"it Seem That Some Realize They Can't Defeat Him With The Tru

[Baby Arm!]

From that rag : WALL STREET JOURNAL

BUSH HAS GOOD ECONOMIC RECORD

By KEITH MARSDEN

September 3, 2008; Page A23

Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party's call for "change," and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a "third Bush term," delegates groaned.

Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.

While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.

When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.

The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.

--------------------------------------

Mr. Marsden, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an adviser at the World Bank and a senior economist in the International Labor Organization.

[eulesseagle]

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

***my note: the first ans is McC and the second ans is Obama***

ISSUE JOHN McCAIN

BARAK OBAMA

Favors new drilling offshore US

Yes

No

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it

Yes

No

Served in the US Armed Forces

Yes

No

Amount of time served in the US Senate & House

Since 1983, 24 years

Since 2005, Junior Senator

Will institute a socialized national health care plan

No

Yes

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy

No

Yes

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately

No

Yes

Supports gun ownership rights

Yes

No

Supports homosexual marriage

No

Yes

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase

No

Yes

Voted against making English the official language

No

Yes

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals

No

Yes

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN

0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA

28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN

15% (no change)

OBAMA

39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN

(no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400

Single making 50K - tax $14,000

Single making 75K - tax $23,250

Married making 60K - tax $16,800

Married making 75K - tax $21,000

Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN

- 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA

Restore the inheritance tax

Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politic...s_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...s/barack_obama/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...es/john_mccain/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[meangreenacct]

Not trying to take a cheap shot at you Euless Eagle, but alot of the things that you posted are patently untrue. If tomorrow is a slow day at work I will go through your post one by one and post links. Some of the issues are true, but if you've paid any attention to the news lately you would know that

1. Obama's plan does not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq

2. Obama's health care plan does not call for a nationalized one, but instead a program for American's who CHOOSE to can buy into a plan similar to what the congress gets.

3. I've never one heard Obama say that American't do not have the right to bear arms. He may have voted for bills involving restrictions, such as the assault rifle ban, but he most certainly does not support removal of all guns.

4. Don't believe he supports gay marriage, but rather civil unions

5. All the tax stuff has been debunked previously on this board (although he does support an increase on individuals making over $250K thereabouts). I will see if I can find the link on Snopes as well as the tax policy center (non-partisan) that breaks down the stuff you posted.

[meangreenacct]

Also I followed the links you posted, but could find nothing to specifically back up the claims other than the reinstatment of the estate tax. One article did say that Obama might potentially raise the capital gains rate - but nothing stated to 39.6% (which would be the highest marginal rate).

[meangreenacct]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp

and Obama's tax plans:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Facts..._Plan_FINAL.pdf

Sorry to hijack your thread Baby Arm

[meangreendork]

Not trying to take a cheap shot at you Euless Eagle, but alot of the things that you posted are patently untrue. If tomorrow is a slow day at work I will go through your post one by one and post links. Some of the issues are true, but if you've paid any attention to the news lately you would know that ...

Thanks for catching that. Actually, a lot of the statements you're referring to are actually in Obama's website.

I'll help you out a bit by hitting a few of the points that are on the Obama website.

----------------------

Offshore Drilling::

Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#oil

*Also goes into regulating/cutting down on excessive speculation as well as responsibly withdrawing from and adding to the strategic oil reserves.*

Withdrawal from Iraq::

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

*Phased, and not immediate withdrawal with an AT BEST summer 2010 startup. After that, a residual force to handle COIN strategy at both the tactical and diplomatic levels.*

Gun Ownership Rights::

PROTECTING GUN RIGHTS

Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters and shooters own and use guns each year. Barack

Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of

Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase,

own, transport, and use guns.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/addi...n_Sportsmen.pdf

*The 2nd Amendment creates an individual right for hunters and law-abiding Americans to own, transport and use guns.*

Social Security for Illegal Immigrants and Who Voted for Them::

One thing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all have in common is that they voted to give retroactive Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who committed document fraud.

Indeed, McCain voted for it before he was against it....

...Thus, the immigration reform proposal advocated by McCain in 2006 would not only have added millions of illegal aliens to Social Security rolls, it would have protected these aliens from being prosecuted for fraudulently using other people's Social Security numbers.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24987

More here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/j...al-immigration/

*You can figure it out via the article, but in essence, McCain and a few others supported giving SS benefits to illegal immigrants (which I'm pretty much against), but McCain looks to have supported giving them to folks who committed ID fraud.*

That's all for now, it's late. But in summary, I'd say that everyone should do their research first. I've looked over both candidate's issue-lines and to be honest, a great deal of them are pretty close to each other. Handling defense, terrorism, Iraq, and the energy issue are highest among them.

Also, "my bad, Baby Arm." I don't think Bush is solely responsible for the turn in the economy. He may share some of it by not being able to correct things, but at least of what we see is a product of other economic forces at work either just by nature of cyclical economics or as a direct or indirect result of previous economic choices.

[Mean Green 93-98]

It needs to be observed that numbers 1 and 2 are complete about-faces for Obama. It's pretty obvious why he changed them, too; especially number 1.

[meangreendork]

It needs to be observed that numbers 1 and 2 are complete about-faces for Obama. It's pretty obvious why he changed them, too; especially number 1.

It's part of both candidates leaning to the center more. At this rate, the only thing separating them from each other is almost their VP choices. If it were me, I'd tell them both to drop their VPs and merge their campaigns. But hey, I'm a moderate, so what do I know?

[JesseMartin]

Me too.

What the heck was this Ron Paul alternative convention thing?

[EagleD]

Since we are just going to cut and paste attacks we receive in our in box (I got that one too, Euless), here's what I got from MoveOn:

Did you watch Sarah Palin's speech last night? The speech told us a lot about her.

It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. It told us that if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter ever need a stand-in, she'd be a great pick.

It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago. It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama's plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain's.

But the speech—written by one of President Bush's speechwriters—didn't tell us the truth about Sarah Palin's extremist positions. And the more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her. (There's a partial list below.)

One of the best ways to get the word out about Palin is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Today's a great day to write because this is very relevant—it just happened last night. Plus, our online tool makes it easy and has great tips. Please take a few minutes to write a quick letter to the editor now:

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&a...uIUNS.x&t=3 Palin's speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn't a decision about who's most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party.

Writing a letter to your local paper is a great way to make sure voters understand that. The opinion pages are the most widely-read pages of the newspaper. Write today, and your letter's a lot more likely to get published because it's so topical. It'll help sway the editorial board too.

Here are a bunch of points you might want to include in your letter:

* Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2

* Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3

* Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4

* Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5

* Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6

* Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7

* Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8

* As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9

* She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10

The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.

Please help get the word out about where Sarah Palin really stands on the issues.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&a...uIUNS.x&t=4 Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Ilyse, Wes, Karin and the rest of the team

P.S. If you haven't seen it, check out the Daily Show clip on Palin. It's worth a watch

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24753&id=137...uIUNS.x&t=5

Sources

1. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'," Associated Press, September 3, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24701&id=137...uIUNS.x&t=6

2. "Palin wasn't 'really focused much' on the Iraq war," ThinkProgress, August 30, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24702&id=137...uIUNS.x&t=7

3. "The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/

4. "McCain and Palin differ on issues," Associated Press, September 3, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24703&id=137...uIUNS.x&t=8

5. Ibid

6. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/

7. Ibid

8. Ibid.

9. "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," Time, September 2, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24704&id=137...uIUNS.x&t=9

10. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/

[KRAM1]

You folks are too much. You just gotta laugh. Texas is a RED STATE...it's going to be a red state in the November election. If you want to try to "influence votes or argue truths" one way or the other, I suggest it happen in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida or one of the other "battleground" states as TEXAS ain't one! Thanks for small favors. That means we won't have to endure quite as many "attack" ads on TV and radio. How very lucky for us. No way any one on this board is going to change anyone's mind about their vote in Nov. You are either for big government getting bigger or you aren't. Vote 'em as you see 'em!

Try to keep it friendly here...remember, we are all members of the Mean Green Nation. But, you got to admit that naughty librarian look is pretty hot! Now, there's a reason to vote one way or the other!

GO MEAN GREEN...best news is that we have only about 61 more days to suffer through all this campaign "stuff". Just VOTE!

[untbowler]

wow imagine that Moveon.org is tearing down the Republicans, GASP!!! I am shocked considering they are on the extreme left wing. Of course the NWO should be embarrassed seeing as how they supposedly are for women's rights, even though they have come out and now called Palin a man. Good job defeating your own purpose there.

Good god politics is so pathetic now days.

[EagleD]

I was actually trying to point out that if you just cut and paste crap from the political fringes you will end up with inaccuracies.

[untbowler]

I was actually trying to point out that if you just cut and paste crap from the political fringes you will end up with inaccuracies.

Yeah, would be nice to have some middle ground news, but everyone is either way left or way right so nobody actually knows the truth.

I listen to mostly Conservative Shows ( i refuse to listen to Hush Bimbo) so hear one side then read the blogs and get a extreme other view. Gives a head ache making sense of anything.

[meangreendork]

Yeah, would be nice to have some middle ground news, but everyone is either way left or way right so nobody actually knows the truth.

I listen to mostly Conservative Shows ( i refuse to listen to Hush Bimbo) so hear one side then read the blogs and get a extreme other view. Gives a head ache making sense of anything.

It's hard to get anything balanced without getting it from multiple sources. I tend to get most of mine from the WSJ, NYT, BBC, NPR and some other internet sources. I try to skip the media pundits.

Well, except for this guy, and mainly because it's funny. And mainly because the pundits and spokespersons for many politicians should try to keep consistency.

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insi...tewart-ann.html

I was actually trying to point out that if you just cut and paste crap from the political fringes you will end up with inaccuracies.

Some of this was accurate, though.

http://www.adn.com/palin-background/ - Anchorage Daily News: Covers the "God's Task" line and the Wasilla Library/Book Banning Issues.

[GBarksdale]

Not trying to take a cheap shot at you Euless Eagle, but alot of the things that you posted are patently untrue. If tomorrow is a slow day at work I will go through your post one by one and post links. Some of the issues are true, but if you've paid any attention to the news lately you would know that

1. Obama's plan does not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq

2. Obama's health care plan does not call for a nationalized one, but instead a program for American's who CHOOSE to can buy into a plan similar to what the congress gets.

3. I've never one heard Obama say that American't do not have the right to bear arms. He may have voted for bills involving restrictions, such as the assault rifle ban, but he most certainly does not support removal of all guns.

4. Don't believe he supports gay marriage, but rather civil unions

5. All the tax stuff has been debunked previously on this board (although he does support an increase on individuals making over $250K thereabouts). I will see if I can find the link on Snopes as well as the tax policy center (non-partisan) that breaks down the stuff you posted.

The stuff on Snopes comes from the candidate's website and the Tax Policy Center. The Tax Policy Center is a project funded by the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute, bot of which are left of center. So while the TPC is officially "non-partisan," its analyses are consistently more leftist oriented, reflecting the views of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Bottom line -- take TPC analyses with a grain of salt.