Frank, I'm not going to get into a huge thing with you over this. I'm not on this site enough to know much of anything about anyone, much less yourself (and I don't have the time to do so), so if I say anything, its from what I read in the immediate thread.
Making comments like Cent is "stoned" and how his ideas are "half baked" are pointless and don't amount to anything other than just taking a crap on what another person has obviously expended effort into doing.
As he stated, Cent is in school, so I'm not expecting genious from the guy. What I do like to see is someone who has an idea and is attempting to develop it further. When you start raggin' on him for no good reason, it just cuts them down and makes them feel bad. Try constructive criticism instead.
And by "do us all a favor", I was speaking of everyone who read the post. Roughly 120 or so people thus far, according to the counter.
Centroles wrote:Frank, if the only reason you came to this thread was to bash me, this thread, and anyone who actually bothers to read it with an open mind, then don't bother.
This thread is meant for people who dislike bush and want to see him not get reelected and are actually willing to actually go out and do something about it.
That's obviously not you, so why are even on here?
If you don't have anything of value to contribute here, then please troll somewhere else.
Son,
I've probably done more political activism over the years by accident than you have on purpose.
I've gone door to door; I've stenciled, put up and removed signs; I've driven people to polling places; I've manned polling sites; I've written copy; I've spoken on radio shows; and done much, much more than my fair share.
And I am working diligently and intelligently to have an impact on tossing Dubya and his handlers out of control of this country.
So I don't need any lectures on such activism from some still-wet-behind-the-ears kid.
Now...with that out of the way...allow me to wish you the very best of luck.
My comments earlier were merely my impressions of your efforts in this thread -- which I consider about as flawed, misdirected, and pie-in-the-sky as any I've ever seen.
But I re-emphasize -- I wish you luck.
So far, you've managed to drum up one volunteer to help you -- or at least, to cheer you on.
Let's see if you can get a few more.
In the meantime, you've been on a rampage with a couple of off-the-wall ruminations that truly did seem to me to be the product of smoke. If I'm wrong -- I apologize. If I'm right (no need to acknowledge that if I am) -- try not to post while high.
Actually, the poll indicates that there are 6 people that intended to support this movement within a day of this thread being posted before all the spam and attacks against heywood, me, and this thread in general.
Honestly, I don't know what you have against either this thread or my posts. Most posters with the exception of you and joe respond well to them and often remark that they like the idea. I'm sure just a big part of your life now is centered around ideas, such as cars that eventually replaced horses, mail order catalogues that soon made Sears a very rich man, the internet, giant shopping complexes, which all seemed ludacrious at the time. The future of this country will be decided by those with an open mind.
Both tv on demand and the mall were very good ideas that others have posted in favor of. And they are both very practical, useful and can be implemented with ease by anyone with the resources to do so.
I'm not sure you realize this Frank, but the internet has become a very powerful tool in politics. This idea for an internet centered campaign has a great deal of potential.
Moveon.org recently did a contest where users make their own campaign ads against bush and submit them so they can air the best on tv. They generated millions for their cause, were highlighted on various news shows and recieved almost 2000 submissions with quite a few gems. Check out the site, there are several very entertaining and educational submissions.
This idea is very similar in nature. But it involves less work on your part. And has the potential to be a lot more decisive this upcoming election. We work together to accumilate information and make the most effective posters critiqueing Bush, pick the best ones and distribute them online through sites like moveon.org for people to download, print out and put up in there neighborhoods. Since I didn't have insider access to a popular site to recruit many people at once, I figured I could do it gradually by networking through the various forums online.
Think about the amount of time it takes to make a 30 second professional ad, and compare it to making a few simple posters on word. Think about how relutant most people are about donating money to causes, and consider how many millions did so for sites like moveon.org or blogforamerica.com just to make sure that bush gets removed from office. There are millions of people out there willing to make the effort to put up posters in their own neighborhoods. All we need to do is inspire them with posters worth putting up. And we just might see them up, critiquing Bush's policy on everything from education to healthcare, designed to appeal to the swign voters, on every street corner of this country. Such a campaign could be decisive in several key states.
I think this idea had tremendous potential for sucess before it was sidetracked.
Craven, Frank, Joe, Mcgentrix, Gustava, I would greatly appreciate it if you simply deleted any posts you made that were irrelevent to the thread or atleast edit them to make them relevent. Me and Heywood will follow suit and maybe we can get more people to post about the idea itself and get back on track...
Now in an effort to get this topic back on track... my opening post before I edited in some additional comments to clarify it.
I have an idea for an internet grassroots campaign that I am certain can get bush out of office.
Studies have shown that when the candidates themselves attack the incumbant's policies, there is a backlash that hurts them more than if they focused on delivering a positive uplifting message to voters. But when everyday citizens or independent groups rally together to attack the incumbant's policies, people listen. Bush may have 200 million dollars to campaign for himself, but we can use human psychology to our advantage
There are four phases to this plan.
Phase 1: Recruitment We recruit as many people as we can that want to help do a small part in getting Bush out of office. We can scour internet forums, chat rooms, wherever to get as many people that want to help defeat Bush as possible. I am going to make a copy of this thread on a couple of politics forums that I know of. Please feel free to do the same. I will eventually post a link on each of these threads networking it with the other threads. Do the same in any forum where you post of copy of this thread.
Phase 2: Brainstorming We accumulate together as many factual examples of how Bush has hurt Americans, unpopular or downright dangerous policies that he implemented, poor policy decisions he has made, quotes that demonstrate his inability to govern properly such as those by O' Neil, reasons why Americans shouldn't vote for him, onto this thread.
Phase 3: Implementation We each make posters designed to be printable on 8x11 sheets of papers organizing this information in a way that will connect with voters. The focus should be to convince southerners, moderates and even republicans that Bush needs to go. These are the people who will decide this election. Specific numbers and hard facts are important as they convince people that the concerns are very real. And the posters themselves should be designed to grab the attention of others and appeal to moderate Americans. Please, nothing too radical, no comparisons of Bush to Hitler. In addition to being in poor taste, all that would achieve is generate negative publicity and draw people away from this movement.
Phase 4: Distribution We select the posters that we believe are most effective in convincing voters and contact internet sites like moveon and blogforamerica with them. They'll put them up so that the tens of thousands of people that visit their site each day can download them, print them out and put them up all over their neighborhoods.
Just think of it, posters up on every street corner communicating to the general population all the bad things that the Bush administration did that's ruining people's lives, all the hypocritical statements he made in favor of programs days before he cut their funding, all the constitutionally guarenteed rights he took away with the patriot acts, all the warnings he ignored that his tax cuts to the rich would not create jobs, all the funding he cut from state and local budgets forcing everything from tuitions to taxes to go up, all the special entitlements he gave corporations with our tax money, the trillion dollar defecit he created that our children will have to pay off, all the veterans he cut off from healthcare, all the funding he cut from education, from veterans, medicare and various other things he did that the American public should be made aware of and disgusted with.
If this campaign proves successful, we can take a similar approach to communicate to voters the reasons they should elect whoever the democrats nominate for the presidency. The posters can highlight the candidates ideas, weaken the attacks that Bush will try to throw at them, and in general work to present a more accurate representation of the democratic party's ideals.
If you have ANY interest in seeing Bush out of office, please join this movement and help make it a success. This is something too big to be launched by one person. Especially a busy student who unfortunately has very little time to devote to this cause. I desperately need others to take up this cause because of this. If we can get this movement of the ground and eventually get a hundredth of the support that Dean has generated for his campaign online, we can have posters up that convince people to not reelect Bush on every street corner in America.
I already posted what needs to be done. But I am far too busy to do all of it myself. I need others to run with this thread and act on their own to get this movement off the ground. This means that
If you find an article containing information that will discredit the Bush administration in the views of the general public, post it here.
If you know of a forum with people who want to see Bush out of office, post a copy of this thread there, and post a link on that thread back to here as well as a link on this thread over to that one.
If you have an idea for what might make for an effective poster, make it and send it to us. You can email it to me at
[email protected] .
If you have webspace you can donate where we can store the posters that people make, please tell us about it and how to access it.
If you work for or post on a site like moveon or blogforamerica, please contact the wed administrator with this idea and any posters we decide on.
If you work with people that want to get bush out of office, tell them about this movement and get them to consider contributing to it.
Now I ask for a show of hands as to how many people are willing to participate in this movement by voting yes on the poll. Keep in mind, our numbers in each individual forum may be small, but combined with each of us recruit members both from our daily life and from various different forums, we can have thousands of supporters in a short time. And a few dozen contributors is all that we really need to get these posters published on sites like moveon.org so that democrats everywhere can download and put them up.
I am going to implement phase one now, by posting as much information that discredits bush as I can find. I am also going to make a copy of this thread on another popular forum. I need the rest of you to do the same and if you get an idea for an effective poster based on the information posted below PLEASE make it and submit it here
How his extermely partisan focus and his anything for his supporters attitude has pushed through billions of dollars in sweetheart deals to big businesses and pharmacetical companies effectively splitting the nation in half at a time when the need for national unity is greater than ever.
How his lack of financial restriant, uncontrolled spending at tough economic times, refusal to take a stand against pork barrel politcs, allowed for the balloning of the federal defecit in favor of big govt.
How his blatant disregard for seperation of church and state and equal rights for all including gays is only ostracizing people and increasing the national divide.
How his constant insistance that all those who protest opposing his policies be restricted to "free speech" zones miles away from anywhere he or the media will be (or risk criminal prosecution) while allowing those who support him to get as close as they want.
As stated in The American Conservative - a stuantly conservative magazine...
"This president deserves to be criticized. Sharply. By anyone who believes in limited, constitutional government.
First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts can carry even a gifted politician only so far. And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to simplistic remedies to complex problems, especially when it comes to turning America into the globe's governess.
Second, despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 encouraged the administration to push into law civil-liberties restrictions that should worry anyone, whether they are wielded by a Bush or a Clinton administration.
The president and his aides have given imperiousness new meaning. Officials are apparently incapable of acknowledging that their pre-war assertions about Iraq's WMD capabilities were incorrect; indeed, they resent that the president is being questioned about his administration's claims before the war. They are unwilling to accept a role for Congress in deciding how much aid money to spend."
There are literally thousands of reasons why conservatives and republicans alike should dislike bush. Why not play up these issues this election?
The nation-building, the uncontrolled spending, and throw his christinity into question, subtly.
The point driven across should be that the Democratic candidate will be more fiscally responsible yet not raise taxes for the poor, better at foreign policy, and is a better christian. That should take away just about every excuse.
Christian leaders from the Pope to Pat Robertson all supported born-again Christian, Carla Fey Tucker's quest to prevent her execution while Bush mocked her hopelessness.
I think this is great ammo for a political ad:
Lets not make any qualms about it. Lets attack him at the heart.
We splice in direct statements he made about...
how he favors small govt.
how we doesn't think the US army should be used for nation building.
how he values liberty
how he will fight for the working man
basically all the stuff that he said to convince libertarians to back him.
with the facts of what he actually did
how the patriot acts rip civil rights to shreds
etc. etc. etc.
end with, is this the man you voted for?
by convincing enough suburbians and lower class that this election is important enough for them to vote in by focusing on the balloning defecit, how bush cut education funding, emphasizing how their children will have to break their backs paying off the huge defecits bush is running up with no attempt to control pork barrel spending, how bush took away environmental standards and now we have mercury in our fish and cyanide in our air, and how bush did nothing to stop 3.3 million jobs from being jobs by either offering corporations incentives to not place layoffs, holding them accountable for giving raises to the top officials while firing the bottom ones, discouraging outsourcing etc, how virtually every major city and state in this country is bankrupt as the administration has repeatedly cut federal funding to the states. New York is now forced to cut out after school programs from it's schools. Many states are also being forced to resort to drastic measures.
There are two approaches to marketing a campaign, appealing to the emotional side and appealing to the rational side. And both appeals are best launched directly where people live, their living room tvs during sitcoms, football games, news broadcasts etc.
Appealing to the emotional side takes a lot longer, this really needs to get people comfortable with the marketing and get them to relate to it on the same level. The 30 minute ad that Dean ran is a brilliant execution of appealing to the emotional side. Kerry can do the same.
The rational side can only be won over with hard facts, statistics and possibly one of the many statements by noble peace prize winning economists critiquing bush's economic policies and expansionist governmental ideology. And considering all the facts that we have about the bad things that Bush did highlighted in the opening post, a mudslinging campaign aimed at Bush's policies launched by independent sources such as Moveon.org (in order to prevent blowback) will be most effective. This will bring this campaign directly to the front lines, the issues, and prevent bush from hiding behind a ruse of fear and propaganda.
But I NEED YOUR HELP in expanding this strategy, publicizing it, and finding more ways to execute it.
The rich do hoard cash though. Most of their money is sitting around in an offshores bank account somewhere. That's not doing anything to stimulate the economy. Why would adding to the amount stored in offshore banks do anything of the sort?
The poor when given back tax cuts go out and spend the money to buy cars, food, clothes, homes, send their kids to college etc. This is what stimulates the economy and gets it back on it's feet.
But that's off topic. The main issue here isn't who the tax cuts are going to. It's the fact that he spend so much on them while making no effort to limit speding in other areas and ignoring the balloning defecit. He's given away so much pork, so many entitlements to corporations, this is borrowed money that's going to go up rapidly due to interest. This is a debt our children will break their backs trying to pay off.
When you're talking about multimillionaires, I'm sorry but they almost never have all their money tied up in purchases. There are only so many things to buy. Much of the money is usually in a bank. The bank is where any excess money sits. And this is where any money they get back probably ends up.
When you're talking about families making 10-30,000 an year though, the majority of americans. They're often strapped for cash. Any tax rebates gets spent on needed purchases. Thus they stimulate spending and the economy. If Bush wanted the tax cuts to benefit the economy, he should have targeted them to the people who need it the most and are thus most likely to spend it and thus reinvest it back into the economy.
But once again, let's get back on topic. We're not here to discuss where the tax cuts should have gone. We're discussing if there should have even been tax cuts without making any attempt to control other spending in the form of entitlements to corporations (Bush however had no problem cutting the budget to education) when so many noble peace price winning economists were criticizing the tax cuts and stating the they would be ineffective in stimulating job and sustainable economic growth.
Wait a minute, here's one handy. This guy doesn't sound like he's going to vote at all...
PdDiddle:
Published in the Seattle P-I:
Quote:
It was the morning after the birthday party for my 5-year-old twins and their first full day to play with the toys they had not had time to take out of the packages.
I pulled off the plastic of the Sunday morning paper and there before me was the headline no veteran wants to see: "The U.S. Suffers Its Bloodiest Day."
My children's excitement kept me from reading the story through but the headline stuck with me throughout the morning. A slow rise of anger and frustration about how my long-held beliefs were not being honored by the people elected to honor them started bubbling to the surface.
I have been a Republican my whole life and beliefs of liberty, small government, reverence for the Constitution and a fiscal discipline are typical among people who think like I do. But the politicians who said they believed in these concepts are nowhere to be seen. Above all, President Bush, who ran on the platform of "Not Believing in Nation Building," is currently building two, and no Republican seems to care.
We are in the midst of a media blitz that will last until the next election, and this Republican has some questions he would like answered.
I've been a Republican my whole life but when you pass a so-called Patriot Act that authorizes the government to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist acts in confinement, indefinitely, without legal representation ... how is this patriotic ... how does it ensure freedom and liberty ... how does this display reverence for the Constitution?
I've been a Republican my whole life but when the only thing you change about our airport security screeners is who pays their salary, how does this make us safer and how does this relate to our belief in smaller government?
I've been a Republican my whole life and I have heard radio commentators talk about how "those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." Well, if this is so true when speaking of gun control, how is it so untrue when pushing our need for the Patriot Act and racial profiling?
I am an American, a veteran, the son of an immigrant and a former small business owner turned schoolteacher. Most recently, I think of myself as a father, and fatherhood has changed a few things about my thinking -- and not all of the changes make me proud.
I initially supported the war in Iraq, but now I must admit that if it were my son killed in that helicopter crash, patriotism is not the only feeling that I would be experiencing. The wars we have fought lately have not instilled in me a belief that these people are dying for their country as much as for their president's agenda -- and I wonder why I am so willing to support a war that is justifiable enough to risk the lives of other people's children, but nowhere near justifiable enough to risk the lives of my own.
You see, in addition to the 5-year-old twins, I have a 16-year-old stepson still asleep in his room. Would his death in a war like this leave me feeling patriotic or just angry? Call me unpatriotic, un-Republican or even un-American, but I can't find many things about this war that would validate in me the loss of my child.
I remember the Kosovo war and the frustration Republicans felt when we exposed thousands of soldiers to danger with no exit strategy. Though I don't think it would be smart to leave Iraq before we are finished, I would like to know if someone I voted for has any idea when we will be finished.
I've been a Republican my whole life. When it comes to the issues, Democrats still don't represent my beliefs, for the most part. I am used to that, but I'm not used to the Republicans also failing to represent my beliefs.
What do you do, when faced with a ballot, and nobody on it represents you? Still, we wonder why 50 percent of us never vote.
I've been a Republican my whole life...
Daniel Lee is a middle-school teacher and driving instructor for the Monroe School District. He also served in the Washington Army National Guard.
3) He gravely miscalculated the onus of what he set out to do in Iraq. The consequences of that miscalculation are deaths unending, and more money spent than King Solomon dreamed of.
4) The economy lacks the kind of resiliency it might have shown if more resourcefully tended.
5) His truckling to the rich in his tax cuts shows a callous disregard of civil adjudications between America's poor and America's rich.
And finally, 6) He is a liar. He specifically informed the public that Iraq had in hand instantly deployable weapons of mass destruction. These, it proved, did not exist.
These issues simply need be brought to the limelight along with the Patriot Acts
Time to Divide and Conquer
One of the reasons that Bush the First was defeated by Bill Clinton is that Republicans and independents were divided, with some even voting for Ross Perot. It's time to present a strategy to undermine Bush's support within his own ranks. We don't necessarily have to convince conservatives to vote Democratic; just demoralize them to the point of staying home on Election Day. It CAN be done! Yes, I know, currently most right-wingers, given a war against an opponent they couldn't have cared less about 15 years ago, are all whipped up to a frenzy over Bush. They just like war in general; it makes them feel their nation is strong and invincible; the foe is secondary. But what else has he done for them? And what can they really look forward to with four more years of Bush? Consider:
- he has established the beginnings of a Medicare prescription drug plan that ALONE will soon cost taxpayers TWICE as much as federal welfare EVER DID!
- his vaunted tax cuts have only repealed about HALF of what President Clinton's 1993 tax bill INCREASED on the most wealthy of our citizens!
- he campaigned vigorously against the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, then signed it anyway!
- he negotiated and ultimately passed the SORT Treaty with Russia that disarms America's nuclear arsenal to its lowest point in decades but contains virtually NO verification regime to confirm that Russia is complying!
- he called for and achieved the re-entry of the U.S. into UNESCO!
- he supported three extensions of federal unemployment benefits - and will probably support a fourth if it passes Congress this winter!
- he has stated he will not support any more anti-abortion moves, because the country is not "ready" for it!
- after telling the religious right he would not endorse any gay person for work in his administration, he appointed an openly gay man to an ambassadorship!
- he has not made anywhere near a complete military commitment to capturing Osama bin Laden as he said he would!
- he has supported and signed funding for the National Endowment for the Arts that is larger than that agency's budget has been in years!
- he has called for the continuation of the Assault Weapons Ban!
- he has significantly reduced the outstanding debt and arrears of the U.S. in paying its dues to the UN!
- he has shown no interest in having the FDA review the legality of the abortion-inducing RU-486 drug!
- he has called for huge increases in America's commitment to fighting global AIDS!
- he may well call for a return to the Moon: an enormous federal boondoggle that should make the libertarian wing cringe!
- after intially opposing it, he eventually caved in and supported the Democrats' call for a huge new federal bureaucracy: the Department of Homeland Security!
- his federal budget deficits are larger than any president's in American history; in fact TWICE as large as any previous record!
- he refused to abolish President Clinton's executive order that banned discrimination in federal employment based on sexual orientation!
- in contrast to any conservative goal of a "flat tax", he changed the U.S. tax code so it now has SIX tax brackets instead of five, as it had when he took office!
- his "No Child Left Behind" program violates every tenet of historical "local control" in K-12 education and provides arguably the largest federal intrusion into education in U.S. history!
- he has been extraordinarily tepid in his support of Taiwan's call for a declaration of its independence, in order to placate mainland China!
Share these and other facts with your right-wing companions, and watch them start to question their "rah-rah" enthusiasm. Many right-wingers, including most on this site, are so far out there that it would not be hard to convince them that Bush is a "covert" moderate who does not deserve their support. Encourage them to check out the U.S. Constitution Party or some other quasi-fascist party where they will find their convictions truly appreciated!
- Joseph Blaszak, Software Engineer (December 20, 2003; Muskegon, MI)
2003: A YEAR OF DISTORTION FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
On December 13th, the White House issued a document entitled "2003: A Year of Accomplishment for the American People." The document made various inaccurate and deceptive claims about the Administration's record over the last year. This report by the Center for American Progress seeks to correct those distortions, matching the White House's rhetoric with facts. Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
Produced by the Center for American Progress, 12/13/03 (www.americanprogress.org)
CLAIM vs. FACT: Health Care
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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Economy/Deficits/Taxes
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."
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
TAX CUTS
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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Environment
"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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Other Domestic Priorities
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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Iraq
INT'L 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
INT'L 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-AL QAEDA 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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Afghanistan
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
Please note, text underlined in blue is hyperlinked directly to the original source material.
CLAIM vs. FACT: Homeland Security
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
Frank has become a closet Bush lover? 
I think you're going to need it 