more egregious budget statements from
Kerry. Krugman says that Kerry "talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq
war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the
war will cost at least another $80 billion."
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away
from individuals. . It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
Oh yeah? Kerry's plan would dramatically expand Medicaid and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, and would also put government in the
major-medical re-insurance business. Krugman himself said, in an August 27
Times column celebrating Kerry's health care proposals, "Does this mean that
the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style
single-payer system? Well, yes."
We've reached the end of the list of Bush truths and Krugman lies. I have no
doubt that John Kerry has read Krugman's column and studied these lies, and
will use them to attack the president in tonight's debate. I actually hope
he does. Because if the president has read this column, he can expose Kerry
for the liar that he is, and put him away once and for all.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/nrof_luskin/luskin200410130936.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 06:42:13 PM |
|
|
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a list of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations from the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just "employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of 585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of the
tax cuts in May 2003.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what he wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to "revised". Is it
future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down 585,000
if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of
585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 04:59:46 PM |
|
|
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a list
of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential
debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush
truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations from
the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to
the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been
created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just
"employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according
to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since
Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was
about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal
with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he
said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of 585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting
private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point
he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of
the
tax cuts in May 2003.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what he
wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to "revised".
Is it
future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000
if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of
585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
14 Oct 2004 08:39:10 AM |
|
|
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a list
of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential
debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush
truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations from
the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to
the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been
created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just
"employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according
to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since
Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was
about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal
with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he
said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of 585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting
private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point
he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of
the
tax cuts in May 2003.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what he
wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to "revised".
Is it
future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000
if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of
585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
*****, that was funny......any more jokes ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
14 Oct 2004 09:15:36 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:SsadnfpxRd8lHPPcRVnysw@pipex.net...
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a
list
of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential
debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column
amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush
truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations
from
the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the
summer
of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to
the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been
created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over
a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just
"employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according
to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since
Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was
about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal
with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he
lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he
said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling
the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of
585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting
private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point
he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of
the
tax cuts in May 2003.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what
he
wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to
"revised".
Is it
future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000
if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under
Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of
585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
*****, that was funny......any more jokes ?
Just one...& I've saved the biggest one for last...ready?
Jez
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
14 Oct 2004 02:15:22 PM |
|
|
Pookie wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:SsadnfpxRd8lHPPcRVnysw@pipex.net...
Pookie wrote:
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
*****, that was funny......any more jokes ?
Just one...& I've saved the biggest one for last...ready?
Jez
So you actually believe Luskin ?
amazin'
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 07:38:22 PM |
|
|
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what he
wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to "revised".
Is it future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of 585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
I don't have to read on. You said not a word to defend your 'hero'. Try it! Can
you make a difference between past, present and future? Obviously your hero
can't. Or he can, but chose to confuse gullible ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 06:12:47 PM |
|
|
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jsGdnW7ZsbwZM_DcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what
he
wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to
"revised".
Is it future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under
Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of 585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
I don't have to read on. You said not a word to defend your 'hero'. Try
it! Can
you make a difference between past, present and future? Obviously your
hero
can't. Or he can, but chose to confuse gullible ones.
Here's words from the ghosts of Christmas future...
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 08:26:17 PM |
|
|
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jsGdnW7ZsbwZM_DcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what
he wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to
"revised".
Is it future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under
Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of 585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
I don't have to read on. You said not a word to defend your 'hero'. Try
it! Can
you make a difference between past, present and future? Obviously your
hero can't. Or he can, but chose to confuse gullible ones.
Here's words from the ghosts of Christmas future...
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp
If you try to think for yourself in stead of giving National Review links, I'll
answer you. Otherwise, get lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Carlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 07:13:51 PM |
|
|
What is not recorded...
30+ million people fell out of government statistics. These
are the people that are:
1) NOT actively employed,
2) NOT receiving any form of unemployment,
3) NOT on any poll anywhere.
They exist. They are out there.
Also, what's not being discussed:
1) There have been a record number of bankruptcies declared
this year (2004).
2) More than the record number of bankruptcies declared
last year (2003).
3) More than the record number of bankruptcies declared
the year prior to that (2002).
The debate is STAGED anyways. John Kerry supports
George Bush and George Bush supports John Kerry. They
are one and the same... Skull and Bones members for life,
partners for life, never betray each other for life. Neither
one has the cahonies to betray the other.
They'll put on the stooged staged debate tonight and it
will be the same lame stuff as before.
They are partners... and the WHOLE United States of
America thinks they are both so cool. Ringling Brothers
new stage! Enjoy the wimpiest show on earth!
--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to the newsgroup.
"dapra" wrote:
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" wrote:
Pookie wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZqWdnbK8X8nHPPDcRVn-iA@comcast.com...
Pookie wrote:
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Hey Pookie. Your blogger hero is so idiot that he doesn't remember what
he wrote
just a few lines before. He changes from "expected revision" to
"revised".
Is it future or past? I think he lives in la-la land.
"Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000if you include the BLS's expected upward revision)."
"Twice he said that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under
Bush,
doubling the official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure
of 585,000)."
Critical reading, my boy, may hone your judgment.
Hate to be critical, my boy, but "blogger hero is so idiot"
If he's idiot, read on, my boy...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin-archive.asp
I don't have to read on. You said not a word to defend your 'hero'. Try
it! Can
you make a difference between past, present and future? Obviously your
hero can't. Or he can, but chose to confuse gullible ones.
Here's words from the ghosts of Christmas future...
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200410131105.asp
If you try to think for yourself in stead of giving National Review links,
I'll
answer you. Otherwise, get lost.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Justice Cow" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 12:15:08 PM |
|
|
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
--
http://tinyurl.com/6t6c3
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 12:19:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:15:08 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
Here's something else to think about. Whatever your opinion may be of
me, I considered myself a *decided* voter in 2000. I went to vote,
and at the very last conceivable minute, I changed my mind about who I
was voting for.
It's quite possible that this could happen to a lot of people. Of
course, I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Justice Cow" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 12:44:13 PM |
|
|
In article <9unqm09q25q2njau6ln56t31m61653jjhq@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:15:08 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
Here's something else to think about. Whatever your opinion may be of
me, I considered myself a *decided* voter in 2000. I went to vote,
and at the very last conceivable minute, I changed my mind about who I
was voting for.
It's quite possible that this could happen to a lot of people. Of
course, I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat.
well way back in 2000 when the sky was blue, it was easy to be
undecided. I mean we were relatively prosperous so no worrys there, the
whole country was ***** at clinton, the dem handlers had gore
evolving his personna every day, bush had a short record but promised
the moon and unity plus he claimed to be a republican, which until
recently meant lower taxes, less government and less govt intervention,
less spending, etc. and at that point lowered taxes plus less govt
spending - FINALLY supply side might have had a winner.
and historically at least in our lifetime, we're had presidents who were
statesmen - pretty much all of them, except maybe johnson and bush
puking on the japanese president. you could count on these guys to
wow'em abroad, at least for a couple of months anyway. even our least
credible president in recent history was a brilliant world leader and
master diplomat. he and the evil kissinger introduced the chinese to a
philosophy of a little bit of capitalism brightening their day.
so to me it's easy to see why you would be undecided. I was pretty
lukewarm myself.
but this year the differences are so incredibly clear that it's
astonishing to me that anyone would be on a fence at this point. okay.
but this is the last debate. after this it's all rhetoric. tonight
should settle the undecideds finally.
after this weekend, given the spin, the analysis, the talking to wives
and husbands, if they're STILL undecided I'm all for the sunday times
treatment.
--
http://tinyurl.com/6t6c3
.
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 01:15:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:44:13 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
In article <9unqm09q25q2njau6ln56t31m61653jjhq@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:15:08 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
Here's something else to think about. Whatever your opinion may be of
me, I considered myself a *decided* voter in 2000. I went to vote,
and at the very last conceivable minute, I changed my mind about who I
was voting for.
It's quite possible that this could happen to a lot of people. Of
course, I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat.
well way back in 2000 when the sky was blue, it was easy to be
undecided. I mean we were relatively prosperous so no worrys there, the
whole country was ***** at clinton, the dem handlers had gore
evolving his personna every day, bush had a short record but promised
the moon and unity plus he claimed to be a republican, which until
recently meant lower taxes, less government and less govt intervention,
less spending, etc. and at that point lowered taxes plus less govt
spending - FINALLY supply side might have had a winner.
and historically at least in our lifetime, we're had presidents who were
statesmen - pretty much all of them, except maybe johnson and bush
puking on the japanese president. you could count on these guys to
wow'em abroad, at least for a couple of months anyway. even our least
credible president in recent history was a brilliant world leader and
master diplomat. he and the evil kissinger introduced the chinese to a
philosophy of a little bit of capitalism brightening their day.
so to me it's easy to see why you would be undecided. I was pretty
lukewarm myself.
but this year the differences are so incredibly clear that it's
astonishing to me that anyone would be on a fence at this point. okay.
but this is the last debate. after this it's all rhetoric. tonight
should settle the undecideds finally.
after this weekend, given the spin, the analysis, the talking to wives
and husbands, if they're STILL undecided I'm all for the sunday times
treatment.
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Justice Cow" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 02:58:29 PM |
|
|
In article <jmpqm0to6ka8t157ed5u406musg6aavb32@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:44:13 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
In article <9unqm09q25q2njau6ln56t31m61653jjhq@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:15:08 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
Here's something else to think about. Whatever your opinion may be of
me, I considered myself a *decided* voter in 2000. I went to vote,
and at the very last conceivable minute, I changed my mind about who I
was voting for.
It's quite possible that this could happen to a lot of people. Of
course, I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat.
well way back in 2000 when the sky was blue, it was easy to be
undecided. I mean we were relatively prosperous so no worrys there, the
whole country was ***** at clinton, the dem handlers had gore
evolving his personna every day, bush had a short record but promised
the moon and unity plus he claimed to be a republican, which until
recently meant lower taxes, less government and less govt intervention,
less spending, etc. and at that point lowered taxes plus less govt
spending - FINALLY supply side might have had a winner.
and historically at least in our lifetime, we're had presidents who were
statesmen - pretty much all of them, except maybe johnson and bush
puking on the japanese president. you could count on these guys to
wow'em abroad, at least for a couple of months anyway. even our least
credible president in recent history was a brilliant world leader and
master diplomat. he and the evil kissinger introduced the chinese to a
philosophy of a little bit of capitalism brightening their day.
so to me it's easy to see why you would be undecided. I was pretty
lukewarm myself.
but this year the differences are so incredibly clear that it's
astonishing to me that anyone would be on a fence at this point. okay.
but this is the last debate. after this it's all rhetoric. tonight
should settle the undecideds finally.
after this weekend, given the spin, the analysis, the talking to wives
and husbands, if they're STILL undecided I'm all for the sunday times
treatment.
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
yup.
I saw him last weekend on wash journal. he looks like hell. did he
have a stroke? the left side of his face appears to have fallen. I
hope he's okay..
--
http://tinyurl.com/6t6c3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Barnett" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 03:01:29 PM |
|
|
Justice Cow wrote:
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
yup.
I saw him last weekend on wash journal. he looks like hell. did he
have a stroke? the left side of his face appears to have fallen. I
hope he's okay..
He appears to be in the early Alzheimers stage. He keeps waving his old
books and misc papers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Justice Cow" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 03:06:44 PM |
|
|
In article <10mr2cqdieu3hf8@corp.supernews.com>,
Bob Barnett <bob.barnett@charter.net> wrote:
Justice Cow wrote:
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
yup.
I saw him last weekend on wash journal. he looks like hell. did he
have a stroke? the left side of his face appears to have fallen. I
hope he's okay..
He appears to be in the early Alzheimers stage. He keeps waving his old
books and misc papers.
poor *****. I was pissed at him until I saw him saturday. he was
more rumpled than his suit.
--
http://tinyurl.com/6t6c3
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 06:03:40 PM |
|
|
Justice Cow wrote:
In article <10mr2cqdieu3hf8@corp.supernews.com>,
Bob Barnett <bob.barnett@charter.net> wrote:
Justice Cow wrote:
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
yup.
I saw him last weekend on wash journal. he looks like hell. did he
have a stroke? the left side of his face appears to have fallen. I
hope he's okay..
He appears to be in the early Alzheimers stage. He keeps waving his old
books and misc papers.
poor *****. I was pissed at him until I saw him saturday. he was
more rumpled than his suit.
The "rumpled" one in the "early Alzheimers stage" still makes a lot more sense
than the 'swaggering' Bush or the 'me too' Kerry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 03:03:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:58:29 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
In article <jmpqm0to6ka8t157ed5u406musg6aavb32@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:44:13 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
In article <9unqm09q25q2njau6ln56t31m61653jjhq@4ax.com>,
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:15:08 -0400, Justice Cow
<justicecow@hotmail.cow> puked:
I appreciate your efforts but I have a feeling the handwritings on the
wall. people are going to be watching tonight to see their candidate
destroy the other.
undecideds should be beaten about the head with a rolled up sunday ny
times all day election day.
Here's something else to think about. Whatever your opinion may be of
me, I considered myself a *decided* voter in 2000. I went to vote,
and at the very last conceivable minute, I changed my mind about who I
was voting for.
It's quite possible that this could happen to a lot of people. Of
course, I didn't switch from Republican to Democrat.
well way back in 2000 when the sky was blue, it was easy to be
undecided. I mean we were relatively prosperous so no worrys there, the
whole country was ***** at clinton, the dem handlers had gore
evolving his personna every day, bush had a short record but promised
the moon and unity plus he claimed to be a republican, which until
recently meant lower taxes, less government and less govt intervention,
less spending, etc. and at that point lowered taxes plus less govt
spending - FINALLY supply side might have had a winner.
and historically at least in our lifetime, we're had presidents who were
statesmen - pretty much all of them, except maybe johnson and bush
puking on the japanese president. you could count on these guys to
wow'em abroad, at least for a couple of months anyway. even our least
credible president in recent history was a brilliant world leader and
master diplomat. he and the evil kissinger introduced the chinese to a
philosophy of a little bit of capitalism brightening their day.
so to me it's easy to see why you would be undecided. I was pretty
lukewarm myself.
but this year the differences are so incredibly clear that it's
astonishing to me that anyone would be on a fence at this point. okay.
but this is the last debate. after this it's all rhetoric. tonight
should settle the undecideds finally.
after this weekend, given the spin, the analysis, the talking to wives
and husbands, if they're STILL undecided I'm all for the sunday times
treatment.
Is Nader on the ticket in your state?
yup.
I saw him last weekend on wash journal. he looks like hell. did he
have a stroke? the left side of his face appears to have fallen. I
hope he's okay..
He got run over by a Corvair...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doorman" |
|
| Title: The vile spewers of mindless blather thread |
14 Oct 2004 04:29:34 PM |
|
|
If you are a fellow American patriot and lover of the First Amendment, then
by these presents greetings. It is good that you seek rational and
democratic discussion of the great and urgent issues facing our nation.
Unfortunately, I think you've come to the wrong place. See the bottom of
this post for additional evidence--but this entire enormous thread is
dedicated to the display of the freshest original parts of such disruptive
anti-democratic tripe. With the witless assistance of the Bushevik trolls,
it only took a short time to build this "tower of babble".
Especially if you remember the old days of rational discussion in the
newsgroups, this triumph of noise over signal may sadden you. Hyde Park of
the world and cheap advertising are all that remain.
However, there are still alternatives. For example, there are many moderated
forums on the Internet where civil discussions and real conversations can be
found. Even better if you can build bridges to real people in the physical
world. For example, you could treat a rational RINO to a movie--like
Fahrenheit 9/11. Lots of good books still being published, or you could
write a letter to the editor for your local paper--you'll reach more real
people and have more impact than here. Or you could donate to the political
campaigns--I confess I've already made six donations. Just remember that big
money is harming democracy, that BushCo has more money than anyone, and that
if money alone decides elections then the American republic is already dead.
Last, but MOST important: VOTE! Your nation needs you NOW!
On the other hand, if you are a Bushevik troll, then in the immortal
floor-of-the-Senate words of the unloved ***** Cheney: "Go ***** yourself."
That mentality goes a long way towards explaining blather like this:
lab~rat <chase@cheese.net> wrote:
<old stuff snip>
He got run over by a Corvair...
--
We don't know if 9/11 could have been stopped--but we do know Dubya
failed to stop it. That's the FACT.
You want steady leadership for disastrous change?
Attack, lie, spin. Dubya's REAL trifecta.
Trolls fed to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".
('Doorman' is a role-based pen name of Shannon Jacobs, copyright
2004.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ellen Howie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 12:28:47 PM |
|
|
Krugman is a fucking liar
"Steward" <ADS@ww.com> wrote in message
news:fnhqm0d7aqqlbjmfnlddsp1oatrpp4b0bk@4ax.com...
New York Times | October 12, 2004
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly
desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions
you'll hear, and the truth about each:
Jobs
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting
stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam,
when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the
course.
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the
economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up
with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news
than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did
little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country
needs and the number actually available.
Unemployment
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from
its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't
rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without
jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of
the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the
fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work
- has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January
2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
The deficit
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts
caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
The tax cuts
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third
went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1
million.
The Kerry tax plan
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes
on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be
affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the
administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that
in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber
company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently
forgot about it.
Fiscal responsibility
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new
spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent
estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the
Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the
cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess
of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
Spending
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense
discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number
is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to
have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with
reality.
Health care
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions
away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which
works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have
health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic
medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would
do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying
that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers
things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's
the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government
employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200
billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so
far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80
billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using
loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest.
He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success.
Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies
and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 03:21:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:28:47 -0400, "Ellen Howie" <howieinc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Krugman is a fucking liar
cite, or be mocked.
"Steward" <ADS@ww.com> wrote in message
news:fnhqm0d7aqqlbjmfnlddsp1oatrpp4b0bk@4ax.com...
New York Times | October 12, 2004
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly
desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions
you'll hear, and the truth about each:
Jobs
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer
of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting
stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam,
when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the
course.
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the
economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up
with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news
than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did
little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country
needs and the number actually available.
Unemployment
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from
its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't
rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without
jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of
the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the
fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work
- has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January
2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
The deficit
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts
caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
The tax cuts
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts
went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third
went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1
million.
The Kerry tax plan
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes
on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be
affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the
administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that
in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber
company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently
forgot about it.
Fiscal responsibility
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new
spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent
estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the
Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the
cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess
of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
Spending
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense
discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number
is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to
have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with
reality.
Health care
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions
away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which
works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have
health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic
medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would
do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying
that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers
things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's
the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government
employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200
billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so
far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80
billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using
loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest.
He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success.
Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies
and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pookie" |
|
| Title: Re: Debate: Checking the Facts, in Advance |
13 Oct 2004 04:18:40 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:416d8d70.455073406@news-west.newscene.com...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:28:47 -0400, "Ellen Howie" <howieinc@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Krugman is a fucking liar
cite, or be mocked.
October 13, 2004, 9:36 a.m.
Bush Truths, Krugman Lies
A point-by-point analysis of Kerry's October 13 debate cheat sheet.
Paul Krugman's New York Times column Tuesday is nothing more than a list of
things he thinks George W. Bush will say in the final presidential debate
tonight against John Kerry. Krugman calls all these things "lies or
distortions." In fact, they are perfectly true. Krugman's column amounts
to - literally - a cheat-sheet for Kerry, to help him counter Bush truths
with Krugman lies.
Let's take this point by point (indented text represents quotations from the
column).
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of
2003 .
Actually, President Bush could make an even bigger claim. According to the
establishment (or payroll) survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2
million jobs have been created since the summer of 2003. The official
statistics show that 1.8 million jobs (not 1.7 million) have been created,
with the BLS announcing on October 8 that it expects to revise the jobs
numbers upward by 236,000 at next February's annual "rebenchmarking."
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a
decline in payroll employment.
Note that Krugman says "payroll employment" rather than just "employment."
Indeed, payroll jobs are down 821,000 since Bush took office (or down
585,000 if you include the BLS's expected upward revision). But overall
jobs - including self-employment, employment by small companies, and
partnerships without official payrolls - are up 1.6 million, according to
the BLS's household survey. Not bad for the first president since Herbert
Hoover to take the reins just when an historic stock market bubble was about
to burst. Not bad for the first president in history to have to deal with a
large-scale terrorist attack on American soil.
John Kerry did Krugman proud in the second presidential debate - he lied
three times about jobs, as I documented last week on my blog. Twice he said
that the U.S. economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush, doubling the
official figure of 821,000 (and tripling the revised figure of 585,000).
Kerry puffed up the number to 1.6 million by only counting private-sector
jobs and arbitrarily excluding those in the public sector. At one point he
even claimed that 1.6 million jobs had been lost since the enactment of the
tax cuts in May 2003.
The third Kerry jobs lie was about his own jobs record (if he can even claim
one at all as a mere junior senator). He said, "We balanced the budget. And
we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created
23 million new jobs at the same time." Sorry, senator, but the number of
jobs created in the surplus years of 1999 and 2000 was actually 5 million.
Krugman, however, does not let himself get concerned with Kerry's lies.
Krugman says, "Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers
nitpickers things to complain about. . Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of
using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct." Apparently
it's just as Krugman once said of Michael Moore - he "tells essential
truths."
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its
June 2003 peak . The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the
population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply
under Mr. Bush .
At 65.9 percent today, it's an absurd exaggeration to say that the labor
force participation rate has "fallen sharply" from where it was when Bush
took office. Back then it was at 67.2 percent. This was at the peak of the
"bubble economy" and just one-tenth of 1 percent away from an all-time high.
As Krugman himself once admitted of Bush's jobs challenge after the bubble
era, "I think you have to say that it's unlikely that Bush who came into
office with a near-full employment economy and a slower-growing population,
is going to be able to exceed that or even match it."
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget
deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused
about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, denies
that the CBO was Krugman's source. Holtz-Eakin says that Krugman's claim may
be indirectly derived from underlying CBO data, but that the "CBO does not
decompose 'causes' of any deficit estimate. The calculation is Mr. Krugman'
s." This makes the second time in a week that Krugman has lied about his
source for this claim. No doubt what Krugman has done (or what someone at
the Kerry campaign did, and Krugman uncritically parroted) is add up
Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation forecasts of the revenue effects
of Bush's tax cuts, forecasts made back in 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the tax
cuts of those years. Sure enough, these total $272 billion (last week
Krugman said the number was "more than $270 billion"), which is 66 percent
of the latest estimate of the 2004 deficit of $415 billion.
CBO, JCT - it hardly matters. What's important is that when Krugman pieces
together old forecasts and calls them estimates of what's going on today,
the results are wildly exaggerated. This is because past forecasts of the
revenue losses from Bush's tax cuts have all turned out to be wrong. The
"Budget and Economic Outlook," published by the CBO in August 2003 after the
large 2003 tax cuts had been enacted (and yes, this one really is from CBO),
forecasted that personal income-tax revenues in 2004 would be $765 billion -
actually lower than they had been in 2002. In the latest "Monthly Budget
Review," published last week, the CBO estimates that 2004 income-tax
revenues will be $810 billion. At the same time, corporate and social tax
revenues - buoyed by the same strong economic recovery, are now estimated to
be, respectively, $189 billion (versus a $161 billion forecast last year)
and $753 billion (up from a $734 billion forecast). A new report from the
American Shareholder Association documents all this and more in great
detail.
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax
cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went
to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the
top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.
Well, Kerry did oppose middle-class tax cuts. He voted against the expansion
of the 10 percent tax bracket, the increased refundable child tax credit,
and marriage penalty relief. And though Bush's tax cuts did indeed benefit
the wealthy - the people who pay the overwhelming majority of income taxes
to begin with - CBO numbers prove that the middle class benefited
disproportionately. As I showed in a National Review Online column in
August, effective income-tax rates have fallen for all taxpayers - and the
wealthiest taxpayers now pay a larger proportion of overall taxes than they
did before any of Bush's tax cuts were enacted.
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on
many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected.
False support for this false claim comes from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy
Center (a source for tax statistics of which Krugman once said "the
orientation is Democratic ... but the work is impeccable"). A table on the
TPC's website shows that 71,000 small businesses with employees - about 4
percent of the total - would face a tax increase under Kerry's plan. Yet the
TPC admitted in an e-mail alert to its subscribers that its estimate
excluded S-corporations and partnerships. When those small businesses are
taken into account, " | | | |
