SPIN DOCTORS - A sucker is born every minute

Spin is KING

Published on October 13, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics

I will try and not disappoint some of those who disagree with me i.e. drmiler

Spin is KING - Both sides use it and I will give a few used by Bush and allow drmiler et al to give you some from Kerry

Bush tells us Kerry will increase your taxes (on the middle income Americans- he has stated he wants to increase the tax rates on the wealthiest 2 %) if he is elected. Since when does the president pass laws? Unless BOTH houses of Congress change the tax rates, they will not change but follow the law as they exist after the Bush tax cuts.

Bush admits we have a problem securing our borders. His spin is telling us he has increades funding for Homeland Defense and that has increased the border staff by several hundred officers. It takes over 10,000 added border guards to come close to protecting us. Bush tells us we are doing everything we can to prevent another attack. How can that be true? It means nothing that he increased funding for Homeland security, the issue (non spin) is have we meet the needs. Hell NO. We have Billions to spend in Iraq and to give to the wealthy tax cuts they do not need but we can not afford the added security spending that faces us like to inspect shipping containers, protecting our borders, controlling private airports to mention a few.

Bush tells us that more Americans are homeowners now than ever before. That is a true statement. The spin is that home ownership has nothing to due with ANYTHING that Bush has done. It is a direct result of the 45 year low interest rates. The Bush fiscal policy that has resulted in the increase in the National Debt will, in the long run, drive the interest rates up in the future and harm home and car sales.

Today, Bush is telling us that Kerry is a "Tax and Spend liberal" Bush is a "Charge and Spend" conservative. Pork Barrel spending, for example has never been as high as it is under Bush and the Republicans. If we only have those two options to choose from, it is better to pay for the increased spending they both insist on, then to finance the added spending with more debt and pay the interest in addition to the added spending.

P.T. Barnum had the right idea. It was just the time increment he had wrong. A sucker is born every naosecond not every minute!

Comments

Myrrander

on Oct 13, 2004

But really, a president doesn't have a lot of control over a lot of economic issues. So it's spin from the left to blame Bush for a lot of economic issues.

drmiler

on Oct 13, 2004

SPIN DOCTORS - A sucker is born every minute

By: COL Gene
Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 on Bush Truth
Message Board: Politics
I will try and not disappoint some of those who disagree with me i.e. drmiler

Spin is KING - Both sides use it and I will give a few used by Bush and allow drmiler et al to give you some from Kerry

Bush tells us Kerry will increase your taxes (on the middle income Americans- he has stated he wants to increase the tax rates on the wealthiest 2 %) if he is elected. Since when does the president pass laws? Unless BOTH houses of Congress change the tax rates, they will not change but follow the law as they exist after the Bush tax cuts.

Bush admits we have a problem securing our borders. His spin is telling us he has increades funding for Homeland Defense and that has increased the border staff by several hundred officers. It takes over 10,000 added border guards to come close to protecting us. Bush tells us we are doing everything we can to prevent another attack. How can that be true? It means nothing that he increased funding for Homeland security, the issue (non spin) is have we meet the needs. Hell NO. We have Billions to spend in Iraq and to give to the wealthy tax cuts they do not need but we can not afford the added security spending that faces us like to inspect shipping containers, protecting our borders, controlling private airports to mention a few.

Bush tells us that more Americans are homeowners now than ever before. That is a true statement. The spin is that home ownership has nothing to due with ANYTHING that Bush has done. It is a direct result of the 45 year low interest rates. The Bush fiscal policy that has resulted in the increase in the National Debt will, in the long run, drive the interest rates up in the future and harm home and car sales.

Today, Bush is telling us that Kerry is a "Tax and Spend liberal" Bush is a "Charge and Spend" conservative. Pork Barrel spending, for example has never been as high as it is under Bush and the Republicans. If we only have those two options to choose from, it is better to pay for the increased spending they both insist on, then to finance the added spending with more debt and pay the interest in addition to the added spending.

P.T. Barnum had the right idea. It was just the time increment he had wrong. A sucker is born every naosecond not every minute!

The only one I'm going to talk about right now is that Sen Kerry has stated that he is going to tax only those who make 200K and above. Then he says he has all these grand plans for America but never says anything about funding them. Numbers don't lie. The taxes he's proposing won't even begin to cover what he wants to do. Which means even more taxes.

Myrrander

on Oct 13, 2004

Numbers don't lie.

except the 2.2 trillion dollar plan is exaggerated by a matter of about 13 times...numbers don't lie but politicians do...

COL Gene

on Oct 13, 2004

drmiler

Please re-read my Blog. Senator Kerry can propose all the new spending he wants, if elected. The President CAN NOT PASS LAWS! Kerry will not get ANY new spending programs in place without both houses of Congress passing the laws. That is the SPIN BUSH uses. I guess both you and President Bush need a short course on how laws are passed under our Federal System of government!

drmiler

on Oct 13, 2004

Reply #4 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 3:56:28 PM
drmiler

Please re-read my Blog. Senator Kerry can propose all the new spending he wants, if elected. The President CAN NOT PASS LAWS! Kerry will not get ANY new spending programs in place without both houses of Congress passing the laws. That is the SPIN BUSH uses. I guess both you and President Bush need a short course on how laws are passed under our Federal System of government!

I don't guess I do. At least not from you.

COL Gene

on Oct 13, 2004

drmiler

The facts are not from me but from the sources I listed. I guess you do not believe them as well. It is your attitude that inables the spin doctors to run this country!

drmiler

on Oct 13, 2004

Reply #6 By: COL Gene - 10/13/2004 7:01:58 PM
drmiler

The facts are not from me but from the sources I listed. I guess you do not believe them as well. It is your attitude that inables the spin doctors to run this country!

Unfortunately for you Col, I'm not the only American with that attitude. There are others!

Myrrander

on Oct 13, 2004

Unfortunately for you Col, I'm not the only American with that attitude. There are others

indeed...I don't want the "charlotte's web" spinner giving me "some pig" either

COL Gene

on Oct 14, 2004

Yes drmiler

It is the attitude they you admit that gave us George W. It is the same attitude that gave us the Iraq War, the deficit, high gas prices, lack of jobs etc. I guess we can not put all the blame on George W. We need to save some for the people who blindly follow him. America has now watched three debates and the score is Kerrry 3 and Bush 0. Time for George to return to Texas.

T_Bone4Justice

on Oct 14, 2004

"But really, a president doesn't have a lot of control over a lot of economic issues. So it's spin from the left to blame Bush for a lot of economic issues."

This is both true and not true. No, the President cannot control EVERYTHING related to economics (i.e. the price of oil), but there are a lot of things he COULD do to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and soften the blow of cyclical economic down-turns. What Bush decided to do was to send this nation into Iraq to the tune of $120 billion + another $80 billion (minimum) for 2005. That is money that A.) didn't have to be spent at all; or

could have been spent of economic stimulous. If you are a conservative, not spending it at all would probably have been your first choice...as this would have kept the debt down and possibly left some wiggle room for additional tax breaks for personal and/or business investments. For the left-leaning folks, you probably would have supported taking that money and using it for economic stimulous packages (Ex. Much needed infrastucture projects like building new schools, roads, or hiring more police(etc..) which would have created more jobs and made this country of ours a better place to live. Ahhhh...to dream! But the fact is that since we ARE in Iraq...improving THEIR infrastructure, hiring THEIR police, training THEIR military...and paying for all of this with OUR money...we can't do any of it. Between the cost of the war and the out of control deficit...there really isn't any wiggle room left for more tax cuts or for investment in our own infrastructure. I don't know, but it seems to me that regardless of your political stripes...I would think you would be a bit ticked off either way.

COL Gene

on Oct 14, 2004

The president impacts the economic growth by his (her) fiscal and tax policies. The choice Bush and the conservatives make is to cut taxes for the waelthy with the idea that they will take that added money and invest in the economy and create growth. That does happen but not to the extent needed to both replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts and pay for the added spending needed for security.

The more powerful way to impact economic growth (and crerate jobs) is by stimulating demand which accounts for about 70% of our economic system. To do that, the President should have cut taxes on the low and middle income workers because they will spend almost all the added money and create more demand. Had President Bush kept the tax rates on the wealthy the same as under President Clinton and invested that money into rebuilding our schools, roads, water/sewer systems, dams, electrical systems we would have put people to work, increased demand and provided profits for the companies doing the rebuilding. If we did not spent all the money for interest on the growing Debt, we could use that money to give tax credits to increase Gas mileage in our cars, find new energy sources and tax credits to keep jobs in America. The money we will be forced to spend on higher interest due to the growing debt, buy us NOTHING and 40% goes outside our country to foreigners that own our debt. Ths Bush approach is dead wrong and ineffective.

drmiler

on Oct 14, 2004

Reply #9 By: COL Gene - 10/14/2004 7:06:54 AM
Yes drmiler

It is the attitude they you admit that gave us George W. It is the same attitude that gave us the Iraq War, the deficit, high gas prices, lack of jobs etc. I guess we can not put all the blame on George W. We need to save some for the people who blindly follow him. America has now watched three debates and the score is Kerrry 3 and Bush 0. Time for George to return to Texas.

You also need to save some blame for those who came before! You can't say that the sorry state of the economy is ALL Bush's fault. Things do not go to hell in a handbaket in a 6 month period, no matter what everyone thinks. And BTW you say his tax cuts are all for the wealthy. That is a crock. Since when does doing away with the marriage penalty and increasing the child credit *only* affect the rich?
That sounds to me like middle to lower class also. Besides which not all people share your outlook on the economy. The following is a repost from Reuters:

Bonds News
advertisement

WRAPUP 1-U.S. economy still on track, inflation benign, Fed says
Wed Oct 6, 2004 06:34 PM ET
By Alister Bull
WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (Reuters) - U.S. economic expansion remains on track and inflation under control, a senior Federal Reserve official said on Wednesday, while another top policy- maker warned that U.S. savings rates would likely remain weak.

"I think we're in a pretty solid situation and can look forward to a good long business expansion, provided we don't have any more unforeseen shocks," St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President William Poole said.

"The US economy, the best we can forecast it, there's expected real growth proceeding at the rate of (a) 3-1/2 to four percent track and unemployment will be gradually coming down," he told reporters after a speech in Springfield, Missouri.

The country's economy stuttered during the second quarter amid record oil prices but the Fed has said that momentum has been restored, underpinning forecasts it will raise interest rates another quarter point before the end of 2004.

But Poole, a voting member of the Fed's policy committee this year, noted its recent statements that policy would be tightened at a measured pace should not be taken as an "ironclad" commitment to mechanically move every meeting.

"It is possible -- I would argue likely at some point -- that new information will cause the FOMC to adjust the target at a pace different from what is currently anticipated."

"The pace could be faster or slower, depending on how the economy evolves," he told the Ozark Chapter of the Society of Financial Service Professionals added.

The Federal Open Market Committee meets again this year on Nov. 10 and Dec. 14.

HOW HIGH?

The Fed has upped its benchmark funds target rate by a quarter percentage point three times this year to 1.75 percent and markets expect to see 2.0 percent by the year's end.

Analysts are divided on how much further the Fed will go, with some seeing it taking a long pause at two percent to ensure economic expansion is not derailed by high oil prices. But Poole cautioned this would be determined by events.

"Where the funds rate has to go is going to depend on the circumstances. Three to 5 (percent) might be informative in the sense of a long-run average. It should not be read as saying clearly the Fed is going to stop when we get there because the conditions might force us, or require for equilibrium, that we be above or below that point," he said.

In separate comments on Wednesday, Fed Vice Chairman Roger Ferguson avoided direct reference to the economic outlook but made plain the long-term problems associated with the country's low rate of household savings would not be swiftly remedied.

"All told I would not expect the personal saving rate to return in the near term to the peaks seen twenty years ago, and I would be surprised even by a return any time soon to the average rate that prevailed between the 1950s and the 1980s," Ferguson said in remarks to bankers in Nashville, Tennessee.

U.S. households save less than one percent of disposable income but remain avid consumers, contributing to a yawning trade deficit as imports outstrip exports and a current account funding gap of 5 percent of GDP which many deem unsustainable.

But Ferguson said all was not doom and gloom and noted there was even a silver lining to the aging population.

"At the same time, I want to note that we likely will not need so high a national saving rate in the future because, as the growth rate of the labor force slows with the retirement of the baby boom generation, less investment will be required to equip each worker with the same amount of capital."

Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and another policy committee voter this year, is scheduled to speak on the economy at 8:45 pm EDT/0045 GMT. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Nicholson in Washington and Karen Culp in Springfield, Mo.)

COL Gene

on Oct 14, 2004

I never said the tax cuts that help the middle income families are not good for the economy. Look at my earlier response. The tax cuts that we can not afford and that do not stimulate demand are the tax rate cuts for the top two brackets, the cut in dividends and the elimination of the estate tax. Only the top 2 or 3 % benefit from thoes tax cuts and are the only things Kerry wants to eliminate.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!