posted on March 20, 2004 11:24:52 PM new
Inspired by events in the "Who would terrorists vote for" thread.
Helen posted a list of Bush flip flops.
I replied on one of them, showing that, strictly speaking, Bush didn't use the exact wording noted in Helen's list. But I gave quotes that showed what he had said meant essentially the same thing.
To which Linda replied:
Well, strictly speaking, that's not really true.
Yep....that about sums up all the other statements on helen's list too.
--Which goes to show that she hand't read my entire post. But it also got me thinking about the other items on Helen's list. So when I got home tonight I decided to look around a bit. It's long, so I'll put it in a second post...
posted on March 20, 2004 11:25:12 PM newTRUE STATEMENTS
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2512891.stm
"President Bush initially opposed the bill, first proposed by Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman in the wake of intelligence failures which became apparent following the attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people.
Mr Lieberman first proposed the department
As it gained support, however, he offered his own version several months later, and it became the cornerstone of his counter-terrorism policy. "
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/independent.probe/index.html
“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a move applauded by Democrats, President Bush Friday reversed himself and endorsed the formation of an independent commission to conduct a "focused inquiry" of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States that goes beyond intelligence failures already being probed by Congress.”
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
FLIP FLOP #1
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040322/usnews/22union.b.htm
“The commission has repeatedly clashed with the White House, which initially opposed the panel's formation and weathered two subpoena threats over access to presidential intelligence briefings.”
FLIP FLOP #2
“President Bush backed off Tuesday from one of the major limitations he had set for cooperating with the independent commission looking into the terrorist attacks of 2001 and now will submit to open-ended questioning instead of setting a one-hour limit.”
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6853-2003Feb26?language=printer
“Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory.
"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said.”
“…Fast forward to the present. Details have begun emerging in recent days about the Bush administration's vision for postwar Iraq, and clearly the White House has abandoned its aversion to nation building, as it plans for what appears to be the biggest American-led, rebuilding project since the Marshall Plan in the early 1950s. Last week, Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung's byline topped an astonishing story with this headline Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq.
"The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a 'representative' Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources," DeYoung reported.
Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. on Wednesday night, the president alluded to his postwar vision of Iraq, declaring that America had a major interest in stabilizing the country and could help create the first democracy, outside of Israel, in the Middle East.
And for the first time, the president linked removal of Hussein, and the postwar reconstruction efforts to not only the greater stability of the region, but to the first stage of the resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
"Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home," Bush said.”
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
http://www.firehouse.com/funding/homeland/2002/1/24_FHbush.html
“President Bush has announced the administration’s desire to bolster the ability of first responders to deal with all possible homeland security incidents.
The 2003 budget proposes $3.5 billion in federal aid to state and local first-responders, part of his $38 billion budget for homeland security.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022404cdam2.htm
“Senate chair criticizes Bush's proposed first responder cuts. The president's budget regrettably cuts a billion dollars from the basic Homeland Security grant program, leaving only $700 million," Collins said. "Ultimately, we may be able to cut back on the amount of money that is flowing to state and local government, but now is not the time."
Collins said the nation's first responders still lack proper training, equipment, and communications interoperability to deal with a future terrorist attack. Collins also said the administration's proposed budget cuts funding for security at the nation's seaports, which she characterized as the country's "greatest vulnerability."
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/mcwethy010815.html
“Though President Bush campaigned for election by promising the military "help was on the way" after what he called years of neglect, his administration is now finalizing proposals this week for making big cuts in the armed forces.”
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
President George W. Bush's First Address to Congress, February 27, 2001
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/bushconadd1.html
“Education is not my top priority -- education is my top priority (Hey—a Freudian slip!) and, by supporting this budget, you'll make it yours, as well.
Reading is the foundation of all learning. So during the next five years, we triple spending, adding $5 billion to help every child in America learn to read. Values are important, so we've tripled funding for character education to teach our children not only reading and writing, but right from wrong.
We've increased funding to train and recruit teachers, because we know a good education starts with a good teacher. And I have a wonderful partner in this effort. I like teachers so much, I married one. Laura has begun a new effort to recruit Americans to the profession that will shape our future -- teaching. She will travel across America to promote sound teaching practices and early reading skills in our schools and in programs such as Head Start.”
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21104b.html
“• he budget request would amount to the smallest increase in education funding in 9 years;
• The budget request would eliminate 38 education programs, reducing the Federal investment in education by $1.4 billion;
• The budget request continues to renege on the commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act - falling $9.4 billion short for this coming fiscal year and $27 billion short overall since the law's first year;
• The budget request fails to make college more affordable;
• The budget request marks the third year in a row that the maximum Pell grant would remain at $4,050, despite the President's campaign pledge in 2000 to increase the award to $5,100;
• The budget request forces a tax on college loans that would charge students an additional $4 billion over the next 10 years by requiring lenders to collect a one percent insurance fee when students take out their college loans;
• The budget request would cut $316 million in vocational education funding, yet again. Since taking office, President Bush has proposed over $1.8 billion in cuts to vocational education and job training programs for community colleges;
• The Department of Education is improperly counting as unexpended funds billions of dollars in resources that the states have already designated for school renovation, teacher salaries and the purchase of testing system and curriculum for k-12 education; and
• The budget request continues to underfund the federal commitment to special education.”
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Well, yes & no. Bush originally said he would “talk” with North Korea, but not negotiate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-02-korea-usat_x.htm
“Despite North Korea's open breach of its promise to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, the Bush administration is quietly paving the way for negotiations that might give the reclusive country oil, food or other aid in exchange for verifiable shutdown of its bomb facilities.”
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Couldn’t find anything on that—but did come up with a different Bush flip-flop:
A year after calling the UN irrelevant, Bush went to them, hat in hand, to ask their help in rebuilding Iraq.
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Not true. The bill Bush signed in is essentially what he stated he was for all along regarding corporate (“hard”) and individual (“soft”) donations. What Bush opposed was McCain’s version of campaign finance reform.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them
Actually, Bush seems always to have been for deficits! When he was governor of Texas, he did the same thing to that state that he is doing to the nation now!
.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
No. What Bush actually said, in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference at the Washington Hilton Hotel in 200, was “In recent times, Washington has tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables; but this is not the path to peace. A clear and bad example was the administration's attempt to take sides in the most recent Israeli election. America should not interfere in Israel's democratic process. And America will not interfere in Israeli elections when I am the president.” http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/Bush.html
Nothing about taking a role in the conflict itself.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Well, now, this is blatantly false. Bush has consistently shown himself to be anti-environment from the get-go. Though recently, after the fires in California he did try to portray himself as a “protector” of the environment….
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
No. He said it was “a missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret.” http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/27/175819
“On reflection, I should have been more clear in disassociating myself from anti-Catholic sentiments and racial prejudice,” Bush said in the letter, which his campaign released Sunday. “It was a missed opportunity causing needless offense, which I deeply regret.”
HOWEVER, THAT IN ITSELF WAS A BIT OF A FLIP FLOP:
“The letter marked an abrupt reversal for Bush, who only last week said: ``I don't make any apologies for what I do in the campaign.''
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Mar 20, 2004 11:26 PM ]
You had to dig deep.... so what your saying is we might as well keep President Bush, because he flip flops too.... don't need a new one in the White House...
Yes I do agree we should be keeping President Bush...
Some ASSumptions:
Flip fop 1 is purely politcal and I hoped you noticed it was "aides" not the President...
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it
By everything in that article he is still against it... however in lieu of the fact the UN has not stepped up and done their job as usual... what other recourse does he have... he is after all letting the Iraqi's "rebuild" we are just assisting.
President Bush on Tuesday slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. He urged U.S. steel companies to take advantage of the "temporary safeguards" and restructure their industry.
Notice the word temporary... last time I looked that was something that was not permenant...
Bush imposed the tariffs in March 2002. They were to continue until 2005. But the World Trade Organization ruled that they violated global trade agreements. It authorized the European Union, Japan and other countries to retaliate with duties on U.S. products.
In trying to be a good global player he had no choice... leave it to the left to think this is a flip flop... First they scream global economies and then they don't...
In reference to "First Responder" cuts
Wow Democrats complaining about someone spending less than the year before... Yep lets vote more in so they can spend money that is not there...
How long are we to support the States?
"States Rights" regarding queer marriages... yes the states have done it, but vigilantes have forced the Federal Governement to take action... also though many states are nowing adding amendments to thier constitution that would make queeer marriages illegal. However just to solidify them, the Federal one would be a great addition.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 21, 2004 01:22 AM ]
posted on March 21, 2004 02:18:18 AM newYou had to dig deep.... so what your saying is we might as well keep President Bush, because he flip flops too.... don't need a new one in the White House...
No, didn't have to dig deep at all--it's easily found on the Net. Nor did I say "we might as well keep Bush." You'll notice that most of the statements were true.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 21, 2004 06:16:05 AM new
I didn't say they weren't however you force the reader to go to your links to get the actual facts behind the statements...
I will give you one actual flip flop out of all that... the rest are not but then we have Kerry who does in fact try to be a crowd pleaser... we definately don't need him in office...
posted on March 21, 2004 09:17:14 AM new
bunni - Run all those supposed Bush flip flops against this site:
factcheck.org and you will see the truth.
This is the one that challenges your post on military spending.
---
Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
February 18, 2004
Modified: February 18, 2004
Summary
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: ?He?s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.?
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.
Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
Analysis
Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.
Fiscal years ending Sept. 30
Source: US Budget: Table 5.2 - Budget Authority by Agency
In Bush?s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased.
Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.
By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.
According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills.
And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.
And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).
But They Keep Repeating: "It's a Cut"
That's just the opposite of the impression one might get from listening to Democratic presidential candidates debate each other over the past several months.
One thing they seem to agree on is the false idea that Bush is cutting funding for veterans.
Examples:
Oct 9, 2003:
Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.
October 27:
Dean: I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.
Jan 4, 2004:
Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .
Jan 22, 2004 :
Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.
Feb 15, 2004 :
Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.
And even the Democratic National Committee website proclaims, "Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care," despite what the numbers show.
posted on March 21, 2004 09:33:37 AM new
And on that link it states:
(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)
As kerry hasn't on most of his statements that this administration has disagreed with.
posted on March 21, 2004 09:58:19 AM new
bunni - This one's OT but pertains to an issue you and I have personally discussed before - the Bush tax cuts.
The President can’t keep his figures straight. And most people are getting less than he implies.
Now that the general election campaign is nearing, President Bush has resumed a sales pitch for the tax cuts he's signed. But he persists in making some misleading claims
...But most importantly, the average is inflated by the fact that most of the money is going to a relatively few taxpayers at the top of the income scale, as seen from the following table distilled from a more extensive analysis by the Tax Policy Center:
Combined Effect of Bush Tax Cuts 2003
Income
(in thousands) Percent of Households Average Tax Change
Less than 10 23.7 -$8
10-20 16.6 -$307
20-30 13.3 -$638
30-40 9.7 -$825
40-50 7.6 -$1,012
50-75 13.0 -$1,403
75-100 6.8 -$2,543
100-200 6.6 -$3,710
200-500 1.6 -$7,173
500-1,000 0.3 -$22,485
More than 1,000 0.1 -$112,925
Source: Tax Policy Center table T03-0123
Taxpayers making more than $1 million a year get an average cut of nearly $113,000 this year. Such huge cuts at the top tend to pull up the numerical average that the President is fond of citing.
A more meaningful number is the median -- or mid-point. The Tax Policy Center calculates the median cut received for income earned in 2003 is $470.
...Even the median figure doesn't give a full picture of how the benefits are spread around, however. Taxpayers make out very differently depending on whether they are married or single, and how many children they have under age 17.
That's because much of the tax relief for 2003 comes in the form of a tax break for married couples -- reduction of the so-called "marriage penalty" -- and a doubling of the tax credit granted for each child under 17, to $1,000 per child. Those do nothing to benefit single taxpayers -- including unmarried workers and millions of elderly widows and widowers, for example. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that nearly 13 million of those over age 65 will get no tax cut.
GOP fact-twisters claim 80% of the tax relief given to the rich goes to job-creating small businesses. Don’t believe it.
This fairy tale was re-told most recently by Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie when he said in a Dec. 3 speech: “80% of the tax relief for upper income filers goes to small businesses.” It’s untrue – and a classic example of a statistical distortion gone amok.
It may be true that 79% of upper-income taxpayers have some income from business, but Gillespie’s definition of “small” business actually includes big accounting firms, law firms and real-estate partnerships, and “businesses” that are really only sidelines – such as occasional rental income from a corporate chief’s ski condo. In fact, tax statistics show that upper-income taxpayers get far more of their income from salaries, capital gains, stock dividends and interest than they do from small business.
...Their method also counts as a "small business owner" any member of an investment club -- someone who put $50 a month into a pool to buy stocks with friends and then reported a few dollars of dividends and capital gains on a K-1 form from the partnership at the end of the year.
And that’s not all. Also counted as “small business owners” would be:
--A corporate executive who made $500,000 in salary and bonuses, and who also had $3,000 in income from renting out his yacht.
--A TV anchorwoman making $1 million in salary and reporting $25,000 in speaking fees as Schedule C income.
--A partner in a national accounting firm who has no side business at all, but who gets a big chunk of his income as a share of the giant partnership’s profits.
It’s silly to call any of these “small business owners,” but Gillespie went even beyond what the report said. He said 80% of the tax relief went to “small businesses ,” (as opposed to “owners”). Not even the Republican staff report can back that statement.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 21, 2004 06:34:54 PM new
bunni - So the reality is that Bush ended up giving less than he said he would to Veterans.
Where did you read/see that? I must have missed it.
---
On the ABC and Seattlepi links....they start out with "could be cut" and "may be cut". That doesn't mean they were. Both articles spoke to the "what if they were cut" rather than that the cuts "had" taken place.
----
helen's statement was: Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits. [or at least, that's what you typed].
Did my post/link not prove that statement to be untrue? I think it does. A 27% increase in spending proves they weren't cut. Agreed?
----
Dean is out of the picture, so why bring him up? Sorry I wasn't more clear....I was headed off for a birthday party. Had nothing to do with dean, but rather the tax rate 2003 chart. You and I had discussed the Bush tax cuts and I said the tax cuts also included a reduction in the tax rates. That was just to show you what they were.
As your article also points out, the refunds on the chart don't include the marriage tax penalty reduction nor the child tax credit. [i]Even the median figure doesn't give a full picture of how the benefits are spread around, however. Taxpayers make out very differently depending on[i]
And as I stated before, when the different dem candidates were all saying they wanted to either cut or partially cut the Bush tax cuts, that taking those tax cuts away was going to mean a tax increase of approx. $1400.00 to that family of four. That chart appears to support that.
-----
But the same site (thanks, BTW) discusses this: My pleasure. Hopefully we can all sort through who says what and try to find a what is true, false or in the middle.
----
On the: Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts. [by the way....you're cheatin' 'cause that wasn't on your list of Bush flip-slops ] But I understand why.
The article also states:
lowering taxes on the most affluent Americans does indeed lower taxes on many small businesses, and thus creates more jobs. But not nearly as many as Gillespie and some other Republicans are claiming.
It is undisputed that that many small-business owners report profits from their companies on their personal income-tax returns and not on corporate returns. It?s also true that small business is a major source of new jobs, and economists generally agree that lower business taxes eventually tend to produce more hiring. So cutting the top tax rate probably does stimulate some small-business hiring.
So...on that I will agree it was a true statement with some exaggeration. True with exaggeration is better than an out and out falsehood.
But one thing I don't think was taken into consideration in the part where "small business'" and "owners" were discussed, was people like those who sell on ebay. They wouldn't be included in those he was speaking about....and there are millions of them. So....that would up the % even closer to 79%.
Actually, Bush seems always to have been for deficits! When he was governor of Texas, he did the same thing to that state that he is doing to the nation now!
