Fox news creatively edits Obama to match right wing talking point.

[mmurray21]

Fox News ‘reporter’ Wendell Goler repeatedly aired a video clip in which President Obama seems to declare his support for imposing a “European-style” universal health care system on the United States. Goler used the clip to support Republican attacks on the President’s spending policies and his supposedly “European” priorities.

The problem is, President Obama never said any such thing. The clip Goler used was from a March 26 online town hall event, and President Obama was paraphrasing a written question submitted by the audience. In his answer, the President said that while he does support universal health care, he doesn’t support imposing a European or Canadian system on the United States.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001231/

[Danny White]

I'd be curious to see what he said at the end of the clip after "... is another question." Kos cuts it off right there, in mid-thought. He never resolves his "answer" to that other "question."

Fox is certainly guilty of taking the part they do out of context, but nowhere does Obama say he's opposed to the European system. In fact, much of what he's indicated policy-wise thus far is in that model.


Edit...

Reading more carefully, they do have the full quote in there:

I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal…whether we do it exactly the way European countries do or Canada does is a different question, because there are a variety of ways to get to universal health care coverage… I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.

There's still a lot of room for interpretation there. I'm nervous about Obama's health care plans, but Fox is clearly playing a little "fast and loose" here.

[TheCount]

The only universal health care Obama has spoken is support of is for children, to my knowledge.

[Danny White]

The only universal health care Obama has spoken is support of is for children, to my knowledge.

In that very clip, he says he wants universal coverage.

How we get there is the question.

[TheCount]

In that very clip, he says he wants universal coverage.

How we get there is the question.

I'm talking free.

[Danny White]

I'm talking free.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If you're talking about true "universal" coverage, then for those who can't afford it, it'll be free no matter how you slice it. And for everyone else, there's no way it's free, even if they call it that.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If you're talking about true "universal" coverage, then for those who can't afford it, it'll be free no matter how you slice it. And for everyone else, there's no way it's free, even if they call it that.


I agree. It's only free for the poor, if I understand correctly. For those who can afford, it's expensive.

[Danny White]

I agree. It's only free for the poor, if I understand correctly. For those who can afford, it's expensive.

It sure as hell can't be free for everybody! :laugh2:


That'd be a neat trick!

[MetalHead]

Fox News ‘reporter’ Wendell Goler repeatedly aired a video clip in which President Obama seems to declare his support for imposing a “European-style” universal health care system on the United States. Goler used the clip to support Republican attacks on the President’s spending policies and his supposedly “European” priorities.

The problem is, President Obama never said any such thing. The clip Goler used was from a March 26 online town hall event, and President Obama was paraphrasing a written question submitted by the audience. In his answer, the President said that while he does support universal health care, he doesn’t support imposing a European or Canadian system on the United States.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001231/

Nice source...The Onion is more credible.

[Hoofbite]

I always thought Obama's plan was to have a relatively cheap alternative to big company insurance policies.

Nothing was going to be free, just far more affordable and guaranteed to people no matter pre-existing conditions.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Whatever it is, I'd like to hear more about it and am probably going to take a look into it.

[lewpac]

Fox News ‘reporter’ Wendell Goler repeatedly aired a video clip in which President Obama seems to declare his support for imposing a “European-style” universal health care system on the United States. Goler used the clip to support Republican attacks on the President’s spending policies and his supposedly “European” priorities.

The problem is, President Obama never said any such thing. The clip Goler used was from a March 26 online town hall event, and President Obama was paraphrasing a written question submitted by the audience. In his answer, the President said that while he does support universal health care, he doesn’t support imposing a European or Canadian system on the United States.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001231/

"He doesn't support imposing a European or Canadian system on the United States" huh?

Ah...........is there any other kind? What "kind" of socialism DOES he support? The "American" kind? What "brand" of hand-outs does this guy NOT agree with? The African "kind"? The Singapore "kind". The Korean "kind".

Listen, socialism is socialism. PERIOD. You start discussing which "kind" or "brand" of communism you want, that's like debating "price" with a prostitute. She's still a hooker, we're only discussing the price.

Whatever, this guy is taking this country to untold leftist netherworlds. The label you put on it matters little...................

[DIAF]

"He doesn't support imposing a European or Canadian system on the United States" huh?

Ah...........is there any other kind? What "kind" of socialism DOES he support? The "American" kind? What "brand" of hand-outs does this guy NOT agree with? The African "kind"? The Singapore "kind". The Korean "kind".

Listen, socialism is socialism. PERIOD. You start discussing which "kind" or "brand" of communism you want, that's like debating "price" with a prostitute. She's still a hooker, we're only discussing the price.

Whatever, this guy is taking this country to untold leftist netherworlds. The label you put on it matters little...................

More unhinged rambling. Careful, the liberal spies in your neighborhood might report you.

Socialism is not Communism. Good try, though.

[Rogah]

More unhinged rambling. Careful, the liberal spies in your neighborhood might report you.

Socialism is not Communism. Good try, though.Socialism may not be the exact same thing as communism, but they sure as heck live in the same neighborhood and spend a lot of time in the same hang outs. :D

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Socialism may not be the exact same thign as communism, but they sure as heck live in the same neighborhood and spend a lot of time in the same hang outs. :D
Actually socialism is an economic system. Communism is a political, social, AND economice system. Communism uses extreme socialism for it's economic system. For it's political system it tends to be authoritarian.

However, there are democratic socialist countries like Sweden, just like there are authoritarian capitalist countries like Chile under Pinochet or Zaire under Mobuto.

[ScipioCowboy]

Socialism may not be the exact same thing as communism, but they sure as heck live in the same neighborhood and spend a lot of time in the same hang outs. :D

It's like squares and rhombuses, right? :D

All rhombuses are squares, but not all squares are rhombuses.

Similarly, all communist governments are socialist, but not all socialist governments are communist.

[Rogah]

It's like squares and rhombuses, right? :D

All rhombuses are squares, but not all squares are rhombuses.

Similarly, all communist governments are socialist, but not all socialist governments are communist.I think you got that backwards :D

[ScipioCowboy]

I think you got that backwards :D

Sure enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_(geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_%28geometry))

:laugh2:

I'm elated someone finally pointed that out to me.

[lewpac]

More unhinged rambling. Careful, the liberal spies in your neighborhood might report you.

Socialism is not Communism. Good try, though.

Ya' know, anytime ANYONE utters the word "liberal", you go off on some "shadow, spook, paranoid" thing saying that anyone who believes that there's ACTUAL liberal socialist in the U.S. is a "conspiracy theorist".

In typical liberal fashion, you attempt to deny ANY LIBERALISM whatsover by labeling ANYONE who recognizes it as some kook.

It's the oldest liberal trick in the book..............call anyone who calls YOU out as "off their kilter". Your trying to get us all to actually believe that there's no liberal/uber left agenda in this country, and anyone who says their IS is nuts.

It's an old trick. Typical playbook crap since the 60's. Call your detractors names, and they'll shut up. Well, it ain't working anymore cuz..........

Anyone if favor of the Government running ANYTHING..........schools, health care, the banks, etc..............whatever...........is a Socialist/Communist/Uber-Lib "part of the problem" who needs to move to Cuba with Micheal Moore and celebrate how wonderful it is...................

Yeah, we're seeing all the "liberal ghosts and goblins and spooks" at every turn, BECAUSE IT'S REALITY!!! The best way to get you guys to take over is to ignore you and deny you exist. You're frustrated because that ain't happening, in spit of what your NY Times and PSMNBC want you to think.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Ya' know, anytime ANYONE utters the word "liberal", you go off on some "shadow, spook, paranoid" thing saying that anyone who believes that there's ACTUAL liberal socialist in the U.S. is a "conspiracy theorist".

In typical liberal fashion, you attempt to deny ANY LIBERALISM whatsover by labeling ANYONE who recognizes it as some kook.

It's the oldest liberal trick in the book..............call anyone who calls YOU out as "off their kilter". Your trying to get us all to actually believe that there's no liberal/uber left agenda in this country, and anyone who says their IS is nuts.

It's an old trick. Typical playbook crap since the 60's. Call your detractors names, and they'll shut up. Well, it ain't working anymore cuz..........

Anyone if favor of the Government running ANYTHING..........schools, health care, the banks, etc..............whatever...........is a Socialist/Communist/Uber-Lib "part of the problem" who needs to move to Cuba with Micheal Moore and celebrate how wonderful it is...................

Yeah, we're seeing all the "liberal ghosts and goblins and spooks" at every turn, BECAUSE IT'S REALITY!!! The best way to get you guys to take over is to ignore you and deny you exist. You're frustrated because that ain't happening, in spit of what your NY Times and PSMNBC want you to think.
How did the private sector do running the banks? Was it such a good idea for them to invest in CDO's and for AIG to invest credit default swaps?

Or maybe the government forced them to do it right?:laugh2:

Greed produces terribble inefficiency, such is the nature of unfettered capitalism.

[masomenos]

Greed produces terribble inefficiency, such is the nature of unfettered capitalism.

No, you have it backwards. Greed makes things more efficient because greater efficiency means greater competitiveness.

[DIAF]

Ya' know, anytime ANYONE utters the word "liberal", you go off on some "shadow, spook, paranoid" thing saying that anyone who believes that there's ACTUAL liberal socialist in the U.S. is a "conspiracy theorist".

In typical liberal fashion, you attempt to deny ANY LIBERALISM whatsover by labeling ANYONE who recognizes it as some kook.

It's the oldest liberal trick in the book..............call anyone who calls YOU out as "off their kilter". Your trying to get us all to actually believe that there's no liberal/uber left agenda in this country, and anyone who says their IS is nuts.

It's an old trick. Typical playbook crap since the 60's. Call your detractors names, and they'll shut up. Well, it ain't working anymore cuz..........

Anyone if favor of the Government running ANYTHING..........schools, health care, the banks, etc..............whatever...........is a Socialist/Communist/Uber-Lib "part of the problem" who needs to move to Cuba with Micheal Moore and celebrate how wonderful it is...................

Yeah, we're seeing all the "liberal ghosts and goblins and spooks" at every turn, BECAUSE IT'S REALITY!!! The best way to get you guys to take over is to ignore you and deny you exist. You're frustrated because that ain't happening, in spit of what your NY Times and PSMNBC want you to think.

I'm not denying "any liberalism". I'm telling you that you are bat-guano crazy screaming LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! like they were some sort of secret society bent on ruling the world, killing babies, and brainwashing those that they dont abort into godless heathens worshipping some guy named Barack.

And in typical conservazoner fashion, anyone that does not hold your twisted view of America is a LIBERAL AGENT (hah, "your NY Times and PSMNBC" indeed). Give me a break. You are a kook because you SOUND LIKE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, not because you are a conservative. So far you've

1. accused unions of ANTI-AMERICAN TREASONOUS activity
2. accused teachers of being liberal agents to brainwash America's children

That is not something I would expect to hear from a well-adjusted person.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

No, you have it backwards. Greed makes things more efficient because greater efficiency means greater competitiveness.

Greed does not necessarily equate to competitiveness. There was a lot of incentive for these people to take on an incredible amount of risk by overleveraging these extremely risky derivatives, but there wasn't a lot of disincentive because their bonuses were assured. They were rentention bonuses and not performance bonuses.

Now if it had to do with competitiveness, and they actually cared about the institutions they worked for they would not take on these absurd risks. But they cared about themselves and lining their own pockets; that's greed.

[lewpac]

I'm not denying "any liberalism". I'm telling you that you are bat-guano crazy screaming LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! like they were some sort of secret society bent on ruling the world, killing babies, and brainwashing those that they dont abort into godless heathens worshipping some guy named Barack.

And in typical conservazoner fashion, anyone that does not hold your twisted view of America is a LIBERAL AGENT (hah, "your NY Times and PSMNBC" indeed). Give me a break. You are a kook because you SOUND LIKE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, not because you are a conservative. So far you've

1. accused unions of ANTI-AMERICAN TREASONOUS activity
2. accused teachers of being liberal agents to brainwash America's children

That is not something I would expect to hear from a well-adjusted person.

I'm not the one who cries "liberal conspiracy" every time anyone disagrees with you..............so who's the thinned-skinned paraniod? It's your only defense to anyone who to the right of what you think. But, that's the lemming, follower, talking-point, unoriginal lefty thing to do, so I'm not surprised.

Also, "well adjusted" and half-way educated people KNOW where the foundations and manifesto's of unions came from. I got a little news for ya'........if it weren't for business-men sticking their necks out and actually having the nuggets to own a business, there'd be no "working man" around to even from a union. If not for the risk takers, gamblers and driven folks who actually OWN a business, with no garuantee of return, there'd be no J-O-B-S Jobs out there for the poor and abused "working man".

And, if you think that the state of education and teachers in the U.S. is a wonderful thing, I got a bridge to sell ya' in Brooklyn. Teachers choose their profession, go to college supposedly to be trained to do the job, take the job, get more paid days off and holidays than anyone in the world, and then join a union and complain about their lot in life. It's a job worth no more than the $30-40,000.00 a year they get. No more, no less. Teachers say that they're the "be all and end all" of all professions, and it's SOOOOO noble to be a teacher. Go sell it to someone buying that load of crap.

It's the easiest, and most un-monitored and un-evaluated jobs in America. No one's allowed to question any thing they do, any results they produce, any product they put out. I'd love to have a job sitting around talking all day about something that's become rote to me. Get two weeks off every other month and paid for it, and all summer off to boot. What a gig. All the while convincing the the rest of us that the world would cease to exist without you!

Hey, if you're a teacher, God bless ya' and thanks for the effort. But give us a break and cut with the "God-complex" that many teachers have. If you quit teaching school tomorrow, the world ain't coming to an end.

[lewpac]

Another thing.............

A few cops screw up and misbehave, and ALL cops are suspect.....
A few clergy men are weirdo's, and ALL clergy are suspect.........
A few lawyers are seedy, and WATCH OUT for all lawyers.

But, more than a handful of public school teachers get caught taking advantage of the "under-age" captive audience, and no on says a word!!
Also, it's seems that the "Women teachers with young men" thing is in vogue of late, but the "teachers cult" is not held in contempt like the above listed professions!

Personally, I'm suspect of anyone who chooses to spend their lives primarily in the company of small children! HAH! How's that for "drawing conclusions"? They do it with every traditional profession where the few get caught doing something untoward. Why not teachers? One soldier misbehaves in Iraq, and "they're all killers, slaughtering innocents!!!" One guy with a pistol goes beserck, and "all guns should be abolished and anyone with a gun is a kook". Fine, then so be it for the beloved "teacher".

From here on out, all teachers are perverts for choosing a job that puts them in company of small children. One teacher sexually abuses a child, and they ALL should be investigated. Why not? That's how they treat cops and the military and the clergy?

[the fake norm hitzges]

Socialism may not be the exact same thing as communism, but they sure as heck live in the same neighborhood and spend a lot of time in the same hang outs. :D


a communist is a socialist with a gun

[masomenos]

Greed does not necessarily equate to competitiveness. There was a lot of incentive for these people to take on an incredible amount of risk by overleveraging these extremely risky derivatives, but there wasn't a lot of disincentive because their bonuses were assured. They were rentention bonuses and not performance bonuses.

Now if it had to do with competitiveness, and they actually cared about the institutions they worked for they would not take on these absurd risks. But they cared about themselves and lining their own pockets; that's greed.

You're only looking at the situation on a short term scale. Almost every decision in business is based on greed, sometimes the decision pans out and some times it doesn't. When something doesn't work, you're forced to change and the long term efficiency of the company isn't affected. If financial institutions learn anything from this mess then they will be less likely to suffer large crashes in the future.

You have to take risks in business, especially in a competitive market. Overall efficiency only decreases when you make the same mistakes over and over.

[lewpac]

a communist is a socialist with a gun

A conservative is a liberal who got mugged...............

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

You're only looking at the situation on a short term scale. Almost every decision in business is based on greed, sometimes the decision pans out and some times it doesn't. When something doesn't work, you're forced to change and the long term efficiency of the company isn't affected. If financial institutions learn anything from this mess then they will be less likely to suffer large crashes in the future.

You have to take risks in business, especially in a competitive market. Overall efficiency only decreases when you make the same mistakes over and over.

And certain institutions are in such a position that when their risks don't "pan out" that they bring the whole house of cards down with them. AIG is such an institution because it is so big (due to the repeal of the Glass Steagal act) that it has become a systemic risk to the system. Bank of America and CitiBank are other such institutions that have become systemic risks to the system because when the Glass Steagall act was repealed in 1999, it tore down the regulatory structure of our finacial system. This allowed investment, commercial, and insurance companies to merge. (also the deregulation of the credit default swap market in 2000 increased insentive to take these big risks but that is another story).

If we were to let these large institutions to just die, as in go into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, then the credit markets would freeze and we would enter into a deflationary spiral. This is kind of what happened during the Great depression when we just let the banks fail, and people lost a crap load of their assetts as a result (no FDIC back then, that was later during the New Deal; admit it the FDIC is good;) ). So if you just want to sit back and watch the system take a nose dive then you could have a long long term depression on your hands.

And as to your other point, before the New Deal when America was on basically a laissez fair capitaliist system people constantly made the same mistake over and over again. America had many other depressions before the Great depression. The reason people make the same mistakes over and over again is because they get greedy or they are just ignorant. See that is the problem with the capitalist system you are promoting, it assumes that people make intelligent decisions and/or they learn from their mistakes. History tells us human nature is not like that (we are doomed to repeat history). Capitalism like pure socialism works well on paper but in reality it fails.

My personal view is we need to find a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Some institutions work better privatized, and others that tend to have systemic effects on our society (like banking and healthcare) and therefore should be nationalized or at the very least heavily regulated.

[burmafrd]

Heavily regulated - show me one that is efficient. You won't find any.
You need to learn a little history rumbling. America was built in its first 150 years with very little regulation at all. Guess what- it worked pretty good right? Now as the whole economic system got more complicated then yes you do need regulations and watchdogs. But you in typical liberal fashion go all the way to the far end of the other side and think somehow that GOVERNMENT can do it so much better- where there is NO evidence at all that supports THAT theory.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Heavily regulated - show me one that is efficient. You won't find any.
You need to learn a little history rumbling. America was built in its first 150 years with very little regulation at all. Guess what- it worked pretty good right? Now as the whole economic system got more complicated then yes you do need regulations and watchdogs. But you in typical liberal fashion go all the way to the far end of the other side and think somehow that GOVERNMENT can do it so much better- where there is NO evidence at all that supports THAT theory.
Actually no, it didn't work well. There were multiple depressions and a large working class that was poor and mistreated (read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).

Furthermore one of the few banking systems that is doing well right now is India's, and they have a mostly nationalized banking system.

Anyhow, I'm curious what your and masomenos's opinion is of the FDIC since it is currently temporarily nationalizing small and medium sized banks that have been failing. Do you think we should get rid of the FDIC, like what Ron Paul wants to do?

[JBond]

I'm talking free.

There is no such thing as free health care. What in the world are you talking about? Someone has to pay the bill. Doctors do not work for free. Hospitals are not built for free. Drugs are not free. Now it is true I am forced to pay for the deadbeats and the lazy and illegals to get their "free" health care.

My soon to be brother in law is a perfect example. He quit his bill collection job in the middle of this recession because he did not like his boss. He has diabetes that got out of control because he was irresponsible. Last week they cut of his foot. Guess who is paying the bill?

There is always a bill. Many just don't pay theirs, so it is up to me and my fellow patriotic Americans to pay the way for the rest of the people either too dumb or too lazy to get a education and get a job that offers health care.

I never minded paying outrageous medical bills because I understand that is the only way the doctors and hospitals can survive. $15 for a aspirin is fine. As soon as we institutionalize "free" health care, we are done. We can't even pay the medicare and medicaid and social security bills now. How in the heck are we going to pay for "free" health care? It is the dumbest idea yet by the foolish community organizer.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

There is no such thing as free health care. What in the world are you talking about? Someone has to pay the bill. Doctors do not work for free. Hospitals are not built for free. Drugs are not free. Now it is true I am forced to pay for the deadbeats and the lazy and illegals to get their "free" health care.

My soon to be brother in law is a perfect example. He quit his bill collection job in the middle of this recession because he did not like his boss. He has diabetes that got out of control because he was irresponsible. Last week they cut of his foot. Guess who is paying the bill?

There is always a bill. Many just don't pay theirs, so it is up to me and my fellow patriotic Americans to pay the way for the rest of the people either too dumb or too lazy to get a education and get a job that offers health care.

I never minded paying outrageous medical bills because I understand that is the only way the doctors and hospitals can survive. $15 for a aspirin is fine. As soon as we institutionalize "free" health care, we are done. We can't even pay the medicare and medicaid and social security bills now. How in the heck are we going to pay for "free" health care? It is the dumbest idea yet by the foolish community organizer.

It is not free, but universal healthcare has been proven to be more cost effective per capita in other countries.

And the reason why medicaid and social security are no doing well, is not because of any inherent inefficiency in the system, it's because Bush cut off medicaid funding to the states and frittered away the surplus Gore planned on putting towards social security. So instead of the surplus securing social security for the future he gave it all to the wealthiest of Americans. A lot good that did us.

[DIAF]

And the reason why medicaid and social security are no doing well, is not because of any inherent inefficiency in the system, it's because Bush cut off medicaid funding to the states and frittered away the surplus Gore planned on putting towards social security. So instead of the surplus securing social security for the future he gave it all to the wealthiest of Americans. A lot good that did us.

This is so false it should be a bannable offense.

[burmafrd]

Is it just me or are we suddenly getting a lot more people with absolutely no knowledge of much of anything here?

[JBond]

This is so false it should be a bannable offense.

Hey, we found something to agree on today.:)

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

This is so false it should be a bannable offense.
Bush Trims Medicare, Medicaid Spending


(AP) President Bush signed a measure Wednesday that trims Medicaid and Medicare spending over the next five years, but he said Congress must make bigger changes as baby boomers retire.

But because of errors committed by the House and Senate clerks who officially enroll bills that are transmitted between the chambers and on to the White House, the bill signed by Bush is technically different than the measure that passed the House.

That raises questions as to whether the bill signed by Bush is now a law or whether the GOP-controlled Congress needs to find a way to fix the error. The version signed by Bush was consistent with Congress' intent, but the technical errors could create headaches.

President Bush said programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the biggest long-term challenge to the budget. Even after the cuts he signed into law, the growth rates projected for the programs are unsustainable, he said.

"By 2030, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget," Bush said just before signing the Deficit Reduction Act in the East Room of the White House.

"That will leave future generations with impossible choices — staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending," the president said.

He defended his budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year in the face of critics from both parties who say he is shaving too much from Medicare and other programs. He said his critics are thinking like free-spending Europeans.

"There are some that, frankly, whose policies would make us look more like Europe than we should, and that is kind of a centralization of power," Bush said in a visit Wednesday to tax-averse New Hampshire. "The surest way to centralize power is to take more of your own money to Washington."

President Bush's proposal for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 asks Congress to trim Medicare spending by $35.9 billion over five years, allowing the program to grow at a rate of 7.7 percent instead of 8.1 percent currently projected.

"It is the difference between slowing your car down to the speed limit, or putting your car into reverse," Bush said both at the White House and before the Business and Industry Association in Manchester, N.H.

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans on Wednesday shunned President Bush's election-year call to cut Social Security benefits, and one committee chairman accused the administration of seeking to end "a pittance for widows and widowers."

"I have no plans to pursue these proposals," said GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/politics/main1299212.shtml

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

<H3>Dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security

</H3>I will not go along with any proposal to strip one out of every six dollars from the Social Security trust fund and privatize the Social Security that you’re counting on. That’s Social Security minus. Our plan is Social Security plus. We will balance the budget every year, and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security. Putting both Social Security and Medicare in an iron-clad lock box where the politicians can’t touch them -- to me, that kind of common sense is a family value.


Bush’s “Social Security Minus” diverts $1 from every $6

Q: What is your Social Security plan?


GORE: I will keep it in a lockbox. The interest savings, I would put right back into it. That extends the life for 55 years. I am opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every 6 dollars away from the Trust Fund. It would go bankrupt within this generation.

BUSH: We want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money & put it in safe investments so that $1 trillion grows to $3 trillion. The money stays within the system.

GORE: I give a new incentive for younger workers to invest their own money. My plan is “Social Security Plus.” The governor’s plan is “Social Security Minus.” Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that’s diverted into the stock market. And if you make bad investments, that’s too bad.
BUSH: Your plan is “Social Security Plus Huge Debt.” If we don’t trust younger workers to manage some of their own money, it’s going to be impossible to bridge the gap without causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Social_Security.htm

[JBond]

Rumble Bumble Stumble, Bush increasing spending by 7.7%. That is not a cut. That is an increase in spending. Did you even read the article you posted? You need to come up with something better than that.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Rumble Bumble Stumble, Bush increasing spending by 7.7%. That is not a cut. That is an increase in spending. Did you even read the article you posted? You need to come up with something better than that.


That's because the workforce and population grows every year, so more people need to be covered yet with the increase in the workforce you have more revenue coming into the system. The increases are built into the system to keep up with population growth, but Bush wants to cut the increases. If you keep a constant amount of funding then less and less people would be covered every year.

These are basic principles of budget policy.:rolleyes:

[JBond]

<H3>Dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security

</H3>I will not go along with any proposal to strip one out of every six dollars from the Social Security trust fund and privatize the Social Security that you’re counting on. That’s Social Security minus. Our plan is Social Security plus. We will balance the budget every year, and dedicate the budget surplus first to saving Social Security. Putting both Social Security and Medicare in an iron-clad lock box where the politicians can’t touch them -- to me, that kind of common sense is a family value.


Bush’s “Social Security Minus” diverts $1 from every $6

Q: What is your Social Security plan?


GORE: I will keep it in a lockbox. The interest savings, I would put right back into it. That extends the life for 55 years. I am opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every 6 dollars away from the Trust Fund. It would go bankrupt within this generation.

BUSH: We want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money & put it in safe investments so that $1 trillion grows to $3 trillion. The money stays within the system.

GORE: I give a new incentive for younger workers to invest their own money. My plan is “Social Security Plus.” The governor’s plan is “Social Security Minus.” Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that’s diverted into the stock market. And if you make bad investments, that’s too bad.
BUSH: Your plan is “Social Security Plus Huge Debt.” If we don’t trust younger workers to manage some of their own money, it’s going to be impossible to bridge the gap without causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Social_Security.htm

http://www.threesources.com/archives/al_gore_flame.jpg

[JBond]

That's because the workforce and population grows every year. The increases are built into the system to keep up with population growth. If you keep a constant amount of funding then less and less people would be covered every year.:rolleyes:

You claimed Bush cut it. You lied. Move on.

[TheCount]

There is no such thing as free health care. What in the world are you talking about? Someone has to pay the bill. Doctors do not work for free. Hospitals are not built for free. Drugs are not free. Now it is true I am forced to pay for the deadbeats and the lazy and illegals to get their "free" health care.

My soon to be brother in law is a perfect example. He quit his bill collection job in the middle of this recession because he did not like his boss. He has diabetes that got out of control because he was irresponsible. Last week they cut of his foot. Guess who is paying the bill?

There is always a bill. Many just don't pay theirs, so it is up to me and my fellow patriotic Americans to pay the way for the rest of the people either too dumb or too lazy to get a education and get a job that offers health care.

I never minded paying outrageous medical bills because I understand that is the only way the doctors and hospitals can survive. $15 for a aspirin is fine. As soon as we institutionalize "free" health care, we are done. We can't even pay the medicare and medicaid and social security bills now. How in the heck are we going to pay for "free" health care? It is the dumbest idea yet by the foolish community organizer.

Oh goody, here we go again.

You know darn well what I meant, I'm not going through your song and dance again.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

You claimed Bush cut it. You lied. Move on.
The increases are built into the system to keep up with population growth, but Bush wants to cut the increases.

A lot programs in the budget are adjusted every year for population growth. This is a basic budget principle.:rolleyes:

[JBond]

Oh goody, here we go again.

You know darn well what I meant, I'm not going through your song and dance again.

No problem. Just stop calling it "free" when the opposite is true.

[JBond]

The increases are built into the system to keep up with population growth, but Bush wants to cut the increases.

A lot programs in the budget are adjusted every year for population growth. This is a basic budget principle.:rolleyes:

Increases are not "built into the system". Where are you getting your information?

[ABQCOWBOY]

It sure as hell can't be free for everybody! :laugh2:


That'd be a neat trick!

Oh, but it can. That is why it will never work. This is Hawaii all over again.

[DIAF]

RTW, Social Security has been in trouble for LONG before Bush. Hell, Bush TRIED to fix it (one of the only things he got right during his administration) but it got blown out of the water.

[Rogah]

RTW, Social Security has been in trouble for LONG before Bush. Hell, Bush TRIED to fix it (one of the only things he got right during his administration) but it got blown out of the water.Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, with the federal government playing the role of Bernie Madoff :mad:

[burmafrd]

Only liberals consider a reduction in the rate of an increase a "cut".

[burmafrd]

Is there any chance we can require an IQ test before someone is allowed to join the Zone?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Is there any chance we can require an IQ test before someone is allowed to join the Zone?

No chance. My membership might not be renewed.

;)

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Only liberals consider a reduction in the rate of an increase a "cut".
It's a cut because if you don't proportionally increase the amount of money that goes towards these programs then they will be underfunded because as population increases so does demand, and because revenue increase with the ever expanding workforce you will have excess revenue that is not being used. That is why funding for a lot of programs are adjusted for the cost of living or inflation or other factors. Why is this so hard to understand?

[burmafrd]

Sigh. Maybe you ought to look in the dictionary about the definition of CUT. Or maybe common sense would come from nowhere and maybe you will realize that you are completely wrong.

[DFWJC]

I have my daily Kos filter on. :)

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, with the federal government playing the role of Bernie Madoff :mad:

From a Nobel laureate economist:

"More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

[DIAF]

From a Nobel laureate economist:

"More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

And that invalidates Rogah's comment how? Do you know how a ponzi scheme works?

make way for the FAIL truck

http://imgdump.info/data/media/46/Truck%20of%20Fail.jpg

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

And that invalidates Rogah's comment how? Do you know how a ponzi scheme works?

make way for the FAIL truck

http://imgdump.info/data/media/46/Truck%20of%20Fail.jpg
point was that the government ends up with a negligible amount of what you put into the system. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is incredibly unfair.

[ScipioCowboy]

From a Nobel laureate economist:

"More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Paul Krugman?

You mean the same Paul Krugman whom the New York Times criticized for the selective and disingenuous use of evidence -- for essentially being a partisan hack?

That Paul Krugman?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393/page/3

In 2005, Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Krugman says that Okrent "caved" to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. ("I tried to be an honest broker," says Okrent. "But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.")

[DIAF]

point was that the government ends up with a negligible amount of what you put into the system. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is incredibly unfair.

That's not why it was called a "ponzi scheme".

Again, F F F FAIL

[JBond]

From a Nobel laureate economist:

"More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Krugman is a hack. For anyone intersted in the real numbers, here is some reading for you.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Chart A—OASI, DI, and HI Trust Fund Ratios
[Assets as a percentage of annual expenditures] http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/images/ChartA.jpg (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/images/LD_ChartA.html)

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Krugman is a hack. For anyone intersted in the real numbers, here is some reading for you.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Chart A—OASI, DI, and HI Trust Fund Ratios
[Assets as a percentage of annual expenditures] http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/images/ChartA.jpg (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/images/LD_ChartA.html)

Well that "hack" won the nobel prize last year, and his textbook on international economics is a standard introductory textbook on the subject.

[JBond]

Well that "hack" won the nobel prize last year, and his textbook on international economics is a standard introductory textbook on the subject.


And that goes to show why the Nobel prize is worthless and illustrates one of the big problems with schools today.

Did you check my link? http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

The government said it was 5%. So who should I believe? The official social security administration numbers or a hack being pimped by you? Be a big boy. Do your own reading instead of regurgitating bad information.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

What Were the Administrative Expenses in 2007? Administrative expenses, as a percentage of total expenditures, were:
Administrative expenses 2007
OASI DI HI SMI
0.6 2.5 1.4 1.5



Am I missing something?

[ScipioCowboy]

Well that "hack" won the nobel prize last year, and his textbook on international economics is a standard introductory textbook on the subject.

Milton Friedman is a nobel prize winner as well, and his economic philosophy is diametrically opposed to Krugman's.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

That's not why it was called a "ponzi scheme".

Again, F F F FAIL
A Ponzi scheme also implies that someone is reaping profits. If the only thing that is being taken out of it is a negligible amount of overhead, then you could hardly call it a ponzi scheme.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Milton Friedman is a nobel prize winner as well, and his economic philosophy is diametrically opposed to Krugman's.
Good for Milton Friedman, I never questioned his bona fides. Point was Krugman is the furthest thing from a hack.

[ScipioCowboy]

Good for Milton Friedman, I never questioned his bona fides. Point was Krugman is the furthest thing from a hack.

When a person only presents evidence that supports his argument, ignores all evidence to the contrary, and relies on ad hominem attacks rather than substantive debate, he has all the earmarkings of a hack -- regardless of his accolades. Sorry.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

When a person only presents evidence that supports his argument, ignores all evidence to the contrary, and relies on ad hominem attacks rather than substantive debate, he has all the earmarkings of a hack -- regardless of his accolades. Sorry.
I'll admit Krugman does engage ad hominem attacks, but he only does so when he is speaking to a largely liberal audience whom enjoys his digs at Republicans (I consider writing for the Times speaking to a mostly liberal audience). If you were to watch him debate a conservative one-on-one, however, like he often does with George Will on ABC's This Week, his entire argument is devoid of ad hominems and completely substantive.

[Rogah]

A Ponzi scheme also implies that someone is reaping profits. If the only thing that is being taken out of it is a negligible amount of overhead, then you could hardly call it a ponzi scheme.I think you're really reaching here, straining to expand the textbook definition of "Ponzi Scheme," trying and show Social Security doesn't fit that absolute definition in an attempt to avoid addressing the main point being made. IMHO, the point I was making was pretty clear.

Like any typical Ponzi Scheme, there were people reaping benefits: The earliest investors. I remember reading a stat once that in 1950, there were something like 11 contributors for every recipient. Now that ratio is down to something like 3 to 1. With the baby boomers starting to retire, not to mention people living longer, I wouldn't expect that ratio to come down anytime soon.

Money is taken from new "investors" and paid out to those who have already invested. Sure sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi Scheme to me.

[arglebargle]

Without both political parties stealing Social Security funds to prop up their pet projects, the Social Security Fund would be deliriously in the black right now. What problems it has can be dealt with in a few simple moves.

[arglebargle]

When a person only presents evidence that supports his argument, ignores all evidence to the contrary, and relies on ad hominem attacks rather than substantive debate, he has all the earmarkings of a hack -- regardless of his accolades. Sorry.

Does that apply to talk radio hosts, and the huge swath of news-rtainment shows on TV now?

Which does apply to the original post about 'manufacturing' a quote that you can then attack. Kinda hackish. They couldn't make a better arguement without using that? Or did they not think to look?

[ScipioCowboy]

I'll admit Krugman does engage ad hominem attacks, but he only does so when he is speaking to a largely liberal audience whom enjoys his digs at Republicans (I consider writing for the Times speaking to a mostly liberal audience). If you were to watch him debate a conservative one-on-one, however, like he often does with George Will on ABC's This Week, his entire argument is devoid of ad hominems and completely substantive.

He may be on "good" behavior with George Will, but each time I've seen Krugman, the majority of his argument has consisted of ad hominem attacks and constant innuendo about his opponent's "true" intentions. This includes his appearances with the departed Tim Russert.

When a leftist publication such as the New York Times feels compelled to question the integrity of a leftist idealogue such as Krugman, it certainly raises doubts over his credibility.

Does that apply to talk radio hosts, and the huge swath of news-rtainment shows on TV now?

Which does apply to the original post about 'manufacturing' a quote that you can then attack. Kinda hackish. They couldn't make a better arguement without using that? Or did they not think to look?

It depends on what the talk radio host claims to be.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

He may be on "good" behavior with George Will, but each time I've seen Krugman, the majority of his argument has consisted of ad hominem attacks and constant innuendo about his opponent's "true" intentions. This includes his appearances with the departed Tim Russert.

Hmm, well every single time I have seen him debate a conservative who is willing to engage in a respectful debate, like George Will or Joe Scarborough, I have never seen him resort to ad hominems. And I found that appearance you were talking about on Russert's show. It seems to me that it was O'Reilly who was out of control and using ad hominems, not Krugman.
MUOFTPbxuWA

[arglebargle]

Nice clip there. O'Reilly is in prime blowhard form.

[ScipioCowboy]

Hmm, well every single time I have seen him debate a conservative who is willing to engage in a respectful debate, like George Will or Joe Scarborough, I have never seen him resort to ad hominems. And I found that appearance you were talking about on Russert's show. It seems to me that it was O'Reilly who was out of control and using ad hominems, not Krugman.

The video clearly shows that Krugman was the first to engage in ad hominem attacks when he called O'Reilly a liar. And neither man seems to be in any more "control" than the other. O'Reilly is being his typical demonstrative, indigant self, and Krugman is doing his passive/aggressive routine by talking around rather than to his opponent.

However, our discussion isn't O'Reilly versus Krugman. O'Reilly most definitely engages in ad hominens. No one has denied this, and its admission here only serves to obfuscate the real issue.

In reality, the video effectively demonstrates the criticisms levied against Krugman. Rather than defending the substance of his book, he launches into a tirade against O'Reilly and the Fox Network.

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

The video clearly shows that Krugman was the first to engage in ad hominem attacks when he called O'Reilly a liar. And neither man seems to be in any more "control" than the other. O'Reilly is being his typical demonstrative, indigant self, and Krugman is doing his passive/aggressive routine by talking around rather than to his opponent.

However, our discussion isn't O'Reilly versus Krugman. O'Reilly most definitely engages in ad hominens. No one has denied this, and its admission here only serves to obfuscate the real issue.

In reality, the video effectively demonstrates the criticisms levied against Krugman. Rather than defending the substance of his book, he launches into a tirade against O'Reilly and the Fox Network.
Actually, Krugman said that O'Reilly's assertion was a lie (he didn't call him a liar, semantics maybe) after O'Reilly continually asserted a falsity and Krugman continually corrected him, and in fact Krugman was correct what O'Reilly said was a lie.

Furthermore, Krugman was most definitely more in control; I don't know how anyone can come to any other conclusion after watching that.

Anyhow, Krugman's assertions that Fox just cut and pastes GOP press releases turned out to be 100% correct:


Caught red-handed using GOP talking points, Fox caves with apology ... for typo (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902110016)

Published Wed, Feb 11, 2009 2:24pm ET by Karl Frisch


Yesterday, Media Matters noted (http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100019):In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release.

My, how a day of criticism from media critics and progressive bloggers changes things – even at Fox News. Today, Scott offered... an apology (http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902110014) of sorts (emphasis added):Yesterday on Happening Now we showed you how the stimulus bill has grown over time. Our story prompted by a news release from the Senate Republican Communication Center. There point that a $56 billion proposal in September has grown to $838 billion in five months. In compiling the story, our producers and researchers did what we always do -- we verified the accuracy of the material. But in double checking the newspaper quotes referenced in that news release we made the same mistake they did. We labeled a Wall Street Journal article as having run in 2009 when in fact it was 2008. That was our error, and we apologize.Of course, I’m kidding.

See what Scott does there? He apologizes, not for passing along a one-sided argument made in a Senate Republican Communications Center’s press release as Fox News’ original reporting, but for reporting the typo.

In his initial report, Scott didn’t tell his audience that the citations in his report were based entirely on a press release from the Senate Republicans – a fact he glosses over in his half-hearted apology for the typo.

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.

K4JOd6KS7Zk

[ScipioCowboy]

Actually, Krugman said that O'Reilly's assertion was a lie (he didn't call him a liar, semantics maybe) after O'Reilly continually asserted a falsity and Krugman continually corrected him, and in fact Krugman was correct what O'Reilly said was a lie.
li⋅ar
–noun
a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

When you accuse someone of telling lies, you're calling him or her a liar. Period.

A lie is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth. As such, a lie is a matter of intent, not content. Even if O'Reilly was mistaken, he had given no reason to believe he was purposefully hiding the truth.

Furthermore, Krugman was proved wrong. He asserted that the Bush tax cuts would be "ineffective" in job creation; however, according to the US Department of Labor, the latter years of the Bush presidency saw a steady decrease in unemployment. Unemployment reached a peak of 6.0 in 2003 due to the inherited recession, and bottomed out in 2007 at 4.6.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

It's a specious criticism that the Bush Presidency was ineffective in terms of job creation. A valid criticism of the Bush Presidency would be the lack of income growth among the middle class. However, this had little do with tax cuts and more to do with the erosion of our manufacturing base due to outsourcing.

Furthermore, Krugman was most definitely more in control; I don't know how anyone can come to any other conclusion after watching that.Someone who notices body language and passive/aggressive behavior might come to a different conclusion.

However, the journalistic integrity of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly aren't the issues here. No one has attempted to use Fox News or Bill O'Reilly as a source throughout our exchange. You, however, have used Paul Krugman as source. Consequently, your argument rests on his credibility -- this is the central issue here despite your berating of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, neither of which has any bearing on Krugman.

Krugman's own colleague at the NYT has criticized him for using evidence in a selective and disingenuous manner, and engaging in ad hominem attacks. The videos and links posted in this very thread have substantiated these criticisms to a large degree. Consequently, we have every reason to question Krugman's reliability as a source.

[Rogah]

I’d question Fox News’ journalistic integrity; that is of course if they had any to question in the first place.Do you think anything you've mentioned here is worse than what Dan Rather did in 2004?

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Do you think anything you've mentioned here is worse than what Dan Rather did in 2004?
Yes Fox took there marching orders directly from the GOP, and copied and pasted their press release and passed it off as their own. And they did this knowingly.

Dan Rather was fooled by a person who forged legal document. Furthermore, besides that slip up Bush was AWOL during a summer while he was in the national guard, because he was campaigning for a friend of his father. So the overall assertion of Rather's reporting was correct, but one of his sources turned out to be a fraud.

So I while Rather's slip up can be attributed to sloppy reporting, FOX is an outright propaganda machine for the GOP.

[Rogah]

Yes Fox took there marching orders directly from the GOP, and copied and pasted their press release and passed it off as their own. And they did this knowingly.

Dan Rather was fooled by a person who forged legal document. Furthermore, besides that slip up Bush was AWOL during a summer while he was in the national guard, because he was campaigning for a friend of his father. So the overall assertion of Rather's reporting was correct, but one of his sources turned out to be a fraud.

So I while Rather's slip up can be attributed to sloppy reporting, FOX is an outright propaganda machine for the GOP.Yup, just as I suspected. Your take on "journalistic integrity" conveniently falls right down party lines. :rolleyes:

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

li⋅ar
–noun
a person who tells lies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liar

When you accuse someone of telling lies, you're calling him or her a liar. Period.

A lie is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth. As such, a lie is a matter of intent, not content. Even if O'Reilly was mistaken, he had given no reason to believe he was purposefully hiding the truth.

Furthermore, Krugman was proved wrong. He asserted that the Bush tax cuts would be "ineffective" in job creation; however, according to the US Department of Labor, the latter years of the Bush presidency saw a steady decrease in unemployment. Unemployement reached a peak of 6.0 in 2003 due to the inherited recession, and bottomed out in 2007 at 4.6.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

It's a specious criticism that the Bush Presidency was ineffective in terms of job creation. A valid criticism of the Bush Presidency would be the lack of income growth among the middle class. However, this had little do with tax cuts and more to do with the erosion of our manufacturing base due to outsourcing.

Someone who notices body language and passive/aggressive behavior might come to a different conclusion.

However, the journalistic integrity of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly aren't the issues here. No one has attempted to use Fox News or Bill O'Reilly as a source throughout our exchange. You, however, have used Paul Krugman as source. Consequently, your argument rests on his credibility -- this is the central issue here despite your berating of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. They have no bearing on Krugman.

Krugman's own collegue at the NYT has criticized him for using evidence in a selective and disingenuous manner, and engaging in ad hominem attacks. The videos and links posted in this very thread have substantiated these criticisms to a large degree. Consequently, we have every reason to question Krugman's reliability as a source.

If Krugman repeatedly told O'Reily that he is incorrect, but O'Reilly wrongfully, recklessly, and maliciously keeps on asserting that Krugman said something he didn't then that is tantamount to lying, and it is not an ad hominem to point out that fact.

The point of Krugman pointing out that O'Reilly's statement was a lie was not to attack his character (like what ad hominems do) the point was to point out this O'Reilly's argument is false, any other implication on O'Reilly's character was merely a collateral consequence. So it was a valid argument.

The unemployment rate is a notoriously poor measure of employment among economists, because it doesn't take into account people who given up looking for jobs and UNDERemployed individuals. It doesn't take into account people who lost their full time jobs and are forced into part time jobs or jobs that pay less. After all it was the Bush administration (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml)who said the fast food restaurants create manufacturing jobs. Anyhow, Krugman said the Bush administration was ineffective at job creation, he didn't mention anything about the employment rate.

Moreover, our economy for the last 5 years or so was based on a housing bubble. Nothing for Bushies to be proud about.

And what NYT collegues are you referring to?

[arglebargle]

Yes Fox took there marching orders directly from the GOP, and copied and pasted their press release and passed it off as their own. And they did this knowingly.

Dan Rather was fooled by a person who forged legal document. Furthermore, besides that slip up Bush was AWOL during a summer while he was in the national guard, because he was campaigning for a friend of his father. So the overall assertion of Rather's reporting was correct, but one of his sources turned out to be a fraud.

So I while Rather's slip up can be attributed to sloppy reporting, FOX is an outright propaganda machine for the GOP.


One document was questionable. I don't think the others had any such complaints. Though I am sure I will hear about it if there were.

To Bush's defense; Yes, he played fast and loose with the National Guard duties, but that was pretty common for that time.

[ScipioCowboy]

If Krugman repeatedly told O'Reily that he is incorrect, but O'Reilly wrongfully, recklessly, and maliciously keeps on asserting that Krugman said something he didn't then that is tantamount to lying, and it is not an ad hominem to point out that fact.

The point of Krugman pointing out that O'Reilly's statement was a lie was not to attack his character (like what ad hominems do) the point was to point out this O'Reilly's argument is false, any other implication on O'Reilly's character was merely a collateral consequence. So it was a valid argument.

Not quite.

When you accuse a person of lying, you are not merely "point[ing] out that [his] argument is false." Rather, you are accusing him of deliberate deception, of purposefully misleading you -- a far worse offense than simply being wrong because it strikes right at a person's character.

Krugman had no proof that O'Reilly was lying yet made the accusation anyway; consequently, he was engaging in an ad hominem attack.

The unemployment rate is a notoriously poor measure of employment among economists, because it doesn't take into account people who given up looking for jobs and UNDERemployed individuals. It doesn't take into account people who lost their full time jobs and are forced into part time jobs or jobs that pay less. After all it was the Bush administration (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml)who said the fast food restaurants create manufacturing jobs. Anyhow, Krugman said the Bush administration was ineffective at job creation, he didn't mention anything about the employment rate.You can splice the numbers anyway you desire, but in the aftermath, it still works out to a net gain of roughly 4.5 million new jobs created during the Bush administration.

Yet another Krugman assertion proves dubious.

You can criticize the Bush Presidency for a myriad of things. But the tax cuts really aren't one of them.

And what NYT collegues are you referring to?Dude, we've been through this:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2754869&postcount=58

[RumblinTumblinWitten]

Not quite.

When you accuse a person of lying, you are not merely "point[ing] out that [his] argument is false." Rather, you are accusing him of deliberate deception, of purposefully misleading you -- a far worse offense than simply being wrong because it strikes right at a person's character.

Krugman had no proof that O'Reilly was lying yet made the accusation anyway; consequently, he was engaging in an ad hominem attack.

You can splice the numbers anyway you desire, but in the aftermath, it still works out to a net gain of roughly 4.5 million new jobs created during the Bush administration.

Yet another Krugman assertion proves dubious.

You can criticize the Bush Presidency for a myriad of things. But the tax cuts really aren't one of them.

Dude, we've been through this:

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2754869&postcount=58

You can sue someone for defamation even if they had no knowledge of the falsity as long as they were reckless or wanton. Likewise what O'Reilly did was tantamount to lying because after he was repeatedly told he was wrong he recklessly asserted the false information without any care for the veracity of what he was saying. He certainly wasn't being honest.

And like I said the main purpose of Krugman saying what O'Reilly said was a lie was not to attack O'Reilly's character but to attack the veracity of his argument. And throughout the rest of the video it is O'Reilly who is making attacks on Krugman's character not the other way around. Krugman was incredibly restrained, as O'Reilly throughout the debate was obviously trying to get a rise out of Krugman, but Krugman remained calm.

Moreover, the lower paying jobs that were created in the second term of Bush's presidency were the result of the bubble economy we were operating under. And now we lost all those jobs and then some. Congrats on that.

And as for Orkent: for all those "slicing" and dicing of numbers that Krugman purportedly did he turned out to be absolutely right about this economic mess we are in, just go back to his 2005 column (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1). So hack he is not; hacks don't get Nobel prizes.

[burmafrd]

more drivel from the driveller. Hacks have gotten the Nobel Peace prize many times. Many of them, just like those joke Pullitzer prizes the NYT just got, are m eaningless political statements.

[Rogah]

You can sue someone for defamation even if they had no knowledge of the falsity as long as they were reckless or wanton. Likewise what O'Reilly did was tantamount to lying because after he was repeatedly told he was wrong he recklessly asserted the false information without any care for the veracity of what he was saying. He certainly wasn't being honest. And that's different from Dan Rather how...?

[Rogah]

more drivel from the driveller. Hacks have gotten the Nobel Peace prize many times. Many of them, just like those joke Pullitzer prizes the NYT just got, are m eaningless political statements.Hmmm.... I can't for the life of me think of anyone that got the Nobel Peace Prize who didn't deserve it.... nope, can't think of a single example...

Oh, wait, yeah I can.... :D


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg/200px-Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg

[DFWJC]

Hmmm.... I can't for the life of me think of anyone that got the Nobel Peace Prize who didn't deserve it.... nope, can't think of a single example...

Oh, wait, yeah I can.... :D


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg/200px-Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg

:lmao: :lmao:

or
http://home.mindspring.com/~macjohnson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gore.gif

[ScipioCowboy]

You can sue someone for defamation even if they had no knowledge of the falsity as long as they were reckless or wanton. Likewise what O'Reilly did was tantamount to lying because after he was repeatedly told he was wrong he recklessly asserted the false information without any care for the veracity of what he was saying. He certainly wasn't being honest.

And like I said the main purpose of Krugman saying what O'Reilly said was a lie was not to attack O'Reilly's character but to attack the veracity of his argument. And throughout the rest of the video it is O'Reilly who is making attacks on Krugman's character not the other way around. Krugman was incredibly restrained, as O'Reilly throughout the debate was obviously trying to get a rise out of Krugman, but Krugman remained calm.

Moreover, the lower paying jobs that were created in the second term of Bush's presidency were the result of the bubble economy we were operating under. And now we lost all those jobs and then some. Congrats on that.

And as for Orkent: for all those "slicing" and dicing of numbers that Krugman purportedly did he turned out to be absolutely right about this economic mess we are in, just go back to his 2005 column (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1). So hack he is not; hacks don't get Nobel prizes.

You're certainly free to continue deflecting the issue to completely unrelated topics -- defamation of character, journalistic integrity of Fox News, O'Reilly's body language -- but it won't change the reality that neither you nor Paul Krugman can produce evidence evidence that O'Reilly was intentionally hiding the truth. Consequently, Krugman's accusation is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Krugman predicted that the Bush tax cuts would be "ineffective" in job creation; however, the reality was 4.7 million new jobs created during the Bush Administration.

As I said, there are many, many reasons for criticizing the presidency of George W. Bush, but the tax cuts are not one of them. Tax cuts are a prudent move during a time of recession -- as John F. Kennedy will attest. The lack of higher paying middle-income jobs was due to the slow erosion of our manufacturing base by outsourcing.

In the 2005 column you linked, Krugman says that the housing bubble will eventually pop and the country may see a recession. Wow! Start craking out those nobel prizes, Martha! That insight was incredible, especially considering that all bubbles eventually pop and recessions are inevitable.

Krugman is clearly a nobel prize winner on par with the great Yassar Arafat.:D