Round 3

[lynn]

This should make for more interesting viewing. Paul Krugman was kind enough to provide a primer.

Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: October 12, 2004

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.


E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

[patricia]

I'm facinated by Mr Bush's all-purpose answer to anyone who questions the sheer volume of the deficit. He parrots the line, "We're at war", raising his voice to a shrill level.
I always want to say that the deficit was directly caused by his launching a war on flimsy, unsubstantiated intelligence, that has plunged the world into the chaos that it's in now. Then, he gave huge tax cuts to the corporations which put him in the White House.
He has also created a banner year for companies whose product is either directly, or indirectly war-related, coincidently, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Raetheon and Bechtel, among others. The money is flowing like water to them, in gratitude for their support, or former partnership with either Mr Cheney, or Mr Bush.
Although they regret the death and suffering caused by the unnecessary war and it's attendant misery to the families of the dead, there is a silver lining.
Some people are makin' out like bandits. They used to call that "war profiteering". Now it's called "supporting our troops and the war effort".
Without THE WAR ON TERRORISM, Mr Bush wouldn't have a platform at all.
Take the war away and what else has he accomplished in his term in office??
Right now, Mr Bush would have been a classic Lame Duck President.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by patricia

I'm facinated by Mr Bush's all-purpose answer to anyone who questions the sheer volume of the deficit. He parrots the line, "We're at war", raising his voice to a shrill level.
I always want to say that the deficit was directly caused by his launching a war on flimsy, unsubstantiated intelligence, that has plunged the world into the chaos that it's in now. Then, he gave huge tax cuts to the corporations which put him in the White House.
He has also created a banner year for companies whose product is either directly, or indirectly war-related, coincidently, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Raetheon and Bechtel, among others. The money is flowing like water to them, in gratitude for their support, or former partnership with either Mr Cheney, or Mr Bush.
Although they regret the death and suffering caused by the unnecessary war and it's attendant misery to the families of the dead, there is a silver lining.
Some people are makin' out like bandits. They used to call that "war profiteering". Now it's called "supporting our troops and the war effort".
Without THE WAR ON TERRORISM, Mr Bush wouldn't have a platform at all.
Take the war away and what else has he accomplished in his term in office??
Right now, Mr Bush would have been a classic Lame Duck President.

You really are one of the most intelligent people here, Patricia. I really value what you have to say.

Did you notice how when Bush was asked why there weren't enough troops, he didn't take any responsibility at all? He said, "I looked my generals in the eye and they said 'We have enough troops!'"

What a liar. Kerry's an adult. Bush is a spoiled child. Just because you're 58, doesn't mean you're grown up.

[patricia]

It just seems pretty cut and dried to me, RBS.
This rollercoaster started to careen out of control as soon as Mr Bush and his administration used 9/11 as the reason to segue the world-wide support of their bombing of Afghanistan into this debacle in Iraq.
I can only think that the assumption was made that the world didn't know that they are two different countries, one, Afghanistan, harbouring bin Laden, the architect of 9/11 and the other, Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. If a co-conspirater was to be singled out, it should logically have been Saudi Arabia, where fifteen of the nineteen terrorists were citizens.
Why Iraq?? You tell me.

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by patricia

I'm facinated by Mr Bush's all-purpose answer to anyone who questions the sheer volume of the deficit. He parrots the line, "We're at war", raising his voice to a shrill level.
I always want to say that the deficit was directly caused by his launching a war on flimsy, unsubstantiated intelligence, that has plunged the world into the chaos that it's in now. Then, he gave huge tax cuts to the corporations which put him in the White House.

[Gentle Giant]

Hey, come on, getting the facts right IS HARD WORK!

As much as Bush has failed in the foreign policy department, there are still many people who don't want to change the proverbial horse in midstream. But with this debate focusing on domestic issues, Bush is clearly very vulnerable. If I were Kerry, I wouldn't focus on soft stuff like the environment where he'd just be preaching to the choir, but go after the meat and potatoes issues that the Undecideds can be swayed on: jobs, health care, education, civil rights, etc.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Hey, come on, getting the facts right IS HARD WORK!

As much as Bush has failed in the foreign policy department, there are still many people who don't want to change the proverbial horse in midstream. But with this debate focusing on domestic issues, Bush is clearly very vulnerable. If I were Kerry, I wouldn't focus on soft stuff like the environment where he'd just be preaching to the choir, but go after the meat and potatoes issues that the Undecideds can be swayed on: jobs, health care, education, civil rights, etc.

I know that you are right, GG, but the WAR is the only leg on Bush's platform that seems to rally the public's admiration of his leadership ability, tapping their patriotism. Mr Bush has almost made it mandatory to support his Presidency on the basis of a situation which was one of his manufacture. Whatever the subject, as we have seen since Sept 11, Mr Bush himself manages to relate it to his "War On Terror".
It reminds me of a friend of my mother's, years ago, who was so jazzed by her trip to Czechoslavakia that, no matter what the subject she could be counted on to say, "That reminds me of my trip to Czechoslavakia..........." It became a standing joke to my mother's circle of friends.
Mr Bush's WAR is no joke and need never have been launched, but, now that it has been, the question becomes how to get the hell out of Iraq with just a modicum of honour.
I think that the American people should give Mr Kerry a chance, since Mr Bush has failed so miserably, both to only use war as a last resort and to manage the domestic problems, so serious now.
A net loss of jobs is nothing to be proud of, though Mr Bush seems to think it is.
A rise in medical and prescription costs is nothing to be proud of, though Mr Bush seems to think it is.
A dramatic loss of respect for the U.S. by the global community is tragic, after decades of diplomacy. Mr Bush seems unconcerned about the U.S.'s loss of any connection to the other world powers.
Mr Bush has become a figure of fun at best and a horrible example of the ability of absolute power to corrupt absolutely at worst.
Re-appoint him to a second term and the best you can expect is more of the same bad decisions he has made in the last three and a half years. The worst is an escalation of the war mentality and utter chaos.
It's up to you.

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

As much as Bush has failed in the foreign policy department, there are still many people who don't want to change the proverbial horse in midstream.

[patricia]

Exactly.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by lynn

Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: October 12, 2004

It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow.

Paul Krugman never comes off as desperate, I guess. Despite everytime I look at the beedy eyed motherfucker on TV and it looks like he's desperate to bite his way out of his own face.

[lynn]

Do you mean Paul Krugman? Sounds more like G.W.B. in the debates.

[Monte Smith]

No, I mean Krugman. Check him out during any appearance. He can be interviewed by no less friendly an interviewer than Charlie Rose and look like he's on a box at Abu Grahib.

[patricia]

Speaking of Abu Ghraib, Monte, it's interesting that the news of those atrocities has now faded from the news, despite their horrificness. However, the film, Fahrenheit 9/11 has now been released on DVD and has sold over TWO MILLION copies in it's first week. So, a whole new batch of people will have seen it now and become angered. Add to that, those on the northern border states, [like you] who have access to CBC Newsworld. They will be able to see an excellent documentary called "The War According To Bush" on Sunday evening on The Passionate Eye.
Just this evening The Fifth Estate, another CBC Newsworld news series ran a documentary about Dick Cheney and his continued involvement with his old company, Halliburton. His separation package from his old company is dependent, largely on the profits of their ventures. Big business being done in Iraq now. A connection? You tell me.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by patricia

His separation package from his old company is dependent, largely on the profits of their ventures. Big business being done in Iraq now.

I think your further researches will show you to be completely wrong on this point, patricia.

[lynn]

Kerry trumps Bush with Mom in final question. Can't beat Mom.

Nailed him on the hard issues too. Bush is a boob.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I think your further researches will show you to be completely wrong on this point, patricia.

And even further research will show you that YOU are wrong, Monte.
Part of Mr Cheney's remittance from Halliburton, for his five years service with them, not all, but part, depends on what Halliburton's profits are.
Would you like my source??

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by patricia

Would you like my source??

Lemme guess. A respected and established Canadian TV news magazine.

Are you aware that Halliburton is losing money on their Iraq contract, that their subsidiary, BKR, is close to bankruptcy, and that the contracts for war work were floated to other global construction/logistic conglomerates (like for esample SKANSKA) and that the work was turned down outright as unprofitable and dangerous?

[lynn]

So what does that have to do with thier top executives making millions on the deals? Geez Monte, their incomes are not performanced based.

[Monte Smith]

Cheney is not a Halliburton exec, and contrary to what patricia says, his chips have been cashed out.

Now, do Halliburton executives make a lot of money? I am sure they do. Halliburton is the only company in the world capable of doing the job that they do on their scale. But they have put their ass on the line in Iraq and far from being condemned for that...if you knew what Halliburton does and who they are, you would thank God for them. But you don't and you aren't curious, far less curious even then you are generous.

Game over, baby!

I love it when the lightweights challenge the Montster.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally Posted by lynn

Kerry trumps Bush with Mom in final question. Can't beat Mom.

Nailed him on the hard issues too. Bush is a boob.

I thought this was Bush's worst performance. Granted, the first debate was poor but at least he had his war drum to hit over and over. On domestic issues he's got next to nothing and it showed. Kerry has maintained a good showing in each debate. My gut tells me he's got the edge.

[lynn]

I agree, Kerry was sound on Health Care, Social Security, Border Security, Jobs, you name it, he out flanked Bush'e weak defenses with ease. He also rebutted hard on Bush to the point that Bush was sometimes at a real loss.

I was listening to C-Span after the debate for the call ins and it was really scary how many folks couldn't tell that Bush was skirting most of the issues.

Kerry 3 Bush 0

To answer Monte, you need to check factcheck there fella, because Cheney is due another installment of compensation from Haliburton that was defered. He may as well still be on the payroll.

[Brian Olewnick]

Not as one-sided as the first, but I thought Kerry was a fairly clear winner. 2-0-1 for Kerry.

[bluenoter]

Most depressing moment for me: an after-debate interview with DC-area "undecided" voters in which a 30-something woman said that the debate had tipped her toward Bush because he's "cuter."

Aaaaaaagh! And that was in the DC area!

[Root Doctor]

Bush was in full Beavis mode last night (insane grin, dimwitted chortling, vague responses), while Kerry came off as Judd for the defense. He was clearly the winner. I loved disingenous dweeb David Brooks' spin on PBS, who, despite looking like he'd just suffered a major death in the family, felt that Kerry was the sharper debater but that Bush "connected" more with the regular guy. What exactly are the characteristics of this regular guy that wealthy, Ivy-educated Neocons always talk about? That he's incapable of understanding crisp argument? That he's more impressed by a candidate who sounds like English is his fifth language? That he believes that God will guide us to victory in Iraq and that planning and diplomacy don't matter? What a bunch of despicable, condescending crap.

[Jason Bivins]

Wow, that's dark, Rita. I am trying to remain optimistic, and accounts of the huge increases in new voter registration leave me feeling positive (and they could totally skew all the polls), but my gut still gets knotted up when I remember how confident I felt in 2000.

One thing we thought Kerry could have done better is, in reponse to Shrub's repeated "His rhetoric doesn't match his record" (and am I the only one who thinks he's got these phrases jotted down like a quarterback has plays written on his forearm?), say "Well, I'm challenging you on your record as President, which is lousy, and you keep changing the subject." He flirted with this tone on a couple of occasions, and scored some direct hits (minimum wage, for example, to which Bush gave an appalling-even-for-him response), but I wanted more.

[stonemonkts]

As atrocious as Bush performed last night, I thought Kerry should've done much better. To me he still comes off as a pre-programmed stiff, albeit one with above average debating skills.

He should have flattened Bush on the "What would you say to someone who just lost their job?" reply. Bush fucked that one up ROYALLY, babbling on about community college, etc...

Anyway, I still believe a vote for Bush is equivalent to waving a flag proclaiming yourself a hopeless douchebag.

[lynn]

I agree with you Jason, but I just don't see an outright hostile confrontation of this President as something the Kerry camp wants to do. I don't know why because I think Bush's record is horendous. George Mitchell was on CNN (I think, I was really channel surfing hard) and his comment is that the Bush Administration has had 3 years to totally distort the facts and Kerry is actually making good gains restoring a sense of reality to the issues, especially Iraq. And his momentum is gaining, he has basically blunted the Bush machines efforts to paint him as incompetent on the issues. I'm encouraged but it's not over. Rove actually did an interview on CNN last night. I can't remember the last time I saw him on camera. These guys are pulling out the big guns.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Are you aware that Halliburton is losing money on their Iraq contract, that their subsidiary, BKR, is close to bankruptcy, and that the contracts for war work were floated to other global construction/logistic conglomerates (like for esample SKANSKA) and that the work was turned down outright as unprofitable and dangerous?

Why is Halliburton losing money on their Iraq contract, Monte? And why is BKR close to bankruptcy?