How Many Liberal Myths are there?

[8537]

Trickle down works.


Oh.


That's a Conservative myth.

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

From the job creation related to economic growth, which is itself a product of innovation, efficiency, effort and protection of private property.

The private sector does not base its entire decision-making process on tax rates. That's why the 1950's saw dramatic job growth with a 91% TMR.

 

[Toro]

where is your information?
No-one denies that the GOP led congress from 94-01 did a great job on balancing the budget with tax payers wealth

Its a myth that those 8 years had a surplus

My friend all I have done is provide information

Nobody said that there was a surplus for eight years. But there was a surplus for three years at the end of the 1990s. The rise in debt that you are referring is due solely in how the US Treasury accounts for assets and liabilities in the social security trusts, i.e. it doesn't net out assets to liabilities across the different government accounts. The people who argue that there was no surplus because gross debt rose don't understand this and don't understand how government accounting works. I will post details of how this works later.

 

[JRK]

Trickle down works.


Oh.


That's a Conservative myth.

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

From the job creation related to economic growth, which is itself a product of innovation, efficiency, effort and protection of private property.

The private sector does not base its entire decision-making process on tax rates. That's why the 1950's saw dramatic job growth with a 91% TMR.

You keep saying that like that hi end tax rate has anything to do with the middle class cuts that came with both Reagns and Bushes tax policy
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
Trickle down means a guy like me who makes 65k a year and is allowed to keep 3000 more a year times millions of us is no different than it trickling down from 650,000 a year
people
It blows my mind that the left debates this

the link has it in black and white

 

[Nosmo King]

Trickle down works.

Oh.

That's a Conservative myth.

There's no such thing as "trickle down," dipshit.

You can say that again! But, if consolidation of wealth into the hands of the very few is the goal, it's been a resounding success!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Libyan "genocide"

That's one that brings a smile to my face everytime someone says it, and actually believe it.

 

[8537]

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

From the job creation related to economic growth, which is itself a product of innovation, efficiency, effort and protection of private property.

The private sector does not base its entire decision-making process on tax rates. That's why the 1950's saw dramatic job growth with a 91% TMR.

You keep saying that like that hi end tax rate has anything to do with the middle class cuts that came with both Reagns and Bushes tax policy
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011
Trickle down means a guy like me who makes 65k a year and is allowed to keep 3000 more a year times millions of us is no different than it trickling down from 650,000 a year
people
It blows my mind that the left debates this

the link has it in black and white

What are you talking about? The concept of trickle-down has nothing to do with your average 65K earner getting a tax cut.

Trickle down is related specifically to the TMR. The TMR was 91% in the 1950's, and we saw significant job growth.

The TMR was 10% in 1930 and we saw the loss of 20% of all US jobs.

The TMR was raised by 4 points in 1993 and we saw the creation of 22M jobs.

The TMR was cut in 2001 and we saw eight years of virtually zero growth in jobs.

 

[JRK]

where is your information?
No-one denies that the GOP led congress from 94-01 did a great job on balancing the budget with tax payers wealth

Its a myth that those 8 years had a surplus

My friend all I have done is provide information

Nobody said that there was a surplus for eight years. But there was a surplus for three years at the end of the 1990s. The rise in debt that you are referring is due solely in how the US Treasury accounts for assets and liabilities in the social security trusts, i.e. it doesn't net out assets to liabilities across the different government accounts. The people who argue that there was no surplus because gross debt rose don't understand this and don't understand how government accounting works. I will post details of how this works later.

Yes there are more than 50% of the libs who do state that, maybe not here, but it is a common myth
I also would like to add that the congress was 100% GOP and had no 9-11 to worry with either
GWB was within 150 billion of even in 2007 (06 budget, GOP)
His big deficit in 08 was a tax rebate to the tax payer

 

[RadiomanATL]

21 and a third.

 

[Toro]

Well no, it's not a common myth. The government ran surpluses in the 90s. And yes the GOP gets credit too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're going to juggle the numbers for the Clinton budgets then you have to juggle every other president's budget numbers as well.

What happens?

Even if you make a case that Clinton's budgets weren't balanced, you still end up with the fact that Clinton came closer to balancing the budget than any other president in the last 30 years.

Or put another way, this is another useless crock of rightwing baloney.

where is your information?
No-one denies that the GOP led congress from 94-01 did a great job on balancing the budget with tax payers wealth

Its a myth that those 8 years had a surplus

My friend all I have done is provide information

I've yet to hear anyone claim that all eight years of the Clinton presidency were in surplus, so stop inventing strawmen to argue against.

I do know for a fact that GW Bush's stated intention of his 2001 tax cuts was to give the surplus to the taxpayers,

instead of using it to pay down the debt.

That's how the cycle of deficit spending resumed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trickle down works.


Oh.


That's a Conservative myth.

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

A lot of them came from the government pouring unprecedented amounts of borrowed money into the economy.

 

[JRK]

Trickle down works.


Oh.


That's a Conservative myth.

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

A lot of them came from the government pouring unprecedented amounts of borrowed money into the economy.

let me ask you a simple question if I may
how many jobs did 9-11 create?
Katrina?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Now there is about 80-90% of all of GWB deficit
Clinton's was about 1.2-1.4 (after the GOP congress took control it was 0 for all intent)
And Reagan was handed a recession
20% interest rates and 20% inflation to include re building the military

Besides the column next to the total shows private sector jobs
as Obama's failed stimulus proved that Govt jobs are temporary

 

[NYcarbineer]

If trickle down does not work then where did these 38 million jobs come from?
with 9-11 and 2 wars throw in?
what did you expect happen?
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

A lot of them came from the government pouring unprecedented amounts of borrowed money into the economy.

let me ask you a simple question if I may
how many jobs did 9-11 create?
Katrina?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Now there is about 80-90% of all of GWB deficit
Clinton's was about 1.2-1.4 (after the GOP congress took control it was 0 for all intent)
And Reagan was handed a recession
20% interest rates and 20% inflation to include re building the military

Besides the column next to the total shows private sector jobs
as Obama's failed stimulus proved that Govt jobs are temporary

Reagan was not handed a recession. You are mentally handicapped.

 

[JRK]

A lot of them came from the government pouring unprecedented amounts of borrowed money into the economy.

let me ask you a simple question if I may
how many jobs did 9-11 create?
Katrina?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Now there is about 80-90% of all of GWB deficit
Clinton's was about 1.2-1.4 (after the GOP congress took control it was 0 for all intent)
And Reagan was handed a recession
20% interest rates and 20% inflation to include re building the military

Besides the column next to the total shows private sector jobs
as Obama's failed stimulus proved that Govt jobs are temporary

Reagan was not handed a recession. You are mentally handicapped.

Do your DD
I refuse to lower myself to your level with the name calling
Recession in the United States



GDP growth in the United States in the early-1980s. The short recession at the start of the decade, followed by a brief period of growth and the deeper recession in 81–82, have led to this period being characterized as a W-shaped recession.
Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (annualized; seasonally adjusted); Average GDP growth 1947–2009
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.[2][3] The primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.[4]
In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, stagflation began to afflict the economy of the United States. Unemployment had risen from 5.1% in January 1974 to a high of 9.0% in May 1975. Although it had gradually declined to 5.6% by May 1979, unemployment began rising again thereafter. It jumped sharply to 6.9% in April 1980 and to 7.5% in May 1980. A mild recession from January to July 1980 kept unemployment high, but despite economic recovery unemployment remained at historically high levels (about 7.5%) through the end of 1981.[5] Unemployment continued to grow through 1985, reaching 10% nationally, and reached a record peak of 25% in Rockford, Illinois.[6] Inflation, which had averaged 3.2% annually in the post-war period, had more than doubled after the 1973 oil shock to a 7.7% annual rate. Inflation reached 9.1% in 1975, the highest rate since 1947. Inflation declined to 5.8% the following year, but then edged higher. By 1979, inflation reached a startling 11.3% and in 1980 soared to 13.5%.[2][7]

 

[sinister59]

Clinton Surplus
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

Bush lied, people died

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

What else we got?

a drop in the bucket compared to the neo-cons/teabaggers put out , remember the federal death panel ?

repigs blame their failures and screw ups on the Dems , come on you really want to open that can?

I see you gave us some examples

the WMDs , the federal death panel Obama's health care plan had ,and keep you own health insurance , doctor , the bull shit palin alone spouted , no to mention the party it self .

and with elections coming up next year it will get more out raguse

 

[JRK]

a drop in the bucket compared to the neo-cons/teabaggers put out , remember the federal death panel ?

repigs blame their failures and screw ups on the Dems , come on you really want to open that can?

I see you gave us some examples

the WMDs , the federal death panel Obama's health care plan had ,and keep you own health insurance , doctor , the bull shit palin alone spouted , no to mention the party it self .

and with elections coming up next year it will get more out raguse

what WMDs?
these?
I do not see GWB name in this information
I have more below

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Death panels are not true?
How do you know how its going to work?
That program is not in place yet
Palin?
You got an issue with Palin?
do what I do with Bill M
Ignore her, she has not been lying
Bill M does

Bill Moyers, James Watt and the Creation of Media Myths
Posted on February 1, 2005 by Brian Carnell
Given his position as a sometimes-media critic, Bill Moyers recently provided an excellent example of how myths are perpetuated in the media. The short version is that even journalists tend to simply believe what other people tell them without every bothering to do any sort of fact checking. Its an odd problem in an age when so much information is at our fingertips.

In op-ed, Bill Moyers writes (emphasis added),

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn’t know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

In fact, there is no evidence at all that James Watt made this rather bizarre statement as part of any testimony to Congress. In fact, there’s scant evidence that Watt said it at all, under any circumstance. The quote doesn’t show up in a Lexis-Nexis search, and reporters at the time had a field day reporting Watt’s regular gaffes. If he said it at the time, it is genuinely surprising that no one else reported this statement.

So why does Moyer believe Watt did? Because he’s simply passing it along without checking its veracity. In this case he’s simply repeating what Glenn Scherer of Grist Magazine wrote back in November,

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,” Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

This is easily proven false. Watt wasn’t fired until 1983, and he was fired because he told a group of lobbyists that his coal commission’s decisions would be upheld because, “I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt’s many comments about the environment — many nutty, some not so nutty — played no role at all in his firing.

So why does Scherer think they did? Unlike Moyers, who is simply repeating a false claim, Scherer is simply making stuff up here. This is frequently called lying.

Scherer notes that his source for the Watt quote is Austin Miles’ 1990 book, Setting the Captives Free. But the quote in Miles book is a) problematic, and b) doesn’t say what Scherer reports it does.

Here’s what Miles writes,

Our desperate efforts to protect the environment have been met with opposition from the religious right. James Watt, a born-again evangelical who sat on the board of directors of the scandalous PTL Club ministry while serving as our Secretary of Interior, said this about the environment: “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

That’s all Miles has to say about Watt. It is impossible to check the veracity of this statement since Miles doesn’t bother to give any sort of indication where, when or in what forum Watt supposedly said this. Miles’ book seems positively allergic to footnotes. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to repeat second-hand, unsourced quotes.

Even then, Scherer seems to have simply made up most of the details for his column. As I noted above, Miles doesn’t say when, where or in what forum this was made, so how does Scherer conclude that it was made in 1981 at a Congressional hearing and led, in part, to Watt’s firing? He can’t. So either he has another source for this quote, or he simply made those details up.

And then Moyers bought this nonsense, hook line and sinker and even managed to “remember” the reaction of various people to Watt’s testimony.

Nobody, apparently, gives a damn about actually fact checking and striving for accuracy.

Source:

 

[sinister59]

I see you gave us some examples

the WMDs , the federal death panel Obama's health care plan had ,and keep you own health insurance , doctor , the bull shit palin alone spouted , no to mention the party it self .

and with elections coming up next year it will get more out raguse

what WMDs?
these?
I do not see GWB name in this information
I have more below

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Death panels are not true?
How do you know how its going to work?
That program is not in place yet
Palin?
You got an issue with Palin?
do what I do with Bill M
Ignore her, she has not been lying
Bill M does

Bill Moyers, James Watt and the Creation of Media Myths
Posted on February 1, 2005 by Brian Carnell
Given his position as a sometimes-media critic, Bill Moyers recently provided an excellent example of how myths are perpetuated in the media. The short version is that even journalists tend to simply believe what other people tell them without every bothering to do any sort of fact checking. Its an odd problem in an age when so much information is at our fingertips.

In op-ed, Bill Moyers writes (emphasis added),

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn’t know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

In fact, there is no evidence at all that James Watt made this rather bizarre statement as part of any testimony to Congress. In fact, there’s scant evidence that Watt said it at all, under any circumstance. The quote doesn’t show up in a Lexis-Nexis search, and reporters at the time had a field day reporting Watt’s regular gaffes. If he said it at the time, it is genuinely surprising that no one else reported this statement.

So why does Moyer believe Watt did? Because he’s simply passing it along without checking its veracity. In this case he’s simply repeating what Glenn Scherer of Grist Magazine wrote back in November,

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,” Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

This is easily proven false. Watt wasn’t fired until 1983, and he was fired because he told a group of lobbyists that his coal commission’s decisions would be upheld because, “I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt’s many comments about the environment — many nutty, some not so nutty — played no role at all in his firing.

So why does Scherer think they did? Unlike Moyers, who is simply repeating a false claim, Scherer is simply making stuff up here. This is frequently called lying.

Scherer notes that his source for the Watt quote is Austin Miles’ 1990 book, Setting the Captives Free. But the quote in Miles book is a) problematic, and b) doesn’t say what Scherer reports it does.

Here’s what Miles writes,

Our desperate efforts to protect the environment have been met with opposition from the religious right. James Watt, a born-again evangelical who sat on the board of directors of the scandalous PTL Club ministry while serving as our Secretary of Interior, said this about the environment: “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

That’s all Miles has to say about Watt. It is impossible to check the veracity of this statement since Miles doesn’t bother to give any sort of indication where, when or in what forum Watt supposedly said this. Miles’ book seems positively allergic to footnotes. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to repeat second-hand, unsourced quotes.

Even then, Scherer seems to have simply made up most of the details for his column. As I noted above, Miles doesn’t say when, where or in what forum this was made, so how does Scherer conclude that it was made in 1981 at a Congressional hearing and led, in part, to Watt’s firing? He can’t. So either he has another source for this quote, or he simply made those details up.

And then Moyers bought this nonsense, hook line and sinker and even managed to “remember” the reaction of various people to Watt’s testimony.

Nobody, apparently, gives a damn about actually fact checking and striving for accuracy.

Source:

W wasn't a bad guy , he was the first repig to acknowledge the importance of fighting HIV , he gave more then any other president to Africa for HIV as well as Asia . . Reagan wile governor of california couldn't even mention aids , much less do anything . so its not picking on bush thou he did get us into one unjust war based on lies , run our economy by giving the rich all the tax breaks he could and tried to make it permanent .

he spent trillions wile in office .
and neo-cons teabaggers, try to blame all this on a Dem ?

don't start with the fact check when after Bill clinton you blamed everything George the first did up to the weather .

 

[JRK]

the WMDs , the federal death panel Obama's health care plan had ,and keep you own health insurance , doctor , the bull shit palin alone spouted , no to mention the party it self .

and with elections coming up next year it will get more out raguse

what WMDs?
these?
I do not see GWB name in this information
I have more below

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Death panels are not true?
How do you know how its going to work?
That program is not in place yet
Palin?
You got an issue with Palin?
do what I do with Bill M
Ignore her, she has not been lying
Bill M does

Bill Moyers, James Watt and the Creation of Media Myths
Posted on February 1, 2005 by Brian Carnell
Given his position as a sometimes-media critic, Bill Moyers recently provided an excellent example of how myths are perpetuated in the media. The short version is that even journalists tend to simply believe what other people tell them without every bothering to do any sort of fact checking. Its an odd problem in an age when so much information is at our fingertips.

In op-ed, Bill Moyers writes (emphasis added),

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn’t know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

In fact, there is no evidence at all that James Watt made this rather bizarre statement as part of any testimony to Congress. In fact, there’s scant evidence that Watt said it at all, under any circumstance. The quote doesn’t show up in a Lexis-Nexis search, and reporters at the time had a field day reporting Watt’s regular gaffes. If he said it at the time, it is genuinely surprising that no one else reported this statement.

So why does Moyer believe Watt did? Because he’s simply passing it along without checking its veracity. In this case he’s simply repeating what Glenn Scherer of Grist Magazine wrote back in November,

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan’s first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,” Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired.

This is easily proven false. Watt wasn’t fired until 1983, and he was fired because he told a group of lobbyists that his coal commission’s decisions would be upheld because, “I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” Watt’s many comments about the environment — many nutty, some not so nutty — played no role at all in his firing.

So why does Scherer think they did? Unlike Moyers, who is simply repeating a false claim, Scherer is simply making stuff up here. This is frequently called lying.

Scherer notes that his source for the Watt quote is Austin Miles’ 1990 book, Setting the Captives Free. But the quote in Miles book is a) problematic, and b) doesn’t say what Scherer reports it does.

Here’s what Miles writes,

Our desperate efforts to protect the environment have been met with opposition from the religious right. James Watt, a born-again evangelical who sat on the board of directors of the scandalous PTL Club ministry while serving as our Secretary of Interior, said this about the environment: “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.”

That’s all Miles has to say about Watt. It is impossible to check the veracity of this statement since Miles doesn’t bother to give any sort of indication where, when or in what forum Watt supposedly said this. Miles’ book seems positively allergic to footnotes. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to repeat second-hand, unsourced quotes.

Even then, Scherer seems to have simply made up most of the details for his column. As I noted above, Miles doesn’t say when, where or in what forum this was made, so how does Scherer conclude that it was made in 1981 at a Congressional hearing and led, in part, to Watt’s firing? He can’t. So either he has another source for this quote, or he simply made those details up.

And then Moyers bought this nonsense, hook line and sinker and even managed to “remember” the reaction of various people to Watt’s testimony.

Nobody, apparently, gives a damn about actually fact checking and striving for accuracy.

Source:

W wasn't a bad guy , he was the first repig to acknowledge the importance of fighting HIV , he gave more then any other president to Africa for HIV as well as Asia . . Reagan wile governor of california couldn't even mention aids , much less do anything . so its not picking on bush thou he did get us into one unjust war based on lies , run our economy by giving the rich all the tax breaks he could and tried to make it permanent .

he spent trillions wile in office .
and neo-cons teabaggers, try to blame all this on a Dem ?

don't start with the fact check when after Bill clinton you blamed everything George the first did up to the weather .

I am unsure what you thread is trying to say
Did you read the direct quotes from the left on Iraq?
And FYI, lets take a look at what the UN was saying in Jan of 2003
xclusive: Blix Backed Bush on WMD
Stewart Stogel, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004
Documents Show That U.N. Inspector Believed Saddam Was Hiding Secret Weapons
UNITED NATIONS – U.N. chief Iraq arms inspector Dr. Hans Blix believed that Baghdad may have been hiding as much as 10,000 liters of deadly anthrax before the U.S.- and British-led coalition invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

According to experts, if properly weaponized, that amount of anthrax could neutralize a city the size of New York.

The admission by Blix was found in a private report sent to the UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Observation and Verification Commission) College of Commissioners just weeks before the invasion. The college is the U.N. body's executive board.

In his report Blix said that he had a "strong suspicion" that Iraq "is hiding" as much as 10,000 liters of the exotic poison.

The private proclamation went further than Blix's public statements where he insisted that weapons Baghdad could not account for was not proof they existed and were hidden.

A senior official at the French foreign ministry in Paris told NewsMax that he was aware of the assertion by Blix and believed it was made "under pressure from Washington."

On Thursday, CIA Director George Tenet told an audience at Georgetown University that his agency's assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was shared by numerous intelligence agencies other than the CIA.

Blix's report would seem to corroborate the Tenet claim.

Former U.N. chief arms inspector Rolf Ekeus had explained that anthrax is one form of WMD that is easily hidden and stored.
you need a link to that story?
and what about these munitions Saddam was suppose to have destoryed
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
We had every reason to go there and every reason we went there was proven to be true in some form or another

Saddam was suppose to have all of this shit gone

 

[Truthseeker420]

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?


A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.




The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

 

[Toro]

Here are explanations of how government debt can rise even when the government is running a surplus.

Some are confused about what occurred in the late 90s regarding the budgetary surplus and the national debt. Some have argued that there was no surplus because national debt rose in the final years of the Clinton Presidency. As has been demonstrated, this characterization is incorrect. The budget balance is the difference between government revenues and spending, nothing more. It does not include changes in the national debt.

Thus, the question is why did the national debt rise even though there was a surplus? And the next question is it a bad thing? The answers may surprise some people.

Why did the national debt rise when there was a surplus?

Counter-intuitively, the reason why the national debt rose was because the economy was doing well. When the economy is doing better than expected, payroll taxes flowing into the SS trust funds are greater than expected. The SS trust funds can only "buy" special issuance nonmarketable government bonds. Thus, when payroll tax revenues are greater than expected, issuance of these special issuance government bonds rises and the national debt rises. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly, payroll tax inflows are less than expected. The amount of funds in the SS trusts is lower, the SS trusts buy fewer special-issue government bonds and the national debt is less than expected.

Understand, though, that this is merely an accounting function. It affects assets and liabilities of the government and trust fund recipients. It does not affect cash flows, and thus does not affect the budgetary balance.

...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-11.html#post3122850

More here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-13.html#post3124389