NationStates Jolt Archive

Squeezed Out
Kerry is lying about the economy — and the New York Times proves it.



A signature campaign issue for John Kerry is the idea that the middle class is being “squeezed.” A couple months ago he concocted a “Middle-Class Misery Index” designed to show how bad things are today (and how great they were under the presidency of Democrat Jimmy Carter). In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he went so far as to melodramatically warn that George Bush is squeezing so hard that “our great middle class is shrinking.”


That’s a lie. To prove this, I’ll go to the least likely source you can imagine — the pages of that crusading liberal newspaper, the New York Times.

David Cay Johnston — whose liberal credentials include a ringing endorsement from Paul Krugman for his best-selling book on how conservative “ideologues have made America safe for wealthy people who don't feel like paying taxes” — wrote a story for the Times that was published on the very same day that Kerry made his claim about the shrinking middle class. Johnston’s story is typical Johnston and typical Times. It is designed to trash-talk the Bush economy. The headline blares, “I.R.S. Says Americans’ Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years.” The story reports a drop in average income of 5.7 percent in 2001 and 2002, compared to 2000 — that zenith of the much-nostalgized “Clinton prosperity.”

Johnston claims that that’s a new record — that there has never been another two-year period of back-to-back income declines.

But there’s something remarkable revealed in one of the tables that accompany Johnston’s story — which he cleverly avoids in the text. As Jim Glass, a perspicacious reader of my blog, pointed out to me, the table shows that the entire income-decline in 2001 and 2002 is due exclusively to losses by taxpayers making over $100,000 a year, with the vast majority of the decline coming from taxpayers making over $1 million. Taxpayers earning less than $100,000 — the overwhelming majority of American households — actually saw their incomes rise during the two-year period.




It’s plain as day: The richer you were, the worse you got hit. So why wasn’t the headline “The Rich Get Poorer, and The Poor Get Richer”? Because the Times and the rest of the liberal establishment will never admit that such a thing occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Another table accompanying the story shows that the middle class is not only doing fine, but expanding — in direct contradiction to Kerry’s convention claim that it’s shrinking. This second table (pictured below) shows the change in the number of tax returns filed in each income category. Note that the lowest-income category shrank as people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder advanced. All of the highest-income categories shrank, too, as “the rich” fell down a rung or two (from the artificial heights of the Clinton bubble, back when liberals weren’t so concerned with income inequality because their team was in the White House).

Which categories grew? Those within the middle class, of course.




As they say on TV, “the truth is out there.” It can even be found on the pages of the New York Times — if you know what to look for and what to ignore.

But you’ll have to ignore a lot of what’s written these days. Get a load of the very first sentence of an article in the current issue of the leading liberal magazine, The American Prospect:

For most Americans, the last four years have represented a low point in our economic history.
Never mind that Great Depression thing you learned about from your grandparents. That was hyped intelligence. But as for what Kerry and his surrogates are saying about the economy, that’s hyped stupidity.

Finally, someone puts into words, what with my shorter attention span and less eloquent type of writing, what I have been saying all along.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408191200.asp

Finally, someone puts into words, what with my shorter attention span and less eloquent type of writing, what I have been saying all along.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200408191200.asp

Great thread. I agree with the writers' points.

How utterly misleading. You get half points for trying I suppose. For those who don't wish to spend the few moments it would take to figure out the fatal flaw in this theory, I shall try to spell out as best I can the "hidden" problems.

Ask youself this first...The stock market did what in the 2000-2002 period? Rise? Fall? Stayed about the same?

For those of you who answered "Fall" give yourself a cookie.

For those wonderfully educated of you who realize the "dot com bust" occured during that period, get yourself some milk.

For those precious few gems who understand that the middle income is considerably less affected than the upper income by the "loss" of inflated prices in the millions of shares on the stock market; a pat on the back is warranted.

For the shinning few, whose great wisdom shines through their monitors and dazzles our eyes, realize that "dot com" millionares were made, and broken back into the middle income ranks during the bust...I dunno, make yourself a nice dinner, have sex with your spouse or something.

And whoever can figure out how all of these things can factor together to equal a fatal flaw in this crackpot theory...write in an help convince our TRA wannabe friend that the nationalreview.com does not have journalistic integrity in mind when it spews this nonsense out at the public.

Also, keep in mind that recent studies show that the middle class is now sporting the majority of the tax burden.

How utterly misleading. You get half points for trying I suppose. For those who don't wish to spend the few moments it would take to figure out the fatal flaw in this theory, I shall try to spell out as best I can the "hidden" problems.

Ask youself this first...The stock market did what in the 2000-2002 period? Rise? Fall? Stayed about the same?

For those of you who answered "Fall" give yourself a cookie.

For those wonderfully educated of you who realize the "dot com bust" occured during that period, get yourself some milk.

For those precious few gems who understand that the middle income is considerably less affected than the upper income by the "loss" of inflated prices in the millions of shares on the stock market; a pat on the back is warranted.

For the shinning few, whose great wisdom shines through their monitors and dazzles our eyes, realize that "dot com" millionares were made, and broken back into the middle income ranks during the bust...I dunno, make yourself a nice dinner, have sex with your spouse or something.

And whoever can figure out how all of these things can factor together to equal a fatal flaw in this crackpot theory...write in an help convince our TRA wannabe friend that the nationalreview.com does not have journalistic integrity in mind when it spews this nonsense out at the public.

your fatal mistake in your theory
when the stock market was down what did the housing market do?
O yeah it grew at record rates, which is still true today, in fact i know people who liquidized their stock portfolio and bought into real estate! So you cant show the stock market as going down to proove sum absurd the middle class theory. People take their money and put it sumwhere else.

Oh noes, Kerry "lied" about the economy! So, what horrible effects will this have on the world? Hmm, let me think. None whatsoever. Whereas Bush has lied throughout his entire term. The effects of his lies are much more noticible. An innocent country attacked for the wrong reasons, causing death to both civilians and US soldiers and forever damaging America's reputation in the international arena.

your fatal mistake in your theory
when the stock market was down what did the housing market do?
O yeah it grew at record rates, which is still true today, in fact i know people who liquidized their stock portfolio and bought into real estate! So you cant show the stock market as going down to proove sum absurd the middle class theory. People take their money and put it sumwhere else.

So the flaw in my theory is that some people survived the bust financially? Bull.

...That simply doesn't make any sense. By taking money out of something that produces dividends (that count towards your income) and into something that provides returns in the long-term (that doesn't provide income in the short term), your income still GOES DOWN.

Stocks count towards your taxable income, buying a house is encouraged by the government so you actually get a small tax credit for it in that year.

Got any other "fatal mistakes" to point out?

So the flaw in my theory is that some people survived the bust financially? Bull.

...That simply doesn't make any sense. By taking money out of something that produces dividends (that count towards your income) and into something that provides returns in the long-term (that doesn't provide income in the short term), your income still GOES DOWN.

Stocks count towards your taxable income, buying a house is encouraged by the government so you actually get a small tax credit for it in that year.

Got any other "fatal mistakes" to point out?

HAH
do you know how much profit people have made on real estate as of late?
100% in a matter of 6 months to a year. Yeah real long term. Thats not bad at all especially considering its a pretty much guaranteed return. Granted its not as much as 100-200% a week on the stock market, but then again a good broker could still do that now.

And im not talking about one single homeowner, im speaking of people who buy real estate like stock, they buy entire blocks to sell them in half a year, thats what im talking about. Which is still under the regular 15% capital gains on all profits.

Not to mention the people who decide to build on this land and sell the newly made houses and create their own demand. these people are making upwards of 100-200% easily in these sorts of transactions.

Ever heard the term owner financing? how about interest first loans? More ways to make money on the housing market.

O and by the way, not all stocks produce dividends, and the ones that do will only get you 10-15% gain per year usually( there are exceptions both up and down )

This article points out some factors I don't think anyone has considered yet on this thread...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_priority_list.cfm

"...only about half of all Americans own stock. The average American is still feeling what John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, call the "middle-class squeeze."

"Already, jobs growth, which picked up in March, has begun to slow considerably. The report from June showed a disappointing 112,000 new jobs, fewer than necessary to keep pace with population growth. Even more telling is this: When President Bush came into office, 64.4 percent of all American adults were working. That figure has now dropped to 62.3."

"For those who are working, hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined slightly over the last year. And many of the manufacturing jobs that boosted generations of Americans into the middle class are probably gone forever - lost to computers and Chinese workers."

"Add to that soaring health care costs. Workers are having to pay more of their insurance costs, reducing their take-home pay. Or they are stuck with jobs that provide no health insurance."

Oh noes, Kerry "lied" about the economy! So, what horrible effects will this have on the world? Hmm, let me think. None whatsoever. Whereas Bush has lied throughout his entire term. The effects of his lies are much more noticible. An innocent country attacked for the wrong reasons, causing death to both civilians and US soldiers and forever damaging America's reputation in the international arena.

Wow, you are a complete imbecile. You do realize that it can and probably will have effects of the world, especially if Kerry gets elected as the president of our ENTIRE country. The point you made that, "Bust has lied throughout his entire term." Is completely irrelevent to the point you are trying to make, because Kerry has never been president, and automatically assuming that Kerry would be an amazing president who can fix all the worlds problems is simply naive, and you also have no basis with which to compare the presidencies of Kerry And Bush. On to, "The effects of his lies are much more noticible." Again, severely irrelevent, Kerry's lies aren't as noticible as Bush's "lies" because Bush is currently President, Kerry is not. And as for the last parts of your post, "innocent" is hardly the word for Iraq, and for the most part, a word that does not and will not ever apply for areas of the middle east. Damage to "America's reputation in the international arena" is a ridiculous comment, America has always been viewed in a negative light, especially when it comes to this "international arena", which is mostly the United Nations anyhow. And if you are in fact an American, you shouldn't be so concerned with this international arena, because you are an American, and you shouldn't give a damn about what any other prat from any other country thinks. If you do, you should just leave, unless you're from elsewhere, in which case, you shouldn't be concerned in the least with Our presidential matters.

Looking at Luskin's article (which I have to take with some huge grains of salt coming from a website with advertisements for W ketchup and other pro-Bush merchandise all over it), I'm not sure what he claims really adds up.

Luskan claims, "Taxpayers earning less than $100,000 — the overwhelming majority of American households — actually saw their incomes rise during the two-year period."

Now according to his chart directly beneath this claim, we see that at the $100 - $200 thousand income range, the average income change is -0.1%. That would be about a $100-200 loss of income over a two year time frame. Not much, but still a loss.

Next is the $75-$100 thousand income range, which we see had a gain of income in two years of 0.1%. That would be about an extra $75-100 in income over a two year time frame.

Now for the $50-75 thousand income range, the gain is 0.2% over two years. That would be an increase of $100-150 in income over two years.

$25-50 thousand saw no loss or gain over two years....while $1-25 thousand saw an increase of 1.3%. That works out to an extra $13-325 dollars over the course of two years.

Keep in mind this is over a two year time frame. Most "middle class" Americans will fall in the $25 thousand to 75$ thousand income range. How many people do you know that would be happy if in two years their income increased only $100 bucks, while the cost of everything from gas, insurance, energy bills, health care, etc...were all increasing...not to mention inflation. The middle class is definately feeling the squeeze, and the link you provided helps prove it. Thanks

And if you are in fact an American, you shouldn't be so concerned with this international arena, because you are an American, and you shouldn't give a damn about what any other prat from any other country thinks. If you do, you should just leave, unless you're from elsewhere, in which case, you shouldn't be concerned in the least with Our presidential matters.

Shouldn't give a damn?! And I'm the imbecile? You, my friend, is what gives Americans a bad name. Of course we should! America should not go around doing whatever it pleases with no regard to other countries, merely because it has the power to blow countries into oblivion. They have a word for that, it's called a bully. Those aren't good.

While the government of Iraq wasn't the best, realize that the ones who lost the most were the innocent civilians. Those who did absolutly nothing against America. And don't start feeding 9/11 bullshit to me. They were all Afganis or Iranians. And what about that time when America SUPPORTED Saddam? You really need to get your priorities straight. Bush's lies have done much more damage than Kerry. If he lied at all.

John Kerry a liar? No shock there.

Shouldn't give a damn?! And I'm the imbecile? You, my friend, is what gives Americans a bad name. Of course we should! America should not go around doing whatever it pleases with no regard to other countries, merely because it has the power to blow countries into oblivion. They have a word for that, it's called a bully. Those aren't good.

While the government of Iraq wasn't the best, realize that the ones who lost the most were the innocent civilians. Those who did absolutly nothing against America. And don't start feeding 9/11 bullshit to me. They were all Afganis or Iranians. And what about that time when America SUPPORTED Saddam? You really need to get your priorities straight. Bush's lies have done much more damage than Kerry. If he lied at all.


France and Russia SUPPORTED Saddam thru the 80's and 90's, even AFTER WE STOPPED!

John Kerry a liar? No shock there.
Well, I don't really like Kerry and his ideas, but at least he's not the worst of the two presidential candidates.....

Well, I don't really like Kerry and his ideas, but at least he's not the worst of the two presidential candidates.....

He is the worst, He is trying to bully TV networks to not air anti-Kerry ads.

How utterly misleading. You get half points for trying I suppose. For those who don't wish to spend the few moments it would take to figure out the fatal flaw in this theory, I shall try to spell out as best I can the "hidden" problems.

Ask youself this first...The stock market did what in the 2000-2002 period? Rise? Fall? Stayed about the same?

For those of you who answered "Fall" give yourself a cookie.

For those wonderfully educated of you who realize the "dot com bust" occured during that period, get yourself some milk.

For those precious few gems who understand that the middle income is considerably less affected than the upper income by the "loss" of inflated prices in the millions of shares on the stock market; a pat on the back is warranted.

For the shinning few, whose great wisdom shines through their monitors and dazzles our eyes, realize that "dot com" millionares were made, and broken back into the middle income ranks during the bust...I dunno, make yourself a nice dinner, have sex with your spouse or something.

And whoever can figure out how all of these things can factor together to equal a fatal flaw in this crackpot theory...write in an help convince our TRA wannabe friend that the nationalreview.com does not have journalistic integrity in mind when it spews this nonsense out at the public.
And what WORLD altering event happened in the 2000-2002 period? 9/11! Oh, and lets not forget that the stock market started it's decline a few months before the end of Bill Clinton's term.

I can't wait till Bush wins again. But if John Kerry does win, I'll be looking forward to the high-speed train system that John Kerry promised us.

Keep in mind that US family income is usually created by 2 earners these days. Therefore, when someone like John Kerry is talking about people making over $100,000/year he is misleading the public. A $100,000/year income could be achieved by two earners having $50,000/year incomes and usually is.

Just something to keep in mind.

ALL RIGHT!! you have no idea how long ive been waiting for something like this to happen!!

An innocent country attacked for the wrong reasons.

That's right! Saddam didn't hate us at all. He wasn't supporting terrorism or telling his men to dig into greaves to find "long gone" illnesses.

Azati, You need to revise your statement. It sucks and is inncorect.

As for Kerry lying...Duh!

I want Bush to win, but if Kerry succeeds him as president, I think it would be justice if his entire term was nothing but misery (as it probably will be).

Yes, Clinton left a surplus.
Yes, Bush spent that surplus.
But, as all reporter...I mean "journalists," fail to report, it has made one of the fastest recoveries ever!

Plus, Kerry contradicts himself, waffles, flipflops, etc.

Go BUSH!

How utterly misleading. You get half points for trying I suppose. For those who don't wish to spend the few moments it would take to figure out the fatal flaw in this theory, I shall try to spell out as best I can the "hidden" problems.

Ask youself this first...The stock market did what in the 2000-2002 period? Rise? Fall? Stayed about the same?

For those of you who answered "Fall" give yourself a cookie.

For those wonderfully educated of you who realize the "dot com bust" occured during that period, get yourself some milk.

For those precious few gems who understand that the middle income is considerably less affected than the upper income by the "loss" of inflated prices in the millions of shares on the stock market; a pat on the back is warranted.

For the shinning few, whose great wisdom shines through their monitors and dazzles our eyes, realize that "dot com" millionares were made, and broken back into the middle income ranks during the bust...I dunno, make yourself a nice dinner, have sex with your spouse or something.

And whoever can figure out how all of these things can factor together to equal a fatal flaw in this crackpot theory...write in an help convince our TRA wannabe friend that the nationalreview.com does not have journalistic integrity in mind when it spews this nonsense out at the public.
*CanuckHeaven* loves the cookies and milk and enjoys the pat on the back.

*CanuckHeaven* will enjoy a nice dinner but the sex will have to be self serve as his G/F is in the Philippines at this moment.

Note to TRA wannabe: be sure to check dictionary for the meaning to certain words, such as "integrity", "nonsense", and while you are at it, check out bullshit (a page I am sure you have visited before?)!!

That's right! Saddam didn't hate us at all. He wasn't supporting terrorism or telling his men to dig into greaves to find "long gone" illnesses.

Azati, You need to revise your statement. It sucks and is inncorect.

As for Kerry lying...Duh!

I want Bush to win, but if Kerry succeeds him as president, I think it would be justice if his entire term was nothing but misery (as it probably will be).

Yes, Clinton left a surplus.
Yes, Bush spent that surplus.
But, as all reporter...I mean "journalists," fail to report, it has made one of the fastest recoveries ever!

Plus, Kerry contradicts himself, waffles, flipflops, etc.

Go BUSH!

God, how long are idiot conservatives going to keep saying Saddam supported terrorists? Can any of you tell me which of the sizable middle-east countries supported terrorism less than Iraq?

Fastest recoveries? Is that why July only saw 32,000 new jobs created. That is a truly miserbale number. Is that why economic indicators are falling again? Is that why the dollar is weak? Is that why oil prices are so high? Is that why we just had a record trade deficit in July? I thought conservatives were against smoking mind altering substances, but pass over some of what you're smoking.


Kerry waffles? Jeez, Mr I'm a War/Peace President does nothing but waffle.

The only thing you have on Kerry, is the statement "I voted for it before I voted against it." And you know what? I would have done the same exact thing as him, considering how the versions of the bill he voted for/against differed.

I'm sorry, but I honestly, truly, deeply feel that anyone who votes for Bush is a complete and utter idiot that no amount of factual information will ever sway.

This goes to all of you Bush supporters out there. BUSH IS A COMPLETE IDIOT! And for all you working class Bush supporters who feels he is in it for you. Bush doesnt give a s*** about you! notice his war for obvious reasons (oil) has only called upon the poor or the working class, while the rich congressmen and senators (except for that ONE senator who has a kid in there) just sit back and watch, many with kids sponcer them into collage getting them nice cars. Bush claims terrorists! Thats why he went into Afghanistan (a good move) but when the idiot remembered there was no oil in there he went to Iraq, a country with no terrorists that attacked the US a leader who allowed UN inspectors to look through his country, oh and a lot of oil. Bush has now given the US a reputation that will take many years and good leaders to fix. And in an attempt to stop terrorism he has united a new age of holy warriors against us they now hate us much more than Israel. All Green-party supporters YOU ROCK! But remember that Kerry is the only possible defeater of Bush.

All Green-party supporters YOU ROCK! But remember that Kerry is the only possible defeater of Bush.

Ralph Nader! Vote Ralph Nader! Don't listen to that babbling idiot, Green Party vote Ralph Nader!

:rolleyes:

Well, for the most part, we have Nader to thank for the past 4 years of hell.

This fact is a few monthes old, but during the two Bush administrations, not one net job was created. Thats right, not one net job. Now, how can anyone say he is good for the working class, when the facts clearly contradict that statement.

The GOPs like to criticize Kerry for "changing sides" on issues. You name any issue, read both versions of the bill, the one he supported and the one he didnt, and, if you've got an ounce of sense, you realize that what he did clearly made sense.

Amen Gymoor and Bad Republicans! Amen! About Iraq not being innocent, i ment the people did nothing. Citizens, not government. Come to think of it really, the government did nothing to us either. But my point is, the people who suffered were the citizens of Iraq who did absolutly nothing to anybody.

Amen Gymoor and Bad Republicans! Amen! About Iraq not being innocent, i ment the people did nothing. Citizens, not government. Come to think of it really, the government did nothing to us either. But my point is, the people who suffered were the citizens of Iraq who did absolutly nothing to anybody.

The people have done a great deal more than, "nothing", as you so aptly put it. As we speak, they willingly ally themselves with Clerics and other Islamic Fundementalists who end up killing our soldiers. Let's not forget that all this rebuilding and setting up goverments to take control, do you realize all that we've done for them? If anything, they should be getting on their knees and thanking America. The people of Iraq are constantly being tied to terrorist supporters and even camps housing and training terrorists, even children. Before you defend these people who do "absolutly" nothing, you should take a closer look at what they aren't doing, such as cooperating.

Oh My God! Someone wrote an editorial about an editoral! I will now not vote for Kerry!

I will now annihilate Bush's policies using proven facts, and no opinions whatsoever

FACT: Net jobs created during Bush adminstration: 0

FACT: More soldiers have died during 17 months in Iraq than every American war since Vietnam, combined

FACT: Iraq never sheltered Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden

FACT: Bush's IQ has been estimated numerous times, and the highest estimate was 91

FACT: Bush's IQ has been estimated numerous times, and the highest estimate was 91
Its interesting that something based entirely on speculation is now passed as fact. Scraping the bottom of the Bush bashing barrel, eh?

The people have done a great deal more than, "nothing", as you so aptly put it. As we speak, they willingly ally themselves with Clerics and other Islamic Fundementalists who end up killing our soldiers. Let's not forget that all this rebuilding and setting up goverments to take control, do you realize all that we've done for them? If anything, they should be getting on their knees and thanking America. The people of Iraq are constantly being tied to terrorist supporters and even camps housing and training terrorists, even children. Before you defend these people who do "absolutly" nothing, you should take a closer look at what they aren't doing, such as cooperating.
EDIT *Flame against above post*

STFU WHO BROUGHT SADDAM TO POWER. DOPE.
Saddam himself and his actions were much more of a factor than any foreign intervention or support was. He came to power via a palace coup in 1979 after "President" Bakr resigned.

And whoever can figure out how all of these things can factor together to equal a fatal flaw in this crackpot theory...write in an help convince our TRA wannabe friend that the nationalreview.com does not have journalistic integrity in mind when it spews this nonsense out at the public.
Well, do you know where TRA, or MKULTRA, takes his articles from? Thats right, you guessed it, the uber-liberal, non-sense spewing democracynow.org

STFU WHO BROUGHT SADDAM TO POWER. DOPE.
Please, that expression has already been deemed flaming by the mods. Please do not flame.

ok im calm now. Do you really expect people to knell before american as their gods. Yes and all iraqis are Islamic Fundementalists(sarcasm).
''the citizens of Iraq who did absolutly nothing to anybody.''
They DID nothing to anybody but they dont like americans now, so you have created the terrorists by destroying there homes/familys

Please, that expression has already been deemed flaming by the mods. Please do not flame.
ok edited

Oh noes, Kerry "lied" about the economy! So, what horrible effects will this have on the world? Hmm, let me think. None whatsoever. Whereas Bush has lied throughout his entire term. The effects of his lies are much more noticible. An innocent country attacked for the wrong reasons, causing death to both civilians and US soldiers and forever damaging America's reputation in the international arena.

Stop making democrats look bad, you're not helping anyone. Don't make him look like less of a liar, or not as bad of a liar. Just shut your mouth. Good boy.

Kerry was not lying. The dwindling middle class is a result of taxation. Regardless of how much the middle class is earning, they are beginning to pay an inordinate amount of taxes, making their net income lower than it has been in years. Essentially the middle class pays more in tax dollars than the poor and the wealthy combines based on how the Bush tax cuts work. The middle class is earning more than the lower class and there are a lot more people in the middle class than there are in the upper class. Bush's tax cuts did reduce the tax burden on the lower class, however, in order to pay for them he had to cut back on services like education, healthcare, and transit, in effect screwing the people who can't provide those things for themselves or their children.

If the economy's so great right now, look at the plain and simple facts of economy: Largest surplus in the history of America under Clinton. Largest deficit in the history of America under Bush. Besides, Clinton thought up the homeland security bureau, which, if put into effect before September 11th like Clinton intended, could have prevented the terrorist attacks. Don't believe me? Let me ask you this. Vastly increasing the size of government...liberal idea, conservative idea?

The people have done a great deal more than, "nothing", as you so aptly put it. As we speak, they willingly ally themselves with Clerics and other Islamic Fundementalists who end up killing our soldiers. Let's not forget that all this rebuilding and setting up goverments to take control, do you realize all that we've done for them? If anything, they should be getting on their knees and thanking America. The people of Iraq are constantly being tied to terrorist supporters and even camps housing and training terrorists, even children. Before you defend these people who do "absolutly" nothing, you should take a closer look at what they aren't doing, such as cooperating.

Why do you hate America?

Stop making democrats look bad, you're not helping anyone. Don't make him look like less of a liar, or not as bad of a liar. Just shut your mouth. Good boy.

Kerry was not lying. The dwindling middle class is a result of taxation. Regardless of how much the middle class is earning, they are beginning to pay an inordinate amount of taxes, making their net income lower than it has been in years. Essentially the middle class pays more in tax dollars than the poor and the wealthy combines based on how the Bush tax cuts work. The middle class is earning more than the lower class and there are a lot more people in the middle class than there are in the upper class. Bush's tax cuts did reduce the tax burden on the lower class, however, in order to pay for them he had to cut back on services like education, healthcare, and transit, in effect screwing the people who can't provide those things for themselves or their children.

If the economy's so great right now, look at the plain and simple facts of economy: Largest surplus in the history of America under Clinton. Largest deficit in the history of America under Bush. Besides, Clinton thought up the homeland security bureau, which, if put into effect before September 11th like Clinton intended, could have prevented the terrorist attacks. Don't believe me? Let me ask you this. Vastly increasing the size of government...liberal idea, conservative idea?

You are obviously not aware that Bush is one of the most Liberal Presidents of the United States in the last...what....200 odd years?

He is the worst, He is trying to bully TV networks to not air anti-Kerry ads.
That's becasue the Anti-Kerry ads he's tryinf to stop are defamatory lies.

Bush's tax cuts did reduce the tax burden on the lower class, however, in order to pay for them he had to cut back on services like education, healthcare, and transit, in effect screwing the people who can't provide those things for themselves or their children.
Education funding has increased massively under Bush, and with the new healthcare plan, it will too, although not as big as Clinton's plan would have. I'm not sure of the stats on transit. The fact of the matter is, he didn't "pay" for them (the tax cuts) which is why we're in the red right now.

Its interesting that something based entirely on speculation is now passed as fact. Scraping the bottom of the Bush bashing barrel, eh?

Well, to get Bush we had to scrape the bottom of the presidential barrel, so it only seems fair.

Besides his IQ is like 130 something. Every president in history as long as IQ tests have existed has had a "genius" IQ, although the report I read was during Clinton's second term, I don't see how you could graduate from all the school Bush did without being intelligent. He can learn things, and he can understand abstract concepts. He just messes up words and has no common sense. They can't measure common sense.

Oh noes, Kerry "lied" about the economy! So, what horrible effects will this have on the world? Hmm, let me think. None whatsoever. Whereas Bush has lied throughout his entire term. The effects of his lies are much more noticible. An innocent country attacked for the wrong reasons, causing death to both civilians and US soldiers and forever damaging America's reputation in the international arena.


OH NOES!!!! :D

Amen Gymoor and Bad Republicans! Amen! About Iraq not being innocent, i ment the people did nothing. Citizens, not government. Come to think of it really, the government did nothing to us either. But my point is, the people who suffered were the citizens of Iraq who did absolutly nothing to anybody.

The important question is not whether the world is better off with Saddam Hussien, but whether the world is better with a war started on false premises?

Well, to get Bush we had to scrape the bottom of the presidential barrel, so it only seems fair.

Besides his IQ is like 130 something. Every president in history as long as IQ tests have existed has had a "genius" IQ, although the report I read was during Clinton's second term, I don't see how you could graduate from all the school Bush did without being intelligent. He can learn things, and he can understand abstract concepts. He just messes up words and has no common sense. They can't measure common sense.

Thats the paradox. Sometimes he seems intelligent and certainly charming in his own way. But other times he seems like a Crude, unintelligible moron.

Thats the paradox. Sometimes he seems intelligent and certainly charming in his own way. But other times he seems like a Crude, unintelligible moron.

It makes you wonder if he ever stopped his coke habbit....

Who is lying about the economy?

George W. Bush, that's who:

Likewise, no one holds Bush accountable for the dot-com bust or the shock of September 11. His problems are that he's enacted and proposed nothing that would arrest the current slide, and that his policies have actually worsened it.

More precisely, his policy has actually worsened it. For it is the distinctive feature of the Bush presidency that there is but one economic policy come boom or bust, fire or flood. That, of course, is tax cuts, preponderantly for the rich. As a candidate in 2000, Bush argued for tax cuts because the government was actually running a surplus, and it was a more productive use of funds to return that money to taxpayers. Then the bubble burst, the surplus turned to deficit and those same tax cuts were repackaged as an economic stimulus. The $1.6 trillion tax cut of 2001 was so advertised, though it didn't really kick in for the better part of the decade, and most of it was targeted to the wealthy—the class of Americans least likely to spend it. Since it was enacted, it has stimulated the economy to the tune of 1.7 million jobs lost.

Undeterred, the administration is back at it again with its proposed $726 billion tax cut, more than half of which takes the form of eliminating the taxes on dividends—which, again, will go overwhelmingly to the rich. It's difficult to find anyone not working for the administration who believes this cut will really stimulate the economy. Though virtually no one noticed (there was a war on), in mid-March the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its study of the Bush tax cut. "Taken together," the report concluded, "the proposals would provide a relatively small impetus in an economy the size of the United States." The study had been supervised by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who came to the CBO after serving as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

Ain't it the truth!!!