Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Fact Checks ??

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Fact Checks ??
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found this on an unofficial web sight for Paul Krugman. He writes a twice weekly column for the op-ed page of the New York Times. It was published 10-11-04


Checking the Facts, in Advance

SYNOPSIS: Krugman does for you what ABC's Jake Tapper and Factcheck.org are too lazy to do in this Wednesday's final presidential debate. These are debating points that Kerry and all Democrats should pay much attention to

It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are seven lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each.

Jobs: Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course. Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment: Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit: Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts: Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan: Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that it includes Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility: Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending: On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care: Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
Originally published in The New York Times, 10.11.04

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Factcheck isn't this obviously partisan and myopic.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sancselfieme
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not really, Cheney suggested that people check out the site.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's some information about Krugman, to help you decide if he's partisan, or not.

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.
Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.
Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.
At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oddly, Star Pilot, nothing you wrote, in my mind, counters what he wrote. He has his opinions, they are clearly different than Bush's, and Bush's advisors, along with a great many people. He states them as if Bush is clearly ignoring the facts, and is thus a liar. He then turns around and asserts, with almost no backup, that Kerry is a paragon that uses "loose language" at times. And he clearly states that Kerry is okay, Bush is "fundamentally dishonest". If he stuck to facts that both sides agree on, I'd be like, yeah, that makes sense. But he's not. And he is CLEARLY not. So, the fact that he has written for many different editors, etc. in many venues doesn't, in any way, contradict what is clearly not a carefully unbaised look at the policy issues. The man calls Bush a liar on these topics, and predicts Bush is going to lie again. He states this with the implication that Bush knows he is lying. But he has to know that people with reputations just as stellar as his own disagree. So is he myopic and partisan? This article is.

Sanc - I was saying Factcheck isn't like this. And basically, I was answering what Paul (or whoever wrote the synopsis) here said about FactCheck - "SYNOPSIS: Krugman does for you what ABC's Jake Tapper and Factcheck.org are too lazy to do in this Wednesday's final presidential debate." Sorry, but bull. Every single statement he makes has been explored by FactCheck, and in a much less biased and myopic way. And that's my point. I'm hoping that I'm understanding you, Sanc. Sorry if I'm not.

[ October 13, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the Krugman Truth Squad Response, disputing nearly every factual assertion in that article. This comes from National Review, which is about as biased on the right as the New York Times is on the left.

[ October 13, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Van Aaron ]

Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
baubin2
Member
Member # 2032

 - posted      Profile for baubin2   Email baubin2   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am going to get very simplistic on everybody for a second, so please bear with me.

I really dislike this election. One candidate will probably send the budget down the tubes (farther than it has already gone anyway), and the other will probably send the war in Iraq down the tubes. What kind of choice is that? And this my first election too. It's times like these I really detest politics.

Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PlaydoughBoy
Member
Member # 1342

 - posted      Profile for PlaydoughBoy   Email PlaydoughBoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i agree baubin2, I've never like politics...but the only thing worse than knowing your voting for a slimeball who's only slightly cleaner than the other guy is not knowing and voting still or not voting at all.

The only time I was truely excited about my choice in an election was voting for Senator McCain in the Rep. Primaries.

Posts: 504 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correct Baubin.

But the real story with the budget is that it is headed for bankruptcy, regardless of who wins.

The pending retirment of the Baby Boomers in the coming decade will bust the budget as SS, Medicare etc. will have far more people taking out than putting in....and neither party is seriously addressing this with realistic plans.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote Van Aaron
Here is the Krugman Truth Squad Response, disputing nearly every factual assertion in that article. This comes from National Review, which is about as biased on the right as the New York Times is on the left.
_____________________________________________________________________

mmmm, very good.

I read some of the Truth Squad Response.
Honestly I got lost trying to follow some of it.
I ain't that good a bean counter. [Confused]

I'm going to bed. Good night.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grendel
Member
Member # 1693

 - posted      Profile for Grendel   Email Grendel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The funny thing, Sancselfieme, is that Cheney SAID to check out FactCheck.COM. Not .ORG. HUUUUGE verbal gaff since FactCheck.com is an anti-Bush site.

[Wink]

Posts: 249 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FactCheck.com was not a website at all until Kerry supporters registered it in the wake of Cheney saying it instead of FactCheck.org.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1