This upcoming election has me not even wanting to vote period. I have coworkers who send me these emails though and I know its horeshit. I know Rover, Byl, and L2 can dispell this crap. Lets hear it so I can have some ammo to rifle back.


Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.

Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.

Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.

Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.


Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.

Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.

Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.

Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.

Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.

In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.

Instead, issues like the Mark Foley scandal have been used to smokescreen their own lack of ideas in a public debate.

The choice voters will make is whether they want higher taxes and less security by surrendering the tools used to combat terrorism or lower taxes and the continued use of tools like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, terrorist interrogations and missile defense.

Consider what leading Democrats are promising if they gain control of Congress.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who would lead the House tax-writing committee if Democrats win in November, said he "cannot think of one" tax cut he would renew. That agenda would result in $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.

If Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, the average family of four can expect to pay an average of $2,000 more in taxes.

The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she "doesn't really consider ourselves at war ... we're in a struggle against terrorism."

By opposing the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance missile defense and even interrogating the most dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield, Democrats are in direct opposition to the vital tools we use to fight terrorism.

Many Democrats, including the prospective House Ways and Means chairman, favor cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.

Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.

Democrats want to reverse the president's economic policies that have led to a historically strong economy.

Enough said.

I probably won't be able to give you citations on it till tomorrow, but # 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 are all egregious misrepresentations of actual data that verge on outright lies. "Spending restraint" and GWB in the same sentence can only be part of a joke. #5 is particular is insulting in the extreme since their point of comparision on other economic indicators is the Clinton era, when gas was as low as $0.85 in some areas, and #4 is something of a long-term gag on the entire American public as there hasn't been real wage growth in this country since the 80s.

Hell you don't have to be one of those crew to dispel those "points".

1. Our economy is stronger than any other industrialized nation. Has been for some time now. The spending restraint line is laughable. There's been no firm commitment to spending restraint.

2. The unemployment numbers have been good the last 3 years. They were not so good the three years before that.

3. The Dow hitting record highs is largely meaningless in the overall economic picture. It's 30 companies and even then only a handful have been driving the Dow.

4. Wage inflation is not such a great thing.

5. Gas prices are too volatile to claim any kind of credit for. Six weeks ago they were record highs -- anyone want to take credit for that?

6. I'll give credit for point 6.

7. I'm not sure how a political party can claim credit for productivity figures? Are we inspired to work harder because a certain party is in power? Maybe they are trying to correlate the lower taxes with better productivity. That is, if you know you're going to keep more of your income, you're inspired to work harder. Seems a stretch.

8. It may be working but at what cost? See point 1 for the laughable spending restraint.

9. I'll give credit for point 7. Best delivery by Bush (assuming we ignore the whole Harriet Myer fiasco).

10. See points 8 and 1 for deficit reduction. If they had fulfilled their pledge of spending restraint from the beginning we would not have needed anything to be cut in half in the first place.

I saw your response Malse. On point 2, outside of the weekly jobless claim (which isn't a very useful long term measurement), what else is misleading? Obviously the point is ignoring the period from 2000-2003, but beginning in 2004 (spring I believe), the unemployment numbers have been fairly positive.

A few quick notes.

Reasons 1 & 10: Yeah, spending restraint and fiscal sense is indeed a joke.
Reason 3: IIRC, this is a recent spike that overtook a record set during late in the Clinton years.
Reason 4: Wages have been stagnant for years in relation to inflation. The economy may be strong, but the middle class isn't seeing it (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15781393.htm). Of course, while Furt and like-minded conservatives may dislike wage inflation, "Your Poverty is for Your Own Good" isn't an election-winning slogan. The economy seems to favor investors over workers, leaving many people dissatisfied despite the country's economic status.

Reason 5: Not only are gas prices volatile and at a low dating only from a few weeks, but they are still considerably higher than pre-Katrina and pre-Iraq periods.
Reason 6: Democrats -- and anyone concerned about laws and the Constitution -- bitterly oppose the flouting of both.
Reason 9: Purely preaching to the choir here, with the addition of the "judicial activism" catchphrase, one of a multitude of ambiguous scare phrases the meaning of which boils down to "things happening that I don't like." Anyone interested in a (really) extensive examination of this phrase in history and practice will reach coma-inducing levels of excitement perusing this (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/kmiec/judicial_activism.htm).
In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.
This is a common meme but not particularly true. For example, the Dems produced a "Real Security" plan (with the famous picture of Pelosi holding the plan upside down). People may disagree with the contents of the plan, but it is a plan. Moreso than the administration's (and Congress') "stay the fail."
The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she "doesn't really consider ourselves at war ... we're in a struggle against terrorism."
She's quite right.
Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.
Pelosi has made it all too clear that she isn't considering impeachment. This is unfortunate, as whether impeachment is or is not justified, to take it off the table entirely is to forsake one's duty as part of Congress. Since we're not at war, the rest is scare-fluff, but the reluctance of the Republican Congress to practice their oversight, to investigate malfeasance, and so on is telling, as is their fear of such should Dems take the lead.

I doubt most people would be bothered by the repeal of taxes on the super-rich they labor for.

Yeah, because the super rich never invest thier money. They just keep and horde it. It's like a runaway chain reaction; They get more money, and it just keeps growing all on its own, like some malignant tumor.*
If you keep giving tax breaks to the rich, how can we subsidise all the plans that both parties want to keep going?
At least the Democrats are honest; They want to keep raising taxes to keep the flow of money coming in. The Republicans just keep defecit spending....

And Ibudin, most of the points in that e-mail are subjective findings at best. If the Democrats were in power, they'd make the same claims. Just flip the Words "conservative" and "Republican" with "progressive" and "Democrat" and you'd have all the reasons why you should vote for the other party.








*sarcasm

The unemployment numbers have been good the last 3 years. They were not so good the three years before that.

I often wonder how many people stopped have stopped collecting unemployment and have taken jobs for which they are overqualified simply because they can no longer find employment in their primary field.

/em raises hand

I often wonder how many people stopped have stopped collecting unemployment and have taken jobs for which they are overqualified simply because they can no longer find employment in their primary field.

Since a high percentage of manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and Bush implemented tax breaks/credits/whatever for business wanting to outsource, such as customer service now be handled by phone banks in India, the unemployment figures are really misleading.

Unemployment benefits run out after a set period of time, so those who have exhausted their benefits are not being counted. But there has been a lot of new business construction, so I guess many of those former machine operators, and assembly workers, and warehouse employees, who all are now able to wear blue vests and greet customers entering Walmart (at maybe 1/3 their previous salary) are a shining example of those great employment numbers.

It is all spin tho, and both sides have their versions of it all.

Concerning the employment figures, this is my take.

My business tends to grow when people get laid off. People lose a job and they find it difficult to get hired, they decide to try making money on the Internet. They come to us, we build them an ecommerce website and WALLAH...they are now in their own business.

Over the last year or so we have been steadily increasing the number of websites we contract every month, we have gone from an average of 15 websites in production each month to an average of 28 in production each month.

So the job figures are skewed in my opinion.

Also Bylimet is correct that there is a large amount of people who have dropped off of the charts due to unemployment benefits running out and also the lesser job issue. A lesser job unfortunately does not reflect in the statistics, but overall...the economy is not as good as it is being painted by the Bush administration.

I could be mistaken here, but are not the unemployment figures calculated by the number of new claims being filed? IE, Oh lookie less people got fired/laid-off last month!
Would be typical goverment BS spin.
Also i hope you realize that presidents have very little to do with the overall economic health of the nation. economy is cyclical, up and down regardless of wich EVIL is in power.
Clinton benifited greatly from the DOTCOM boom and the natural upswing following the GH Bush downturn of the late 80's/early 90's.
GW inherited a downswing add to that 9/11= frakking disaster. the recent upswing they are trying to take credit for rests squarely on the shoulders of the real estate boom we have seen lately. we are now seeing evidence this trend(much like the DOTCOMS) are falling off. if this continues we will not see a report or post like this lauding the Repub's for their economic genius come mid 08.