[zachs]

From the Washington Post (Free Registration):

President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

Sorry. Nice try.

[zigzag]

Oh dear - you mean to say that both parties create misleading ads? Shocking.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
Sorry. Nice try.

Instead of starting a new Bush-bashing thread on every anti-Bush activity and issue, why don't you instead tell us why you think Kerry is the better man for the job?

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Instead of starting a new Bush-bashing thread on every anti-Bush activity and issue, why don't you instead tell us why you think Kerry is the better man for the job?

Instead of me listing all the reasons why I think Kerry is the better man for the job, I'll just point you here. You might not agree with his proposals/plans/views, but they are why I think he's the better person for the job.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Instead of me listing all the reasons why I think Kerry is the better man for the job, I'll just point you here. You might not agree with his proposals/plans/views, but they are why I think he's the better person for the job.

Read the first [LIE] paragraph: That is enough to make me disqualify him from any office.

"I'm running for President to make the country we love safer, stronger, and more secure. I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again committed to leaving no American behind."

You mean like when he left his men in VietNam? I'm not referring to when he used the three scratches and you are out rule either. I'm talking about POWs.

"Citizen Soldier"? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Read the first [LIE] paragraph: That is enough to make me disqualify him from any office.

"I'm running for President to make the country we love safer, stronger, and more secure. I'm asking every American to be a Citizen Soldier again committed to leaving no American behind."

You mean like when he left his men in VietNam? I'm not referring to when he used the three scratches and you are out rule either. I'm talking about POWs.

"Citizen Soldier"? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/

Did you even read his proposal?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Did you even read his proposal?

Why, would I read a proposal by someone who doesn't deserve to be President or a Senator?

Say -NO- to John Kerry

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why, would I read a proposal by someone who doesn't deserve to be President or a Senator?

Uh. Maybe so you'd know what their position is, or what their proposals are.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why, would I read a proposal by someone who doesn't deserve to be President or a Senator?

WTF? And W deserves to be president?? Stay ignorant if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
Instead of me listing all the reasons why I think Kerry is the better man for the job, I'll just point you here. You might not agree with his proposals/plans/views, but they are why I think he's the better person for the job.

You can't even describe in your own words why you think Kerry should be President. Instead, you simply link to his campaign site and say "that's why"?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You can't even describe in your own words why you think Kerry should be President. Instead, you simply link to his campaign site and say "that's why"?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

OK, let's see then. Kerry would work to restore the 2.5 million jobs lost under President Bush. He'd propose reforms for No Child Left Behind that would improve schools. He'd increase international participation in Iraq, as well as work to add 40,000 troops to the Army. He'd create a new fund for firefighters, similar to COPS. He'd give tax breaks to manufacturers that create jobs here in the US.

Don't expect you to agree with any of my reasons for supporting Kerry, though.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
OK, let's see then. Kerry would work to restore the 2.5 million jobs lost under President Bush.

It's so telling that Clinton was reelected on his economic record, and the unemployment rate at that time was exactly what it is at now - 5.6%. Good for Clinton, bad for Bush.

He'd propose reforms for No Child Left Behind that would improve schools.

He's had a few years to do that already in the Senate. What's the holdup?

He'd increase international participation in Iraq, as well as work to add 40,000 troops to the Army.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll add troops to the Army...maybe even activate a draft. And we currently have 49 countries in the current coalition. The handoff of power to the Iraqi people is slated for June 30th. I'd say he's a bit late.

He'd create a new fund for firefighters, similar to COPS. He'd give tax breaks to manufacturers that create jobs here in the US.

He could have pushed for both in the Senate if he would actually show up for work once in a while.

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's so telling that Clinton was reelected on his economic record, and the unemployment rate at that time was exactly what it is at now - 5.6%. Good for Clinton, bad for Bush.

8.5 million jobs were created from 1993-1996; 2.35 million jobs were lost from 2001-2003--the worst job loss since Herbert Hoover.

He's had a few years to do that already in the Senate. What's the holdup?

He has proposed to increase funding from $23 billion to $35 billion by 2008, as well as other changes at the link above.

Yeah, I'm sure he'll add troops to the Army...maybe even activate a draft. And we currently have 49 countries in the current coalition. The handoff of power to the Iraqi people is slated for June 30th. I'd say he's a bit late.

The deadline of June 30th will most likely be extended, possibly to January, 2005. Also, even if the transfer of power does happen in June, troops are expected to remain their "for years".

He could have pushed for both in the Senate if he would actually show up for work once in a while.

Hey, I think missing 70% of the votes is terrible.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by zachs:
OK, let's see then. Kerry would work to restore the 2.5 million jobs lost under President Bush. .

That's just funny. Yeah, someone is going to wave a wand and bring back jobs that no longer have a place in this economy. If you really think one person is responsible for the loss of jobs in the country then you are too stupid to try and explain to the cause and effect of this business cycle. Its not a coincidence that productivity has spiked as jobs have gone away and methods of conducting business have become streamlined. If anyone crutches up those new jobs through legislation and programs they are only postponing the inevitable and doing a disservice to those who need to rethink their career options before they get too old to be retrained. In less than a decade we'll see at least another 3.3 million jobs go away and there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
8.5 million jobs were created from 1993-1996; 2.35 million jobs were lost from 2001-2003--the worst job loss since Herbert Hoover.

Those numbers, while convenient for your slant, do not include the large number of people who have decided to work for themselves and create their own jobs. So again, I state from the democrat perspective:

5.6% unemployment rate for Clinton reelection=good.
5.6% unemloyment rate for Bush reelection=bad.

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Those numbers, while convenient for your slant, do not include the large number of people who have decided to work for themselves and create their own jobs. So again, I state from the democrat perspective:

5.6% unemployment rate for Clinton reelection=good.
5.6% unemloyment rate for Bush reelection=bad.

Yeah, 5.6% under Clinton - down from 7.3% in 1993. Bush started out with a 4.2% unemployment rate, which has obviously increased. You can compare the unemployment rates here. Not only that, but the economy was getting better as more and more jobs were being created. Now, the economy is only getting worse. As USA Today reports:

Fewer small businesses plan to hire

By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY


Small businesses, the engine of U.S. job creation, are retreating on hiring plans — magnifying the jobless recovery.
The share planning to hire fell to 13% last month in a survey of 567 small firms out Friday. That was down from 17% in January, the National Federation of Independent Business trade group said.


Even the weak hiring plans may be too rosy. For most of the past year, small firms failed to add employees despite earlier plans, NFIB data show.


The trend is significant because small companies create most jobs. The USA's 5.8 million small employers have nearly half of all workers. Their reluctance to boost employment partly explains dismal payroll figures released Friday by the Labor Department. Non-farm business payrolls grew by just 21,000 jobs in February — well below the 125,000 that economists had expected. The 5.6% jobless rate was unchanged.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
That's just funny. Yeah, someone is going to wave a wand and bring back jobs that no longer have a place in this economy. If you really think one person is responsible for the loss of jobs in the country then you are too stupid to try and explain to the cause and effect of this business cycle. Its not a coincidence that productivity has spiked as jobs have gone away and methods of conducting business have become streamlined. If anyone crutches up those new jobs through legislation and programs they are only postponing the inevitable and doing a disservice to those who need to rethink their career options before they get too old to be retrained. In less than a decade we'll see at least another 3.3 million jobs go away and there's not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it.

I never said someone is going to "wave a wand" and restore those jobs. Nor did I say that one person is responsible for the job loss. I said Kerry would work to restore the 2.4 million jobs lost in the past 3 years. Kerry has a plan to replace those jobs lost over the last few years. You can disagree with it, that's fine, but he does have a plan, and that's my point.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Those numbers, while convenient for your slant, do not include the large number of people who have decided to work for themselves and create their own jobs. So again, I state from the democrat perspective:

5.6% unemployment rate for Clinton reelection=good.
5.6% unemloyment rate for Bush reelection=bad.

I don't hold Bush (or Clinton, for that matter) directly responsible, but that large number of people who have "decided" to work for themselves didn't necessarily decide to - a lot of them lost their jobs and are calling themselves "independent consultants." A lot of other people have stopped looking altogether and removed themselves from the statistics. And as zachs pointed out, under Clinton the trend was up and businesses were hiring, while under Bush the trend has been down and there isn't much hiring in sight. So, while I think it's worth noting that the unemployment rates are the same at a certain point in time, I think it's more useful to look at the overall picture. Again, this is not to hold Bush directly responsible - the trend began before Bush was in office and 9/11 did further harm that was out of his control. Some of this is due to structural change, some of it due to economic policy, some of it due to unforeseen events. But either way it presents a political problem - if the people out of work don't think the President is looking out for them, they'll vote accordingly, doesn't matter who he is.

[Captain Obvious]

From zachs link to the Kerry website
think it’s time we had a President who will provide the only real economic security: good jobs.

A President who will provide middle class payroll tax relief to get money in the pockets of workers who will spend it, not more tax giveaways for those at the top to stimulate the economy in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

A President who will index the minimum wage to inflation and raise it from a 30 year low, not increase the tax burden on the middle class and those struggling to join it.

John Kerry believes that if we want a strong economy and strong families, we should not rest until we have tackled the health care crisis, made health care more affordable and guaranteed health care coverage for every American.

And he supports creating American jobs and renewing our cities through building infrastructure, school construction and modernization, tax credits and cleaning up polluted areas in our country.

THAT is a plan? Sounds good but I don't see a plan in there.

A) A president cannot make jobs unless they want to create artificial hiring programs that mandate that jobs be created that are probably not needed. I am sure more waste will do wonders for the nation. And public works jobs.... yeah unions don't pad the numbers on those.

B) Raising the minimum wage SOUNDS easy but do all employers have the profit margins and revenue to be able to pay it? Since such a large percentage of workers in the US are employed by small businesses instead of multinational corporations do you think they will be able to keep themselves operating if they have to raise their low end wages by 10%, how about 15%, or maybe 20%? OR better yet where do you think that money is going to come from: passed onto consumers or by firing an employee or two.

Here is my problem with you. You are the kind of person that is swayed by those 30 second campaign commercials. They promise a lot but most of the things cannot be delivered by a single person or even a united party. Economic forces can be nudged they can be even be forced to move but it will always be temporary. Maybe if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates got together and sponsored one small state's economy we could see a real influence but if you take it to heart when a presidential candidates tell you they can get you jobs with no negative side effects down the road they are playing you like fifty cent kazoo.
But really the blame for them doing this is the fault of the general public who like to credit or blame president's for the success of the economy. If people were smart enough to understand how things work politicians wouldn't need to pander to them.

So if you are going to link to or even talk about some kind of plan by your precious Kerry at least give me some substance I can rip at instead of a blurb from a speech meant for people with a sixth grade reading level.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zachs:
Not only that, but the economy was getting better as more and more jobs were being created. Now, the economy is only getting worse.

That is a flat-out lie. The economy is growing at a good clip. Productivity growth is at a 50 year high. I don't mind you bitching about lagging job growth, but there is no need to lie and say the economy is only getting worse, especially when all evidence and indicators prove otherwise.

Big industry production rose by a strong 0.7 percent in February, an encouraging sign that the nation's manufacturers may be getting a stronger grip on their own recovery.

The increase in output at the nation's factories, mines and utilities came after a 0.8 percent jump in activity in January, the Federal Reserve reported Monday.
Advertisement

Last month's industrial production performance was even better than the 0.4 percent increase that some economists were forecasting. Gains were widespread in February, with production rising for automotive products, home electronics, business equipment, machinery, food products and chemicals.

The latest snapshot of industrial activity also boded well for healthy economic growth in the first three months of this year. Analysts believe the economy grew at an annual rate of more than 4.5 percent in the current January-to-March quarter, up from a 4.1 percent pace in the fourth quarter of 2003.

The Federal Reserve's report also showed that production at factories -- the biggest slice of industrial output tracked by the Fed -- went up by 1 percent in February -- a big pickup from January's 0.2 percent increase and the best performance since November.

Link

Consumers have more in their paychecks. Compensation and disposable income have grown nearly 8% since the recession ended in November 2001. Homeownership and household wealth are at all-time highs. Employment is up by 2 million workers since the end of the recession. Payroll growth, a lagging indicator, will follow economic growth.

Link

[zachs]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That is a flat-out lie. The economy is growing at a good clip. Productivity growth is at a 50 year high. I don't mind you bitching about lagging job growth, but there is no need to lie and say the economy is only getting worse, especially when all evidence and indicators prove otherwise.Link
Link

You're right...let me clarify and say that what it's all going to come down to is whether people think Bush is looking out for them, as zigzag said, "if the people out of work don't think the President is looking out for them, they'll vote accordingly, doesn't matter who he is." Right now, less and less people are supporting him on the economy.

A majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- say they want their next president to steer the country away from the course set by Bush, according to the survey. Bush's standing hit new lows in crucial areas such as the economy (39 percent support him), Iraq (46 percent) and the budget deficit (30 percent).