Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 28

Journal by pudge

Howard's Lies

Howard Dean's lies keep piling up.

On This Week he once again restated the lie that he is the only one in the race who has balanced a budget, but Dick Gephardt, as House Minority Leader, was instrumental in balancing the federal budget when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House and Bill Clinton was President. Even if Dean was more important to his process than Gephardt was to his -- I don't know how it works in Vermont -- Gephardt still balanced the budget.

Then again, Gephardt pointed out this lie at the debate last week, and apparently Dean wasn't damaged by the revelation enough to make him stop saying it. He even said it again in tonight's debate.

Along with this, he continued to deceive on taxes. He said there was no middle class tax cut, because "the average person in the bottom 60% got $304 (in tax cuts), while their property taxes, their college tuition, and their health insurance each went up more than $304."

This startled me for many reasons, apart from the obvious fact that there is a middle class tax cut, and further that increases in property taxes are largely not attributable to federal policies, but to state policies. And by far, the largest percentage of state shortfalls had nothing to do with decreases in federal funds, but decreases in expected revenues from other sources, so to blame Bush for this is ludicrous.

What startled me was that it sounded like he was saying increases in tuition and insurance are tax increases. But no, he couldn't have meant that, I thought. He must have meant the tax cut wasn't enough to cover increases in cost of living. But then he reiterated: "You got $304, but college tuition went up much more than that: there already was a middle class tax increase."

So first, he says increases in college tuition, and medical insurance, are tax increases. He might as well have said that Mars is the Blue Planet. Or that the book of Job is in the New Testament. It's a lie.

Second, if you got $304 of a tax cut, you do not have a child going to college. You would have gotten an extra $400 just in the child tax credit increase alone. It's a lie.

Third, he uses the average tax cut of the "bottom 60%" to talk about middle class tax cuts, but the bottom 60% not only includes many poor people (who don't pay any taxes at all, and get no tax cut, thereby really skewing the scale), but it excludes much of the actual middle class, which goes up to -- according to most people, at a minimum -- the bottom 80%. So he includes poor people and excludes the top part of the middle class in order to get a smaller tax refund number. It's a lie.

But the biggest whopper I've seen lately is one that is slowly coming to the forefront, though it was reported months ago: that Dean was against the war on Iraq, while his opponents were in favor of it. It isn't true. It's fiction. Dean was no more against the war than Kerry or Gephardt or Edwards. And, for what it's worth, the same goes for Wesley Clark.

Both men favored the alternative war resolution sponsored by Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), which was essentially the same as the one that was passed, but required a new UN Resolution requiring disarmanent and compliance with past resolutions, and required the President to return to Congress to certify that Iraq is a threat, should diplomacy in the UN fail.

If this resolution had passed, as Clark and Dean favored, nothing would have changed. Bush went to the UN and got a resolution requiring disarmament and compliance with past resolutions, just as the resolution required. Bush tried and failed to get UN support for action, just as the resolution required. Bush justified action with the threat of WMD, just as the resolution required.

The resolution only would have required one additional thing, that Bush send a letter to Congress. It may have been significant in its political effects, but it would not have done anything to prevent war.

Realize this simple fact: Dean supported giving the President the power to do exactly what the President did in Iraq. If Howard Dean had his way, as a member of Congress, Bush would have gone to war anyway. He is lying when he says otherwise, as he often has. Make no mistake about this.

And then ask yourself 1. how much of an anti-war candidate he truly is, and 2. how much of an honest, straight-shooting, no-nonsense, alternative to status quo, he really is.

In the Iowa debate tonight, John Kerry pressed Dean on this again. Dean responded: what really matters is that people are dying in Iraq, and that it is Bush's fault. That's a valiant effort to change the subject, but no, Howard, what matters in this primary campaign is that you've been lying to the public, telling them that you were against the war while your opponents were for it, telling the public that you were an alternative to what they did, while you supported the same thing they did.

Immigration

Lieberman was asked in the debate tonight if he would give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, if elected President. He said yes. The notion that this would probably be an unconstitutional and unsuccessful infringement on states' rights was left unmentioned.

Then Lieberman said he favored amnesty for illegal immigrants. Gephardt echoed the sentiment, saying, "If people have been here, obeyed the laws, ... they deserve the right to get into legal status."

To Lieberman and Gephardt: someone who is here and does not have legal status is not obeying the laws. It's like saying that people who drive 100 mph, but don't violate any traffic laws, should not be given tickets.

On The McLaughlin Group, Lionel Barber from the Financial Times said that the Bush immigration plan was designed to benefit corporations, and I think he has a strong point. How is an individual worker aided significantly by getting 3-6 years of work, when right now they get an indefinite number? How is the community of immigrants helped? Who is really helped here?

Wal-Mart and other corporations (largely agriculture, maybe?) are the ones who hire these illegal immigrants, who have to deal with skirting the laws, and who -- though they may pay more to the workers themselves -- perhaps stand to benefit.

I just don't see any real benefit to anybody in this plan, except for businesses. Not that I am against helping businesses, but to convince me to forgive the breaking of the law, I need more. It doesn't help the people who are fighting an overcrowding influx of illegal aliens (it only hurts them by encouraging an increase in illegal immigration), it doesn't significantly help the illegal aliens (it forces them to leave after 3-6 years), and I don't see how it helps the economy significantly.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • There is no Major party candidate I can vote for in the next election.

    They're all lying asshats.
    • There is one party in the USA, the corporate party. We have a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations. On top of this, corps get the benefits of corporate personhood but don't pay taxes like you and I, because they can have a PO Box in Geneva or somewhere to hold their assets.

      Even if there were two distinct parties the system would still be flawed. I don't have any proposals for solutions, but neither do any of the candiates.

  • Dick Gephardt, as House Minority Leader, was instrumental in balancing the federal budget when Newt Gingrich was Speaker

    By that logic Gephardt is responsible for a $450 billion deficit at present. If you look at his record, I doubt you can find any initiative to balance the budget aside from Clinton's proposals.

    the largest percentage of state shortfalls had nothing to do with decreases in federal funds, but decreases in expected revenues from other sources, so to blame Bush for this is ludicrous.

    In

    • By that logic Gephardt is responsible for a $450 billion deficit at present.

      Sorry, I guess you didn't follow my logic. The point was that a balanced budget could not have been passed with a President and opposition House without the help of the minority leader.

      In fact I do blame Bush for the stock market crash

      Yes, and that is an entirely ridiculous notion that doesn't even pass the smell test. I know of no more polite way to strongly dismiss the ludicrous claim, and I won't address it again except t

      • that [Bush caused the stock market crash, recession, and jobless recovery] is an entirely ridiculous notion that doesn't even pass the smell test. I know of no more polite way to strongly dismiss the ludicrous claim, and I won't address it again except to ridicule it further.... I'm not even going to read the rest of that paragraph, but assume it makes as little sense as the opening sentence. Sorry.

        I would probably be accused of weakness by someone if I didn't take this opportunity to suggest that your


  • I like the TV spots "Polygraph", "The human cost of War", and especially "What are we teaching our children?" [bushin30seconds.org] that gives a succinct perspective on this.

    For a more in-depth look at the Iraq War lies I highly recommend the video Uncovered [moveon.org], where many people (including congressman) realized they were duped by the President Bush's lies and recant their support for the war.

    Top that with the fascist intentions of John Ashcroft to invent the new American Police State, and I have a pretty easy time voting for the
    • Ok, I dislike Bush alot, but moveon.org is hardly a non-biased source. In fact it's a certain man's attempt to make money by crashing our currency...

      Form a cohesive argument without relying upon preaching to the choir, please, nod thanks.

      • Soros (Score:2)

        by js7a ( 579872 ) *

        moveon.org is hardly a non-biased source. In fact it's a certain man's attempt to make money by crashing our currency...

        Okay, I knew I'd have to answer this so I've got a graph and some links at the ready. Firstly, moveon.org got started during the Clinton impeachment, and is still run by the same man and woman [sfgate.com] who did the Mac's flying toasters screen saver, except now they use a slashcode-like moderation system to vote on everyone else's ideas about what to do with their huge donation pool.

        And, of co

        • Sigh. So, what I was going to say before I hit "Submit" when I wanted "Preview," is:

          The Bank of Japan from Nov. 20 to Dec. 30, unloaded about $700 million yen, $3 billion in recievables (if they were 30-day then $7 billion came due in that period), $30 billion in commercial paper, and ended up with an extra $12 billion in non-Japanese government bonds, and a few billion in "agency deposits" and "other." It looks like they lost $15 billion on the slide, which means they were probably using derivative futu

    • I have a pretty easy time voting for the "bastard liar" Howard Dean.

      You are missing two important points. The first is that I was not arguing against Dean in regard to Bush, I was arguing Dean in regard to the other Democrat candidates who he's been misrepresenting. The second is that this damages Dean's ability to beat Bush, which has always been questionable.
    • I looked at all the ad finalists last week; I thought Human Cost of War was good but ultimately unsuccessful. I thought Polygraph was a bit weak and that What are teaching our children? were exceptionally bad.

      I am evaluating these, as best I can, objectively, from a marketing perspective. I think the latter will only be effective toward people who hate Bush, and will turn many moderates against the cause by its snideness.

      Polygraph has a similar problem but is not nearly as bad. I do give Polygraph a lo
      • *shhhhh!* Dammit, don't tell 'em...let them dig the hole even deeper.

        The invective may not push many democrat moderates to vote for Bush, but it will certainly reduce the desire of many voters to go out and vote for anyone at all in November.

      • These people need to realize they can't win the moderate vote by being pissed off, and that they already have the left-wing vote.

        I get the idea that MoveOn is either run by morons or they are just trying to garner support among liberals right now, so that they'll have a larger base for gathering cash in the future.

        I'm leaning towards morons. My personal favorite ad (least likely to offend potential voters) is "Desktop" even though it isn't very persuasive.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Wow (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      A President and opposition Congress cannot pass ANY budget without a lot of help from the minority leader, especially a balanced one. This is clear.

      Defending Dean's statement is to say you don't understand how the process works. You are either saying Gephardt wasn't instrumental in the process, or that budgets are passed by single men, instead of groups of men. In the federal government, the House passes a budget, the Senate votes on it (after hammering out differences in conference), and the President
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Wow (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          You're suggesting that someone should take credit for something that they don't necessarily support, that they might even oppose ("He didn't"), and that it's wrong - nay, it makes someone a liar if they suggest that someone didn't do something that they opposed and tried to stop.

          He opposed the actual budget, not the balancing of it. He was in favor of the balancing, but thought it had the wrong priorities.

          Gephardt did not balance the budget. Gingrich and Clinton did. Gephardt was at best an on-looker.
  • I agree with a huge portion of your Sunday thoughts once again. Nice job pudge, you really think things through. If you ever ran for a political office, you'd definitely get my vote.

    However, as we all know, Slashdot for some reason is a place where instead of picking out the good, we rip apart what we disagree on. I will continue in that tradition. =)

    Dean does lie like crazy, and you pointed out some excellent examples of this. The only disagreement I have with you is how Dean lies about balanci
    • Dean was the only one to balance a budget

      Well, I simply disagree. Let me put it this way: even if Gephardt had a minor role in the process -- it's relative, of course, but I stand by the idea that he was instrumental -- he still had more to do with balancing a budget on a per dollar basis than Dean. :-)
  • I like getting the conservative point of view. Hence my reading of Pudge's journal and the Wall Street journal. But I do wonder about the need for Republicans to pile on Dean right now. It's so much easier to tear someone down than build someone up, and I can't imagine there are too many traditional Republicans who can say much good about Bush right now.
    • Bush says on National television there is no difference between WMD and a WMD program. Well, there is. Based both on common sense and Bush's repeated pro

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      But I do wonder about the need for Republicans to pile on Dean right now.

      Again, note that I was attacking Dean more from the perspective of a John Kerry fan than a George Bush fan. And I am neither. :-) My attacks on Dean about his character, his lies, etc. are irrespective of my political leanings.

      Bush says on National television there is no difference between WMD and a WMD program. Well, there is.

      Well, technically, no, he asked what the difference was. :-) (Actually, he may have asserted it in a
  • I would be forced to agree that all of your examples are in fact things that will make me mistrust Dean, and support him less. They are exactly the kind of fudging that make me hate many politicians. Even though I will vote for him if he is nominated by the Democratic party, I do not like Dean.

    You say you're not comparing him to Bush, but in the past you've argued that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, right? I don't see how you can say Bush didn't lie and also say that Dean did lie without your definitio
    • You say you're not comparing him to Bush, but in the past you've argued that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, right?

      Not that I recall, no. I have argued that there is not sufficient evidence that he has lied, and I still stand by that. The evidence that the intelligence we were told about was wrong is mounting, but to jump from "the intelligence was wrong" to "he lied about the intelligence" is quite a leap, one that is not warranted, at this time, by the evidence at hand.

      There is a difference betwee
  • I must say that I AM sick of hearing about tax cuts only being for the wealthy, and Dean is one of the worst. How, pray tell, do you cut my taxes when I don't pay any? I'm definitely middle class. I make just barely over $40k when you take into account all of my different jobs, give about 12% to church, and make payements on a house. Last year, not only did I not pay ANY taxes, but the (&*%# government computed and gave me Earned Income Credit. So yes, I took your money. Why? Because I guess $40
    • Well, yes, according to Dean every in bottom 60% is middle class, including people who are poor, have no income. It makes Bush's tax cuts look worse than they are, and it doesn't help us solve the real problems both middle class and poor people have.

      I am glad YOU took my money, because I am biased, but in general, I dislike giving "credits" to people who pay no federal income tax. This is a workaround for the fact that you still DO pay payroll taxes, on Medicare and Social Security, but cutting those make

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now here's something you're really going to like!" -- Rocket J. Squirrel

Close