2003 - A year of accomplishment

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=14674

 

Produced by the Center for American Progress, 12/13/03

 

DRUG COVERAGE

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic legislation the President signed will create a modern Medicare system, providing seniors with prescription drug benefits."

 

FACT: "The new law gives private insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare. Beneficiaries will have to choose a drug insurer without knowing exactly what drugs that insurer will cover. Premiums will be higher in areas with older or sicker seniors." - American Progress Fellow Jeanne Lambrew, 12/4/03

 

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose the drug coverage they currently receive through their former because their employers will drop such coverage when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available." - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/11/03

 

FACT: "[T]he insurance plan would provide little relief for about 3 million people with moderate assets and incomes near the poverty level and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 a year more than they currently spend." - Boston Globe, 11/18/03

 

FACT: "A substantial number of the 6.4 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are eligible for Medicaid and currently receive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid would be made worse off under the Medicare conference agreement." - Center of Budget and Policy Priorities Report, 11/21/03

 

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare." -USA Today, 11/25/03

 

DRUG COSTS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Beneficiaries who lack coverage will cut their yearly drug costs roughly in half, in exchange for an approximately $35 monthly premium. The more than one-third of seniors with low incomes will be eligible for even greater drug savings, paying as little as $1 per prescription."

 

FACT: "nder the new plan, seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006. This figure is nearly 60 percent more than they paid in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation. Expenses are projected to continue to rise so that by 2013 middle-income seniors will be paying more than two and a half times as much for prescription drugs (adjusting for inflation) as they did in 2000." – Ctr.  for Economic and Policy Research, 12/04/03

 

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic Medicare legislation that the President signed included a provision establishing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)...These HSAs will allow more Americans to save for health care needs, and will allow more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage."

 

FACT: The creation of "Health Care Savings Accounts" provides an "incentive to shift more costs to workers, who may be asked to 'match' their employer's contribution to a HSA with its high deductibles and high co-payments." Urban Institute economist Len Burman said HSAs will become "a boon to the healthy and wealthy and a bane" to older, sicker co-workers left to confront higher costs and premiums in traditional health plans. - Scripps Howard News, Scripps Howard, 12/3/03

 

FACT: According to major studies conducted in the past by RAND, the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries, "premiums for comprehensive, employer-based coverage could more than double if such accounts became widespread." - CBPP, 11/18/03

 

ECONOMY

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."

 

FACT: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term." - BLS Data

 

FACT: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. - Economic Policy Institute

 

FACT: "Twenty five major American cities saw a 19% increase in the need for emergency food last year alone." - UK Guardian, 11/3/03

 

FACT: "New jobs created during the 2004-05 period are forecast to pay an average of $35,855, far lower than the $43,629 average pay of those jobs lost between 2001-03." - U.S. Conference of Mayors, 11/10/03

 

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

FACT: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row – the first time in more than 13 years. - Economic Policy Institute

 

DEFICITS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Maintaining Fiscal Discipline: [The President has] continued to restrain spending." [robbie note: HAHAHA]

 

FACT: The House recently passed a massive $373 billion spending bill, laden with pork-barrel spending and controversial provisions as far as the eye could see. "The size of the measure invites abuse. Spending set-asides for home-state projects have grown to extraordinary levels, filling scores of pages in the Congressional Record." President Bush issued a "personal appeal" to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to "push the spending package through the Senate" without changes after the House passed the pork-laden bill." - AP, 12/8/03, 12/5/03, Wall Street Journal 12/3/08

 

FACT: "For the 2003 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government recorded a deficit of $374.8 billion, according to revised figures. In November alone, the deficit swelled to nearly $43 billion." - AP, 12/12/03

 

FACT: "Most observers familiar with the budget outlook, including the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, agree that deficits will become even larger after 2013." – American Progress Senior Economist Christian Weller, 12/12/03

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "91 million taxpayers received, on average, a tax cut of $1,126. Since the President took office, 109 million taxpayers have received, on average, a tax cut of $1,544. Without the fiscal measures implemented under President Bush, there would be as many as 2 million fewer jobs for American workers today."

 

FACT: 80% of taxpayers would receive less than $1,083, and half would receive $100 or less. The handful of millionaires who would get about $90,000 artificially inflates the average. - Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/22/03, CBPP, 5/28/03

 

FACT: 'The economic consulting firm Economy.com found that the tax cuts were responsible for only 13 percent of the growth last quarter  – meaning that we still would have seen GDP growth of about 7 percent without the tax cut." – American Progress Fellow Gene Sperling, 12/11/03

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,209."

 

FACT: "Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than $2,209." Additionally, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." – Urban Inst.-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 1/21/03

 

'HEALTHY FORESTS'

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "As part of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, he signed bipartisan legislation to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws, restoring our nation's forests, and preserving the forest economy."

 

FACT: The Congressional Research service reported that the "Health Forests" bill may actually increase the risk of fire. CRS expert Ross W. Corte said, "Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles" that contributes to fires. - CRS report, 8/22/2000

 

FACT: In fact, the bill was sought by the timber industry "not because they wanted to remove brush and chaparral" which can cause forest fires but because it would "increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight." - CBS News, 12/3/03

 

POWER PLANT EMISSIONS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules on power plant emissions."

 

FACT: "The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." - CBS News, 11/22/02

 

FACT: "More than a dozen state attorneys general yesterday sought to block the federal government from implementing a rule change they argued would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants. Fourteen states, and a number of cities - including New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. - are seeking a court injunction to impede a measure by the Environmental Protection Agency before it goes into effect." - AP, 11/18/03

 

FACT: "The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's civil enforcement office has resigned, complaining the White House is undermining anti-pollution efforts at power plants that violate clean air laws. Eric Schaeffer, a lawyer at the EPA for a dozen years dating from the first Bush administration, said in a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman that the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." - CBS News, 3/1/02

 

MERCURY EMISSIONS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."

 

FACT: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. - CBS News, 11/6/03

 

FACT: "The Administration is proposing to use a provision of the Clean Air Act never before used to regulate toxics and setting a level of reductions for mercury emissions far below what the Clean Air Act toxic provisions would require. Using the [traditional] provisions of the Clean Air Act would achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2008. The Administration’s proposals suggest only a 30% reduction, to the benefit of Coal-fired power plants and utilities." – Former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, 12/4/03

 

EDUCATION

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Parents, teachers, and principals are seeing a positive difference in America's schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is raising standards for students and putting the focus on student achievement."

 

FACT: "The sweeping federal law left cash-strapped states battered and confused in 2003. More nationwide provisions will take effect in 2004, along with the threat of losing millions of dollars for states that don’t pass muster." - Stateline, 12/8/03

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history."

 

FACT: "President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants." - House Appropriations Committee report, 3/10/03

 

CONSUMER PROTECTION

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Enhancing Consumer Credit Protections. The President proposed and signed into law legislation to ensure citizens are treated fairly when they apply for credit. It also addresses the growing problem of identity theft by establishing a nationwide fraud alert system."

 

FACT: "In addition to previous votes that gutted state provisions to prevent financial institutions from sharing customers' information with others, the final version of the bill will roll back states' anti-identity-theft measures." – SF Chronicle, 11/22/03

 

FACT: The Administration proposed new regulations that "would shield national banks from state laws enacted to protect consumers from predatory lending." The regulations were criticized by NY AG Eliot Spitzer as preventing the states from prosecuting "nationally chartered financial services companies for charging outsized fees and interest rates to poor consumers who have bad credit." - Financial Times, 12/11/03

 

VETERANS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Honoring Our Commitment to Veterans: America owes veterans and those on the front lines of freedom a great debt of gratitude."

 

FACT: The Administration is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports “hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors." - Wash Post, 1/17/03, UPI, 10/17/03

 

FACT: “One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help" in President Bush’s tax cut. “More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty." - Children’s Defense Fund, 6/6/03

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush was pleased to sign legislation that resolved the issue of concurrent receipt in a fair and responsible manner."

 

FACT: In the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill, Congress stipulated that veterans with disabilities would no longer have to give up part of the retirement pay they have earned. In other words, they would receive retired pay and disability pay concurrently. Bush threatened to veto the bill if it includes concurrent receipt. - Baltimore Sun, 12/1/02, Wash. Post, 10/7/02

 

AIDS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Leading the Fight Against HIV/AIDS: In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief an historic 5-year, $15 billion effort to turn the tide of the AIDS pandemic. Only 4 months later, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Emergency Plan based on the President's proposal."

 

FACT: President Bush's budget introduced four days after his State of the Union "only sought $2 billion for the year" for AIDS - 33% less than the $3 billion needed to keep his $15-billion-over-5-year pledge. When the Senate voted to increase the President's budget, the White House "repeated its strong opposition to any funding beyond $2 billion." - LA Times, 10/31/03

 

FACT: "President Bush plans to ask Congress for relatively small funding increases to fight AIDS and poverty in the developing world, stepping back from his highly publicized pledge to spend huge sums to help fight them." - WSJ, 12/10/2003

 

INTERNATIONAL FINANCING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."

 

FACT: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." - NY Times, 12/7/03

 

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HELP

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Our mission has broad support from the international community, including troops from 18 out of 25 current and future NATO countries."

 

FACT: While the U.S. has over 160,000 troops in Iraq, the next largest force contingent is Britain, with about 9,000 troops. Additionally, since President Bush asked for more military help in September, not one additional new international soldier has been sent to Iraq. - UK Guardian, 12/12/03

 

WMD

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "We are now learning the full truth about Saddam Hussein's regime: clear evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons program."

 

FACT: “A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." - Reuters, 9/15/03

 

FACT: “We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material...We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort…Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers...Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

 

SADDAM-ALQAEDA TIES

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "[We have found] previously undocumented ties to terror organizations."

 

FACT: The bipartisan September 11th commission report “undercuts Bush Administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." - LA Times, 7/19/03

 

FACT: "Since the fall of Baghdad, coalition forces have not brought to light any significant evidence demonstrating the bond between Iraq and Al Qaeda." - NY Times, 7/20/03

 

FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." - National Journal, 8/9/03

 

MILITARY SUPPORT

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "America and more than 20 allied countries are working to help the Afghan people rebuild their war-torn nation. More than 15 million Afghan citizens have been freed from the brutal zealotry of the Taliban."

 

FACT: The U.N. delegation reported that "insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today." Insecurity is especially a problem in the southern part of the country where "attacks against non-governmental organizations was contributing to the slowing of reconstruction." Throughout the nation "individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders." The problems are exacerbated in many areas of the country "by terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Also of serious concern: "Arbitrary control exercised by local commanders and factional armies [that] has resulted in heavy casualties." - UN Report, 11/11/03

 

FUNDING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The U.S. Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act which authorizes $3.47 billion for Afghanistan over fiscal years 2003-2006."

 

FACT: While President Bush declared a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" in April 2002, the nation has "received only a fraction of the $10.2 billion" that the World Bank said was necessary over the first five years. - Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 10/16/03

 

TERRORIST FINANCING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Treasury Department has frozen over $136 million from over 240 terrorist-related entities."

 

FACT: "Federal authorities do not have a clear understanding of how terrorists move their financial assets and are still struggling to prevent the flow of money to terror groups," according to a new report by the GAO to be released Sunday. - NY Times, 12/12/03

 

FIRST RESPONDERS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Helping State and Local First Responders: The President is continuing to give our nation's first responder and public health system the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future terrorist attack."

 

FACT: "Emergency Responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. The United States remains dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Police departments do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following a WMD attack. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing." - Council on Foreign Relations Report by former Sen. Warrren Rudman (R-NH), 7/29/03

 

FACT: "Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."- USA Today, 12/12/03

 

FACT: The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." - USA Today, 12/2/03

 

FACT: "The White House is now saying that its spending plan does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. It concedes that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged." - NY Times, 2/26/03

 

CYBER SECURITY

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The President provided a framework for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing the first-ever National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and the National Cyberspace Security Division."

 

FACT: The annual cybersecurity report card is out, and "the Department of Homeland Security - the government's lead agency on matters of Internet security - led the list of seven federal agencies that earned an "F" grade for their own network security efforts in 2003." And "also earning an 'F' was the Justice Department, the agency charged with investigating and prosecuting many cases involving hacking and other forms of cybercrime." - Washington Post, 12/9/03

[Vern Gagne 0]

A liberal...ooops a progressive organization doesn't like what a Republican President did. Next thing you'll tell me the terrorists, hate the Jews.

[tommytomlin 0]

How can it be biased when it's just copy/pasting bits from other media sources, Senate Committees and White House Spokesperson? They're not editing the quotes, there's no "...." anywhere to indicate the quotes have been taken apart. Hell, most of the quotes in that are from either the Government or Republican Senators. Do they have a liberal bias?

[Guest MikeSC]

Produced by the Center for American Progress, 12/13/03

 

DRUG COVERAGE

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic legislation the President signed will create a modern Medicare system, providing seniors with prescription drug benefits."

 

FACT: "The new law gives private insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare. Beneficiaries will have to choose a drug insurer without knowing exactly what drugs that insurer will cover. Premiums will be higher in areas with older or sicker seniors." - American Progress Fellow Jeanne Lambrew, 12/4/03

 

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose the drug coverage they currently receive through their former because their employers will drop such coverage when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available." - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/11/03

People who OPPOSED this for YEARS mentioned this and the advocates ignored them. Oh well.

FACT: "[T]he insurance plan would provide little relief for about 3 million people with moderate assets and incomes near the poverty level and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 a year more than they currently spend." - Boston Globe, 11/18/03

Well, let's face the painful truth: WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS TO BEGIN WITH.

FACT: "A substantial number of the 6.4 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are eligible for Medicaid and currently receive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid would be made worse off under the Medicare conference agreement." - Center of Budget and Policy Priorities Report, 11/21/03

Gee, you mean a Medicare prescription benefit isn't great? SHOCKING, I tell you.

FACT: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare." -USA Today, 11/25/03

The curse of government intervention in medicine. Imagine how affordable insurance would be now without governmental interference.

DRUG COSTS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Beneficiaries who lack coverage will cut their yearly drug costs roughly in half, in exchange for an approximately $35 monthly premium. The more than one-third of seniors with low incomes will be eligible for even greater drug savings, paying as little as $1 per prescription."

 

FACT: "nder the new plan, seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006. This figure is nearly 60 percent more than they paid in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation. Expenses are projected to continue to rise so that by 2013 middle-income seniors will be paying more than two and a half times as much for prescription drugs (adjusting for inflation) as they did in 2000." – Ctr.  for Economic and Policy Research, 12/04/03

Ah, they are really good at this. They make a claim --- and then refute SOMETHING else entirely. Read the premise and the refutation and tell me how they are actually connected.

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The historic Medicare legislation that the President signed included a provision establishing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)...These HSAs will allow more Americans to save for health care needs, and will allow more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage."

 

FACT: The creation of "Health Care Savings Accounts" provides an "incentive to shift more costs to workers, who may be asked to 'match' their employer's contribution to a HSA with its high deductibles and high co-payments." Urban Institute economist Len Burman said HSAs will become "a boon to the healthy and wealthy and a bane" to older, sicker co-workers left to confront higher costs and premiums in traditional health plans. - Scripps Howard News, Scripps Howard, 12/3/03

Has the Urban Institute been correct on, well, anything? HSA are a necessary ingredient to stem the tide of runaway spending.

FACT: According to major studies conducted in the past by RAND, the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries, "premiums for comprehensive, employer-based coverage could more than double if such accounts became widespread." - CBPP, 11/18/03

They'll double regardless. Do these people have ANY clue how fast these expenses are flying straight up?

ECONOMY

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."

 

FACT: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term." - BLS Data

Ah, this one?

 

Blaming Bush for the economic disaster he inherited is as unfair as blaming Hoover for the economic disaster HE inherited. In BOTH cases, the economy has SERIOUS problems when they took office.

FACT: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. - Economic Policy Institute

Haven't there been a lot of jobs produced as of late?

FACT: "Twenty five major American cities saw a 19% increase in the need for emergency food last year alone." - UK Guardian, 11/3/03

The curse of an economy that was collapsing in 2000 and was further hit in 2001.

FACT: "New jobs created during the 2004-05 period are forecast to pay an average of $35,855, far lower than the $43,629 average pay of those jobs lost between 2001-03." - U.S. Conference of Mayors, 11/10/03

You mean the jobs that were largely the gift of an overinflated dotcom economy or companies with MASSIVE corruption in auditing?

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

FACT: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row – the first time in more than 13 years. - Economic Policy Institute

The economy was dropping like a rock in 2000. It's not like Bush had any control over that.

DEFICITS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Maintaining Fiscal Discipline: [The President has] continued to restrain spending." [robbie note: HAHAHA]

 

FACT: The House recently passed a massive $373 billion spending bill, laden with pork-barrel spending and controversial provisions as far as the eye could see. "The size of the measure invites abuse. Spending set-asides for home-state projects have grown to extraordinary levels, filling scores of pages in the Congressional Record." President Bush issued a "personal appeal" to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to "push the spending package through the Senate" without changes after the House passed the pork-laden bill." - AP, 12/8/03, 12/5/03, Wall Street Journal 12/3/08

Bush needs to be more confrontational.

FACT: "For the 2003 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government recorded a deficit of $374.8 billion, according to revised figures. In November alone, the deficit swelled to nearly $43 billion." - AP, 12/12/03

Without an over-inflated stock market combined with companies with MASSIVE auditing flaws, yeah, it might be a little more difficult.

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "91 million taxpayers received, on average, a tax cut of $1,126. Since the President took office, 109 million taxpayers have received, on average, a tax cut of $1,544. Without the fiscal measures implemented under President Bush, there would be as many as 2 million fewer jobs for American workers today."

 

FACT: 80% of taxpayers would receive less than $1,083, and half would receive $100 or less. The handful of millionaires who would get about $90,000 artificially inflates the average. - Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/22/03, CBPP, 5/28/03

 

FACT: 'The economic consulting firm Economy.com found that the tax cuts were responsible for only 13 percent of the growth last quarter  – meaning that we still would have seen GDP growth of about 7 percent without the tax cut." – American Progress Fellow Gene Sperling, 12/11/03

So, they're arguing that the tax cuts did nothing?

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,209."

 

FACT: "Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than $2,209." Additionally, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less." – Urban Inst.-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 1/21/03

Apparently, the term "AVERAGE" is lost upon these economists.

'HEALTHY FORESTS'

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "As part of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, he signed bipartisan legislation to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws, restoring our nation's forests, and preserving the forest economy."

 

FACT: The Congressional Research service reported that the "Health Forests" bill may actually increase the risk of fire. CRS expert Ross W. Corte said, "Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles" that contributes to fires. - CRS report, 8/22/2000

So, they want the WH to approve MORE logging?

FACT: In fact, the bill was sought by the timber industry "not because they wanted to remove brush and chaparral" which can cause forest fires but because it would "increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight." - CBS News, 12/3/03

And CBS has evidence of this where?

POWER PLANT EMISSIONS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules on power plant emissions."

 

FACT: "The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." - CBS News, 11/22/02

Because they are cost-prohibitive. They spend millions upon millions for virtually NO improvement in air quality.

FACT: "More than a dozen state attorneys general yesterday sought to block the federal government from implementing a rule change they argued would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants. Fourteen states, and a number of cities - including New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. - are seeking a court injunction to impede a measure by the Environmental Protection Agency before it goes into effect." - AP, 11/18/03

SF?

 

Didn't CA bitch that Bush did nothing to help them during their energy crisis?

 

And people want the administration to bring the power grid up to date --- but want to totally handcuff them from doing it.

FACT: "The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's civil enforcement office has resigned, complaining the White House is undermining anti-pollution efforts at power plants that violate clean air laws. Eric Schaeffer, a lawyer at the EPA for a dozen years dating from the first Bush administration, said in a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman that the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." - CBS News, 3/1/02

As they should. A lot of the new rules were passed in Clinton's last days and were just absurd.

MERCURY EMISSIONS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."

 

FACT: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. - CBS News, 11/6/03

Relaxation of the rules passed by Clinton right before he left office? THOSE rules? They're kidding, right?

FACT: "The Administration is proposing to use a provision of the Clean Air Act never before used to regulate toxics and setting a level of reductions for mercury emissions far below what the Clean Air Act toxic provisions would require. Using the [traditional] provisions of the Clean Air Act would achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2008. The Administration’s proposals suggest only a 30% reduction, to the benefit of Coal-fired power plants and utilities." – Former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, 12/4/03

EDUCATION

Again, we do have a small problem with needing to overhaul the power grid.

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Parents, teachers, and principals are seeing a positive difference in America's schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is raising standards for students and putting the focus on student achievement."

 

FACT: "The sweeping federal law left cash-strapped states battered and confused in 2003. More nationwide provisions will take effect in 2004, along with the threat of losing millions of dollars for states that don’t pass muster." - Stateline, 12/8/03

The federal government gives roughly 7% of a state's funding. If the states are strugling, it is due to THEIR OWN ridiculous spending for years.

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history."

 

FACT: "President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants." - House Appropriations Committee report, 3/10/03

Of course, they don't actually refute that the administration is actually spending more than at any time in American history.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Enhancing Consumer Credit Protections. The President proposed and signed into law legislation to ensure citizens are treated fairly when they apply for credit. It also addresses the growing problem of identity theft by establishing a nationwide fraud alert system."

 

FACT: "In addition to previous votes that gutted state provisions to prevent financial institutions from sharing customers' information with others, the final version of the bill will roll back states' anti-identity-theft measures." – SF Chronicle, 11/22/03

 

FACT: The Administration proposed new regulations that "would shield national banks from state laws enacted to protect consumers from predatory lending." The regulations were criticized by NY AG Eliot Spitzer as preventing the states from prosecuting "nationally chartered financial services companies for charging outsized fees and interest rates to poor consumers who have bad credit." - Financial Times, 12/11/03

 

VETERANS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Honoring Our Commitment to Veterans: America owes veterans and those on the front lines of freedom a great debt of gratitude."

 

FACT: The Administration is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports “hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait - sometimes for months - to see doctors." - Wash Post, 1/17/03, UPI, 10/17/03

Or, in other words --- balance the budget, but don't cut anything. Got it.

FACT: “One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help" in President Bush’s tax cut. “More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty." - Children’s Defense Fund, 6/6/03

Ignore anything the CDF says, as a general rule.

AIDS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Leading the Fight Against HIV/AIDS: In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief an historic 5-year, $15 billion effort to turn the tide of the AIDS pandemic. Only 4 months later, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Emergency Plan based on the President's proposal."

 

FACT: President Bush's budget introduced four days after his State of the Union "only sought $2 billion for the year" for AIDS - 33% less than the $3 billion needed to keep his $15-billion-over-5-year pledge. When the Senate voted to increase the President's budget, the White House "repeated its strong opposition to any funding beyond $2 billion." - LA Times, 10/31/03

You mean *gasp* they might want to spend MORE than $3M in a year in the future? Stunning.

FACT: "President Bush plans to ask Congress for relatively small funding increases to fight AIDS and poverty in the developing world, stepping back from his highly publicized pledge to spend huge sums to help fight them." - WSJ, 12/10/2003

Isn't he getting bitched at for rebuilding Iraq? You know, consistency in criticism might help.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."

 

FACT: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." - NY Times, 12/7/03

And this is Bush's fault how? It's like blaming the MDA for a pledge not being honored.

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HELP

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Our mission has broad support from the international community, including troops from 18 out of 25 current and future NATO countries."

 

FACT: While the U.S. has over 160,000 troops in Iraq, the next largest force contingent is Britain, with about 9,000 troops. Additionally, since President Bush asked for more military help in September, not one additional new international soldier has been sent to Iraq. - UK Guardian, 12/12/03

There are ways for support outside of physical troops on the ground.

WMD

MILITARY SUPPORT

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "America and more than 20 allied countries are working to help the Afghan people rebuild their war-torn nation. More than 15 million Afghan citizens have been freed from the brutal zealotry of the Taliban."

 

FACT: The U.N. delegation reported that "insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today." Insecurity is especially a problem in the southern part of the country where "attacks against non-governmental organizations was contributing to the slowing of reconstruction." Throughout the nation "individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders." The problems are exacerbated in many areas of the country "by terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Also of serious concern: "Arbitrary control exercised by local commanders and factional armies [that] has resulted in heavy casualties." - UN Report, 11/11/03

Shockingly enough, rebuilding doesn't happen quickly. I know --- shocking news.

FUNDING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The U.S. Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act which authorizes $3.47 billion for Afghanistan over fiscal years 2003-2006."

 

FACT: While President Bush declared a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" in April 2002, the nation has "received only a fraction of the $10.2 billion" that the World Bank said was necessary over the first five years. - Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 10/16/03

Again, how is this the WH's fault?

TERRORIST FINANCING

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Treasury Department has frozen over $136 million from over 240 terrorist-related entities."

 

FACT: "Federal authorities do not have a clear understanding of how terrorists move their financial assets and are still struggling to prevent the flow of money to terror groups," according to a new report by the GAO to be released Sunday. - NY Times, 12/12/03

And this refutes the WH claim how?

FIRST RESPONDERS

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "Helping State and Local First Responders: The President is continuing to give our nation's first responder and public health system the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future terrorist attack."

 

FACT: "Emergency Responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. The United States remains dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Police departments do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following a WMD attack. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing." - Council on Foreign Relations Report by former Sen. Warrren Rudman (R-NH), 7/29/03

Trying to remedy a MASSIVE problem doesn't happen quickly.

FACT: "Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."- USA Today, 12/12/03

 

FACT: The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." - USA Today, 12/2/03

Now I LOVE this. NO federal program EVER added 100,000 cops. That was a myth. And Clinton's bill was SUPPOSED to last 3 years.

 

Man, these people are idiots.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

We should have a rule here that if someone posts an article that they have to also voice an opinion on the topic.

 

If we have to read crap like this and respond, the topic starter should as well...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."

 

FACT: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term." - BLS Data

 

Ah, this one?

 

Blaming Bush for the economic disaster he inherited is as unfair as blaming Hoover for the economic disaster HE inherited. In BOTH cases, the economy has SERIOUS problems when they took office.

 

I don't think Hoover went around saying he produced positive results either.

 

FACT: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. - Economic Policy Institute

 

Haven't there been a lot of jobs produced as of late?

 

1.259 million of them?

 

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

 

Cite please?

 

FACT: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row – the first time in more than 13 years. - Economic Policy Institute

 

The economy was dropping like a rock in 2000. It's not like Bush had any control over that.

 

Interesting revised version of history. Dropping like a rock. Hyperbole.

 

Bush needs to be more confrontational.

 

He's being bullied into spending more and more? Interesting.

 

So, they want the WH to approve MORE logging?

 

Removing smaller branches can't really be called logging anyways. Then again, those smaller branches can't be made into much either.

 

And CBS has evidence of this where?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/03/...ain586582.shtml

 

source of that CBS news story. Which was a quote from a Sean Cosgrove.

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."

 

FACT: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. - CBS News, 11/6/03

 

Relaxation of the rules passed by Clinton right before he left office? THOSE rules? They're kidding, right?

 

So, did he stringently reduce mercury, sulfur dioxide and all that, or not?

 

The federal government gives roughly 7% of a state's funding. If the states are strugling, it is due to THEIR OWN ridiculous spending for years.

 

and hell.. it's only the inner city schools that will be losing funding, since the NCLB stuff penalizes districts for not meeting the standards, even if they improved on previous scores. There some misspending of funds, all that too. And hopefully that positive difference isn't stunted by the funding cuts.

 

Of course, they don't actually refute that the administration is actually spending more than at any time in American history.

 

With the patterns of spending from Bush, it wouldn't be too stunning. I wouldn't mind seeing more than a claim in regards to that though.

 

Or, in other words --- balance the budget, but don't cut anything. Got it.

 

It's nice to hear that 'anything' can mean 'veterans benefits' too. That must make your heart warm every November 11th.

 

Ignore anything the CDF says, as a general rule.

 

Massive bias, or something else?

 

You mean *gasp* they might want to spend MORE than $3M in a year in the future? Stunning.

 

I wouldn't mind if they mentioned that in their 2003 year in review.

 

Isn't he getting bitched at for rebuilding Iraq? You know, consistency in criticism might help.

 

Did I miss the part where they mentioned that in this?

 

Did I?

 

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."

 

FACT: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." - NY Times, 12/7/03

 

And this is Bush's fault how? It's like blaming the MDA for a pledge not being honored.

 

It's not an accurate claim, is it? Unless we're playing 'word games' here

 

There are ways for support outside of physical troops on the ground.

 

Yep.. word games.. "18 out of 25 supported it. Most of them didn't send troops. But, some sent snack food." Dubious claim by the WH, isn't it?

 

Shockingly enough, rebuilding doesn't happen quickly. I know --- shocking news.

 

didn't Bush accidently leave Afghani rebuilding funding out of a plan back in March?

 

Again, how is this the WH's fault?

 

Did somebody else misplace the funding? Was it warlords? Or what?

 

And this refutes the WH claim how?

 

Well, maybe they're freezing money without an understanding of how this works. So it may not be having much of an effect at all. Possibly.

 

Man, these people are idiots.

 

Ok then

 

as for the Year in review.. Mr. TookMyBabyAway. The WH YiR was filled with some lies and bullshit. Such as the fiscal responsibility, the 'clear evidence' of 'illegal weapons' (notice, not weapons of mass destruction, the thing we had 'clear evidence' on back in February. You know.. WMDs, not missiles, but anthrax)

 

It's for the better that people challenge some of the BS claims in that. I'd say that 'terror groups' claim was a bit off too.

[EricMM 0]

Christ, you all need to learn the values of Brevity. And spacing things out among various posts.

[Guest MikeSC]

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."

 

FACT: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term." - BLS Data

 

Ah, this one?

 

Blaming Bush for the economic disaster he inherited is as unfair as blaming Hoover for the economic disaster HE inherited. In BOTH cases, the economy has SERIOUS problems when they took office.

 

I don't think Hoover went around saying he produced positive results either.

The economy is growing at what percent this year?

FACT: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. - Economic Policy Institute

 

Haven't there been a lot of jobs produced as of late?

 

1.259 million of them?

God knows. I don't claim to know.

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

 

Cite please?

Umm, every single unemployment report over the past few months?

FACT: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row – the first time in more than 13 years. - Economic Policy Institute

 

The economy was dropping like a rock in 2000. It's not like Bush had any control over that.

 

Interesting revised version of history. Dropping like a rock. Hyperbole.

Fact of life. NASDAQ was collapsing before Bush took office. NYSE was plummeting. The economy was in full slow down.

Bush needs to be more confrontational.

 

He's being bullied into spending more and more? Interesting.

He's avoiding fights with the Democrats --- same as why he has not gone the recess appointment of judges route.

So, they want the WH to approve MORE logging?

 

Removing smaller branches can't really be called logging anyways. Then again, those smaller branches can't be made into much either.

More woodlands being cleared.

And CBS has evidence of this where?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/03/...ain586582.shtml

 

source of that CBS news story. Which was a quote from a Sean Cosgrove.

Who in the blue hell is Sean Cosgrove?

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."

 

FACT: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. - CBS News, 11/6/03

 

Relaxation of the rules passed by Clinton right before he left office? THOSE rules? They're kidding, right?

 

So, did he stringently reduce mercury, sulfur dioxide and all that, or not?

Well, on his very last day in office. What a guy he was. It wasn't a big deal for, well, the first 7 years and 364 days of his administration.

The federal government gives roughly 7% of a state's funding. If the states are strugling, it is due to THEIR OWN ridiculous spending for years.

 

and hell.. it's only the inner city schools that will be losing funding, since the NCLB stuff penalizes districts for not meeting the standards, even if they improved on previous scores. There some misspending of funds, all that too. And hopefully that positive difference isn't stunted by the funding cuts.

All schools will be impacted. And I love your idea here --- screw if they are actually TEACHING kids; just give them MORE money.

Of course, they don't actually refute that the administration is actually spending more than at any time in American history.

 

With the patterns of spending from Bush, it wouldn't be too stunning. I wouldn't mind seeing more than a claim in regards to that though.

If the site is saying it they AREN'T, it is their job to prove it.

Or, in other words --- balance the budget, but don't cut anything. Got it.

 

It's nice to hear that 'anything' can mean 'veterans benefits' too. That must make your heart warm every November 11th.

This from a Democrat whose LAST administration's ONLY contribution to balancing the budget was to cut the military.

Ignore anything the CDF says, as a general rule.

 

Massive bias, or something else?

Massive bias.

You mean *gasp* they might want to spend MORE than $3M in a year in the future? Stunning.

 

I wouldn't mind if they mentioned that in their 2003 year in review.

If they're going to bitch and moan about it, they might want to actually know what the heck they're talking about.

Isn't he getting bitched at for rebuilding Iraq? You know, consistency in criticism might help.

 

Did I miss the part where they mentioned that in this?

 

Did I?

Spend more to rebuild foreign countries --- but not Iraq?

WHITE HOUSE CLAIM: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."

 

FACT: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." - NY Times, 12/7/03

 

And this is Bush's fault how? It's like blaming the MDA for a pledge not being honored.

 

It's not an accurate claim, is it? Unless we're playing 'word games' here

That'd be like blaming Bush because you got a sunburn from staying out in the sun all day in the summer without sunscreen.

There are ways for support outside of physical troops on the ground.

 

Yep.. word games.. "18 out of 25 supported it. Most of them didn't send troops. But, some sent snack food." Dubious claim by the WH, isn't it?

"Snack food"? Invented quote on your part, it appears.

Shockingly enough, rebuilding doesn't happen quickly. I know --- shocking news.

 

didn't Bush accidently leave Afghani rebuilding funding out of a plan back in March?

Not that I am aware of.

Again, how is this the WH's fault?

 

Did somebody else misplace the funding? Was it warlords? Or what?

They're still working on rebuilding Afghanistan and searching for OBL.

And this refutes the WH claim how?

 

Well, maybe they're freezing money without an understanding of how this works. So it may not be having much of an effect at all. Possibly.

And the WH is lying --- how?

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

 

Cite please?

Umm, every single unemployment report over the past few months?

Except that, until the last couple of months, EMPLOYMENT was going down as well. The unemployment rate is a false indicator in this case, as it was mostly due to people leaving the workforce, rather than new jobs being created.

[Guest MikeSC]

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

 

Cite please?

Umm, every single unemployment report over the past few months?

Except that, until the last couple of months, EMPLOYMENT was going down as well. The unemployment rate is a false indicator in this case, as it was mostly due to people leaving the workforce, rather than new jobs being created.

"Until the last couple of months"

 

Or, in other words, they are HIRING MORE now.

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

FACT: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." - Business Council Poll, 10/9/03

 

Yet unemployment is going down. Odd.

 

Cite please?

Umm, every single unemployment report over the past few months?

Except that, until the last couple of months, EMPLOYMENT was going down as well. The unemployment rate is a false indicator in this case, as it was mostly due to people leaving the workforce, rather than new jobs being created.

"Until the last couple of months"

 

Or, in other words, they are HIRING MORE now.

-=Mike

Nice of you to ignore the fact that your own point was refuted. Every single unemplyment rate over the PAST FEW MONTHS did not say what you claimed.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

T-N-T, I'm dynomite!

 

(not an actual quote)

The economy is growing at what percent this year?

 

Whatever it was, it slipped recently too

 

Umm, every single unemployment report over the past few months?

 

Such as the one that noted only 339,000 people filed for unemployment this week, the lowest since February 2001. (LA Times)

 

Then again, there was a rise in people trying to get benefits (by 81,000).. 3.32 million are getting those benefits.

 

Fact of life. NASDAQ was collapsing before Bush took office. NYSE was plummeting. The economy was in full slow down.

 

Nasdaq

 

I didn't find a chart for the NYSE.

 

It appears the Nasdaq was collapsing. From 5000 to around 2500. (Although anything around those numbers is rare). And now the Nasdaq is at 2006. Still, i'd say reaching 4000 isn't gonna happen for awhile.

 

Dow Jones

 

S&P

 

(How the other exchanges just died in 2000)

 

He's avoiding fights with the Democrats --- same as why he has not gone the recess appointment of judges route.

 

If he was more confrontational, would that mean he'd stop criticizing Howard Dean and other Democrats for "being too angry"?

 

More woodlands being cleared.

 

Granted, some of these wildfire problems wouldn't be as severe without people living in these woodland areas. The more skeptical side of us all knows that if you don't have trees.. then you don't have fires. hehe

 

Although, in this woodland clearing, any idea if they'll get rid of branches on the ground?

 

Who in the blue hell is Sean Cosgrove?

 

You didn't click on the link and read it, did you? I was expecting you to mention him being biased and evil for being a forest expert with the Sierra Club

 

Well, on his very last day in office. What a guy he was. It wasn't a big deal for, well, the first 7 years and 364 days of his administration.

 

I was asking about Bush, not Clinton.

 

All schools will be impacted. And I love your idea here --- screw if they are actually TEACHING kids; just give them MORE money.

 

I guess you didn't quite get that. Maybe I didn't clarify that because I was saying one thing, that doesn't mean the opposite would also happen.

 

NCLB punishes districts for improving, but not meeting the standards immediently, true?

 

Bush's claimed positive difference might be negated by the funding cuts for various districts, true?

 

If the site is saying it they AREN'T, it is their job to prove it.

 

On some more checking, it appears the rate with Clinton was around 33 billion, and Bush got around 40 billion.

 

This from a Democrat whose LAST administration's ONLY contribution to balancing the budget was to cut the military.

 

Wait, you mean the Republican congress played a part in cutting the military to balance the budget?

 

So, since Democrats "did it". Then when a Republican does it, it's to "balance the budget", and therefore uncriticizable?

 

Massive bias.

 

Except for April 1st, where they post "Ya know, let the fucking kids defend themselves" articles.

 

Spend more to rebuild foreign countries --- but not Iraq?

 

And they said this?

 

Or does A (rebuild foreign countries) plus B (doing it) equal C (Iraq is left out to dry)

 

That'd be like blaming Bush because you got a sunburn from staying out in the sun all day in the summer without sunscreen.

 

It seems from how this thing was laid out, there was a claim, and a refuting of it. Somehow you think the refuting of that claim was 'blaming Bush'. When you can see the claim wasn't quite accurate.

 

 

"Snack food"? Invented quote on your part, it appears.

 

You notice that was a joke quote and not a real quote? Um.. nevermind.

 

Not that I am aware of.

 

There it is.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm

 

"But in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country.

 

The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again."

 

(whoops)