Bush still leads the popular vote polls too. I know you're trying to make yourself feel good, but at the end of the day, I'm confident that the American people will make the right decision and choose George Bush.

 

IF Kerry loses , and I pray every nite he wins, i will still feel good about the whole mess, knowing that i did my best to get Bush out. If nothing else, should he lose i will have won my right to complain.

 

Given your recent posting history, I think you've already won

 

You may not necessarily be wrong, but it seems to me that if you want to convince someone else to see things your way you would be farther ahead to tell people about your candidates qualifications instead of trying to bad mouth or insult the opponent.

 

http://www.communistsforkerry.com

 

Just imagine what might be waiting for us beyond this coming election. Bill Clinton the new Secretary General of the UN in 2006 and Hillary Clinton the President of the USA in 2008.

That is more than enough to give me nightmares.

 

You can panic now and avoid the rush

 

Hang in there Stan! You couldn't be more right!

If any of us can make at least one person understand what a phony sKerry is, bad mouth us all you want.

It still amazes me that some people here don't really like sKerry, but dislike Bush. It's too bad they can't get by their personality hang up and see that Bush is the only one of the two that can lead America in the right direction.

GET OFF OF THE "I HATE BUSH" MENTALITY AND WAKE UP BEFORE YOU GET WHAT YOU ASKED FOR!!!!!

 

A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts.

October 23, 2004
Modified:October 23, 2004
Summary



A new Bush ad claims Kerry supported cuts in intelligence “so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses” against terrorists, and shows a pack of hungry-looking wolves preparing to attack. Actually, the cut Kerry proposed in 1994 amounted to less than 4 percent, as part of a proposal to cut many programs to reduce the deficit.

And in 1995 Porter Goss, who is now Bush’s CIA Director, co-sponsored an even strong deficit-elimination measure that would have cut CIA personnel by 20 percent over five years. When asked about that at his confirmation hearings he didn't disavow it.


Analysis



The Bush ad released Oct. 22 is called “wolves,” and is a direct appeal to fear.

Bush Cheney ‘04

“Wolves”

Announcer: In an increasingly dangerous world… Even after the first terrorist attack on America … John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations. By 6 billion dollars… Cuts so deep they would have weakened America ’s defenses. And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm..

(On Screen: Several wolves eye the camera, as if preparing to attack.)

Bush: I’m George W Bush and I approve this message.

Speak Softly But
Use Scary Words and Pictures

Using a soft-spoken female announcer to deliver the harsh message, the ad shows blurry images of a dark forest and a pack of hungry-looking wolves eying the camera and apparently contemplating an attack.

The announcer says that “after the first terrorist attack on America ” Kerry “voted to slash America ’s intelligence operations.” The ad is misleading in several ways, some of which we went over last March when President Bush first accused Kerry of trying to “gut” the intelligence budget.

Here are the ways this ad misleads voters:

•Old news: The “first terrorist attack” the ad refers to didn't happen September 11, 2001, as some listeners assume. It actually was more than a decade ago, in 1993, when a truck bomb went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers. In fact, Kerry was supporting regular increases in intelligence spending for several years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

•Exaggerated Wording: Kerry never proposed a single $6-billion cut in intelligence spending. He did propose S.1826 (see "supporting documents" at right) which included a $1-billion cut in 1994. That measure also would have frozen intelligence spending at that reduced level through 1998, allowing it to rise only by the rate of inflation. That could fairly be called a $5-billion cut spread over five years.

Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.

The following year Kerry introduced another deficit-reduction package, S.1290 (see "supporting documents, at right). This one would have lowered the ceiling for intelligence spending by $300 million for five years starting in 1996. That would have amounted to a reduction of just over 1 percent of estimated intelligence spending.

Not only was this proposed reduction a small one, it came at a time when it had just become known that one intelligence agency had been hoarding $1 billion in unspent funds from its secret appropriations. Kerry's proposal died without a hearing, but a similar Republican-sponsored measure eventually became law (see below).

Saying that either of these proposals would “slash” spending is an exaggeration. Saying that a 4 percent or 1 percent cut would have “weakened America ’s defenses” is an opinion which the Bush campaign has a perfect right to state, but it is not a fact.

•Missing Context: The ad doesn’t tell the whole story. Some Republicans also supported similar cuts in intelligence spending at the time, including Bush’s current CIA Director Porter Goss.

Goss co-sponsored a draconian, deficit-elimination bill in 1995 (see "supporting documents" at right) that would have cut the number of CIA employees by 20 percent or more over five years. Goss wasn't the main author -- he signed onto an 1,188-page bill authored by Gerald Solomon, the chairman of the House Rules Committee, of which Goss was a member. The measure died without a hearing and had no prospect of passage, as it called for elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce among other things. When questioned about his co-sponsorship of the bill during his confirmation hearings in September Goss said only, "the record speaks for the record."

Another Republican-sponsored cut similar to Kerry's proposed 1995 measure actually became law. On the same day Kerry proposed his $1.5-billion cut spread over five years, the Senate passed by voice vote an amendment to eliminate $1 billion in intelligence funds for fiscal year 1996. That measure was proposed by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. and a companion measure was co-sponsored by Kerry and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The cut eventually became law as part of a House-Senate package endorsed by the Republican leadership. Specter explained at the time that the $1-billion cut was intended to recapture funds that had been appropriated for spy satellites, but which had gone unspent by the National Reconnaissance Office.

 

I hope no one here is dumb enough not to know that BOTH sides have played the spin on THEIR interputation of the facts.

This site cold be completely bogged down on who said what about who.

Go back 20 years and see who has the best record. And no, I won't do it for you. I took the time to do it and sided with Bush. Anyone who takes the time to do a REAL comparison will see that Bush is genuine and sKerry has a record of doing nearly nothing.

george and cheryle,
Did you get your cut and paste from FactCheck? If you did, did you read the other articles? Did you see how petty most of sKerry's work has been?

 

Two Bush ads full of misleading and false statements ran more than 9,000 times in 45 cities last week.

October 21, 2004
Modified:October 21, 2004
Summary



Two misleading Bush ads accusing Kerry of supporting tax increases on gasoline and middle-class parents were running heavily last week. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence, which tracks TV ads in the top 100 markets, the two Bush ads accounted for nearly half of the estimated $16 million spent by Bush and the Republican National Committee during that week alone.

Both ads repeat claims we've repeatedly disputed here. They both attempt to portray Kerry as eager to raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers, which Kerry has said consistently he won't do. One ad characterizes Kerry's votes against proposed tax cuts as votes to "raise taxes," an outright falsehood.


Analysis



A Bush ad called "Thinking Mom" ran at saturation levels last week in 42 cities at an estimated cost of $2.5 million. A parallel ad called "Clockwork" ran even more heavily, in 44 cities at an estimated cost of $5.4 million. Together the two ads aired 9,118 times on stations monitored by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG.




Bush-Cheney '04 Ad "Thinking Mom"

Announcer: And we'll be checking traffic on . . .

Woman: 5:30, gotta get groceries, we're gonna be late.

Announcer: John Kerry and the liberals in Congress have voted to raise gas taxes ten times.

Woman: Ten times? Gas prices are high enough already.

Announcer: They've also raised taxes on senior's Social Security benefits. And raised taxes on middle class parents 18 times. No relief there from the Marriage Penalty.

Woman: More taxes because I'm married? What were they thinking?

Announcer: . . . 350 times. Higher taxes from the liberals in Congress and John Kerry.

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Two Ads, Several Distortions

Both ads make statements about Kerry that are misleading or downright false on several counts:

Gasoline taxes: It's false to say Kerry voted "to raise gas taxes ten times" as stated in the "Thinking Mom" ad. Even the Bush campaign's own list of votes doesn't back that up. There has been only one increase -- more than a decade ago -- when the federal gasoline tax went up just over four cents per gallon as part of Clinton's 1993 package of tax increases and spending cuts.

The Bush campaign lists ten votes Kerry cast, five of them on the measure that resulted in that 1993 increase. Four others were against Republican proposals to repeal that same 4.3-cent increase after it was already in place -- so it's false to say those were votes to "raise" the tax. The same goes for the tenth vote, which was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline gas tax altogether during a spike in prices in 2000.

Social Security benefits: Kerry did vote to increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to taxation, as stated in both ads, but not for all seniors. That was also as a part of the 1993 Clinton economic package. The increase was only for those with over $44,000 a year for a married couple. That increase currently affects just over 8 million taxpayers, a fraction of the 47 million who get Social Security benefits. And all the proceeds from the increase go to shore up the Medicare Trust Fund, something the ad fails to mention.


Bush Ad "Clockwork"

Announcer: They voted to raise our gas taxes ten times. And raised taxes on Social Security benefits. Higher taxes on middle class parents 18 times. John Kerry and the liberals in Congress's record on the economy: higher taxes 350 times. An average of once every three weeks for 20 years. Like clockwork. John Kerry and the liberals in Congress on the economy. Troubling.

Bush: I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Middle Class Parents: Another falsehood in the "Mom" ad is the claim that Kerry has "raised taxes on middle-class parents 18 times. No relief there from the marriage penalty." It's true Kerry often opposed Republican proposals in the past, usually on grounds that they granted more relief to upper-income taxpayers than he would like. And some of those proposals included giving married couples a break, as well as granting or increasing tax credits for dependent children. But those votes wouldn't have resulted in raising taxes above what they were at the time.

Furthermore, during the Democratic primary contests Kerry fiercely defended keeping the so-called "marriage penalty" relief and increased child tax credits when other Democratic candidates would have repealed them along with the rest of Bush's cuts. Kerry also would retain Bush's lower rates for low- and middle-income taxpayers.

Kerry said consistently he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year. In an interview on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer Kerry stated:

Kerry: I don't want to roll back the marriage penalty, I don't want to roll back the child-care (sic) credit, I don't want to punish people who got a $300 break at the 10 percent and 15 percent (rate), so I don't take that back.

That was more than a year ago -- July 14, 2003 -- and Kerry's position hasn't changed since.

The "Clockwork" ad falls short of an outright falsehood on this point. It says Kerry supported "higher taxes on middle class parents 18 times." Bush officials argue that voting against a tax cut is voting for "higher" taxes -- meaning higher than the alternative, not higher than people are actually paying. Still, we find the "Clockwork" ad to be misleading.

350 times: Both these ads repeat the misleading claim that Kerry has voted for "higher taxes" 350 times. See our original article from last March for details on why that's wrong.

 

Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits
It's not Bush's plan, and it wouldn't cut benefits.

October 18, 2004
Modified: October 18, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A Kerry ad claims "Bush has a plan to cut Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent." That's false. Bush has proposed no such plan, and the proposal Kerry refers to would only slow down the growth of benefits, and only for future retirees. It was one of three possible "reform models" detailed by a bipartisan commission in 2001.

The ad also says nothing about what Kerry would do to address the troubled state of Social Security finances. Unless taxes are increased, the system's trustees say currently scheduled benefits would have to be cut 32%.


Analysis



This misleading ad, released Oct. 17, is one of a very few attempts made by either side to discuss the troubled state of the Social Security system. It's an issue that will confront the winner of this campaign when the first of the post-World-War II Baby Boom generation reaches early-retirement age in 2008.


Kerry Ad

"January Surprise"

Announcer : The truth is coming out. . . George Bush has finally admitted he intends to privatize social security in a second term. "I'm going to come out strong after my first swearing in," Bush said, "with. . .privatizing social security." First George Bush threatens social security with record deficits of over $400 billion. Now Bush has a plan to cut social security benefits by 30 to 45 %. The real Bush agenda? Cutting social security.

"The Truth is Coming Out"

The Kerry ad starts by saying "the truth is coming out," and then proceeds to misinform voters by saying "Bush has a plan to cut Social Security benefits by 30 to 45 percent."

It's a familiar campaign ploy, similar to the tactic used by Bill Clinton in 1996, when his ads accused Bob Dole of supporting a $270 billion "cut" in Medicare. In fact, what Dole supported was a slowdown in the projected growth of Medicare spending, at a time when Clinton himself was proposing a $124-billion reduction (without, of course, calling his own plan a "cut.")



The Kerry ad is wrong on several counts:

•Bush hasn't proposed any specific plan . This ad refers to one of three different possible "reform models" that were detailed in the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security in December 2001. Bush hasn't endorsed any of them. He may propose something similar if elected, but so far hasn't spelled out for voters exactly what he has in mind.

•The plan the Kerry ad refers to doesn't affect benefits for current retirees at all, and Bush has said consistently that whatever plan he proposes won't cut benefits for those now drawing them, or those nearing retirement. Stating that Bush plans to "cut Social Security benefits" will be heard by many seniors as a plan to cut their benefits, which isn't true.

•Even for future retirees, benefits will grow under the "reform model" the Kerry ad refers to. That model would reduce the rate at which the starting point for future benefits is expected to grow, by increasing starting benefits to keep pace with rising prices, rather than with rising wages as has been the case since 1977.

The backup for the ad provided by the Kerry campaign cites a study issued in July by the Congressional Budget Office of "plan 2" contained in the final report of the bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. The commission was co-chaired by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and by Richard D. Parsons, who is currently Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Time Warner Inc.

The commission stated that all three of the possible "reform models" it examined would allow for increases in benefit levels paid to future retirees:

Commission's Final Report: In fact, every Commission Reform Model will increase benefits at least as fast as inflation, ensuring that no future generation of retirees receives less purchasing power than today’s retirees. Hence, fears that benefits will be cut or retirees thrown into poverty are simply false.

The commission said that continuing to peg future benefits to rising wages would require a large payroll tax increase and is "not affordable." Instead the commission proposed to peg future starting benefits to rising prices for two of its model plans:

Commission's Final Report: The current benefit formula increases the starting benefit from year to year at the rate of wage growth, which is generally faster than is required to maintain purchasing power. This rate of benefit growth is not affordable given current system revenues. Fortunately, current payroll tax rates are sufficient to afford benefits that grow at least as fast as inflation.

The "30 to 45 percent" figure in the Kerry ad is from the Congressional Budget Office study and found that "first-year real benefits are projected to remain generally constant." In other words, the starting point of benefits paid to future retirees would be unchanged in terms of purchasing power from those paid currently.

That would be less than the higher rates resulting from continuing current practice, which Congress adopted in 1977 despite warnings that it could not be sustained financially.

The CBO found that under Plan 2, first-year benefits paid to retirees born in the 1980s would be 30 percent lower for middle- and upper-income persons than under a wage-indexed system. (The reduction would be less for low-income persons.) The figure would reach 45 percent only for future retirees born in this decade, most of whom are yet unborn.

So Kerry's ad is incorrect. It would have been accurate to say, "Bush may propose to hold benefits for future retirees constant instead of letting them grow faster than inflation." But that's not nearly as scary.

Private Accounts Don't Require Indexing Change

It should also be noted that creating private Social Security accounts, as Bush proposes, doesn't require substituting price-indexing for wage-indexing. Price-indexing could also be used to hold down the future cost of the current system as well. In either case, wage-indexing propels the starting point of future benefits upward more rapidly, and costs more.

Also, the proposed price-indexing wouldn't affect annual cost-of-living adjustments for retirees once they begin receiving benefits, only the level at which benefits are set in the first year they are paid. After the first year, benefits would continue to be increased yearly to maintain purchasing power.

An Issue Undebated

There are a host of unanswered questions about Bush's intentions regarding Social Security, and the campaign so far hasn't shed much light on any of them. Bush has said he wouldn't increase payroll taxes, but maintaining benefits for current retirees while allowing some portion of current payroll taxes to go into privately owned accounts will cost at least $1 trillion and perhaps much more, depending on what estimates are used. Bush hasn't said where the money would come from.

Kerry, on the other hand, hasn't said how he would preserve the current system. Social Security's finances are unstable, and its trustees stated in the most recent annual report that by the year 2078 it will require a payroll tax increase of nearly 50% to maintain the currently scheduled rise in benefit levels. If taxes are not increased and no other changes are made, benefits would have to be cut 32% that year.


Sources


"New Kerry Ad Exposes Bush’s January Surprise - Social Security Privatization," news release, 17 Oct 2004.

Congressional Budget Office, "Long-Term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security," 21 July 2004, Revised 30 Sep 2004.

President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, " Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans ," final report, 21 Dec 2001.

Brooks Jackson, "Truth Was An Occasional Casualty In Sunday's Debate," CNN.com, 7 Oct 1996.

"2004 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds," 23 March 2004.

 

George W. Bush has the worst record for making jobs in the United States of all the Presidents since the great depression why would we want this clown to over haul Social Security? Where is all the money going to come from to pay for these special funds? You cut the time in a half for over time. You will not raise the minimum wage. You will not stop the Mexicans from coming across the boarder. You cannot bring the jobs back you let go to out sourcing. You let all the rich republicans get away with out paying their fair share in taxes. The national dept is the largest that it has ever been. You do not support unions but you support low wages. Here is how I view the Presidents since 1960.
1.The best President John Kennedy he did more in 2 years to help the American Workers, civil rights, stood up to the Russians in Cuba, and gave the military the largest pay raise in history. Home state MASS.
2. Ronald Regan all around great president, excellent support for the US military, and help bring down the Soviet Union. Home State CA
3. Bill Clinton had the largest growth in the US economy, paid off national dept, and involved United States in Nation Building...Down side got caught getting a JB. Home state AR

Worst US Presidents
1. LB Johnson sent 500,000 troops to Viet Nam with out a plan on how to win the war or to keep the piece. Set up corrupt government and feed the American public false information about US destroyers being attacked by North Viet Nam. Sold US government property, C130 aircraft to company owned by wife Saturn Air lines..... Home State Texas
2. George W. Bush Gave taxes break to the rich in order to in rich his friends. Invade Iraq upon bad information lied to American public about weapons of mass destruction, against clean air, the environment, and workers rights. Lost more jobs than any US President. Highest oil prices and fail to open ANWR even though had control of house and Senate, Failed to allow the State of Alaska to manage their own fish and game, Fail to protect our boarders from mass migration of Mexicans.
3. George H Bush tried to be a world ambassador following in Regan’s foot steps but failed, Set Saddom up by giving him the go ahead to invade Kuwait and the attaching him for doing so, set the Kurds and Iraq's up by telling them that we would free them if they raised up against Saddom he did not honor his word and 10's of thousands of Iraq's where killed, had one of the worst economies on record. When he got beat he asked why...Because of the economy stupid. Home state Texas
4. Jimmy Carter was the do nothing president. He had high inflation and likes to turn the Western States including Alaska into national parks. His brother Billie the drunk would have been a better choice. Home State Georgia
5. Richard Nixon took credit for getting us out of Viet Nam and got caught window peeping on the Democrats. Forced to leave off. Home State CA
6. Gerald Ford did not do any thing. Wife set up clinic for drug users and drunks. Turned her self in as patient. Home State Minn.

In conclusion Mass has produced one of the best president's and Texas produces the worst. So I would recommend that you vote for Kerry. Also note the wolves used in the Kerry ad where imported from Canada as the Republicans in Alaska want to kill off all of the wolves so we can have more moose. Also note they let out 600 cow moose permits this year which proves they do not know any thing about game management either.

 

So, what if there is no Social Security? I don't like the entire system. It seems socialist to me. Americans should be allowed to plan for retirement any way they desire, whether it be through investments or banks or what not. The government should have no say over how free people should spend their money, as Adam Smith says.

I want the president who is going to get rid of Social Security.

 

I was away all day yestereday and come back to find lots of new 'stuff' posted on this theme. Much of what I have read is not based on proper information. Just to take two items, the economy and jobs. Those two subjects alone are enough to caue endless fights and discussions.
I suspect that many of you, (specially the Kerry supporters) are looking at the results of mismangement by previous administrations. You keep on harping about jobs being lost and the 'bad' state of the economy. Have any of you taken taken a serious look at actual numbers, rather than just read sensationist media headlines? Have any of you considered what may have prompted some of the job losses? Losing or gaining jobs and the rising or falling of the economy are not necessary the result of what the current president is doing or not doing. Have any of you taken a really serious look at what the previous watches have done that may have led to the current situations? It boggles my mind to try and understand how some of you in your hatred of Bush can blame him for so many bad things. Come on guys, get real!
So if Bush is currently setting in place things that will improve the economy, increase employment etc, who will get the praise? Obviously by your thinking the next president. Maybe the following article may help to explain things a bit better than I can:

Economists See Improved Economy, Job Market in 2004
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
December 23, 2003

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Economists say they have confidence that the American economy will see its best growth in a decade in 2004, and unemployment will improve dramatically, according to a new survey conducted by USA TODAY.

The results of the USA TODAY survey of 57 economists finds confidence that the stock market will continue to rise well above the 10,000 mark and that business capital spending will play a major role in the improved economy in 2004.

Talon News recently reported that The Conference Board anticipates growth in the gross domestic product to be 5.7 percent in 2004, which would be the highest rate of annual growth in the American economy since the tax cuts signed into law by Reagan in 1984.

Many businesses will begin adding new technology in an effort to modernize and to increase productivity, the survey finds. The increased confidence in the economy by businesses will encourage them to hire more people.

While unemployment in 2003 was a disappointing 6.0 percent, the economists surveyed see that number falling to 5.5 percent in 2004. If that happens, then it would be the lowest unemployment rate since the third quarter of 2001.

Talon News previously reported that jobless claims have fallen below the 350,000 mark as both the economy and job market have shown measurable improvements. In fact, The Conference Board report estimates that more than one million new jobs will be created in 2004 as unemployment drops to 5.6 percent.

Continuing the domino effect, if consumers believe the job market is better, then they will be more likely to spend money in the economy, the survey finds. Three-fourths of the U.S. economy is dependent on consumer spending.

Wayne Ayers, chief economist for FleetBoston Financial, says the signs are there that the economy is performing well above most economist's expectations.

"After a number of false starts over the last couple of years, I think it's pretty clear that now most, if not all, of the sectors of the economy are firing on all cylinders," he told USA TODAY.

As for the historic lows in short-term interest rates, the economists say the Federal Reserve may begin raising them slightly beginning in the second quarter. However, they predict the overall increase in the interest rate in 2004 will be less than one percentage point, ending the year at 1.75 percent.

Interesting, the economists were unanimous in their belief that President George W. Bush will be reelected in 2004 because of the improvements in the economy.

Ayers says the comparison Democrats are making of Bush and his father is invalid since the economic recovery has already begun for the current president well before the election.

"Compare this election year with that of his dad's," Ayers added to USA TODAY. "Arguably, the economy was in the early stages of recovery going into the [1992] election ... but it wasn't very evident at the time."

He added, "Now, we've got enough time between now and the election for [the improved economy] to become more convincing."

The survey of 57 economists was conducted by USA TODAY December 11-17.

On Monday, Talon News reported on the latest Associated Press poll that finds 55 percent of registered voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy. Overall, Bush's approval rating stands at 59 percent.