The Lies of John Kerry

[Pangloss]

All of these statements from John Kerry in the last debate were lies:

 

Resource:

http://www.factcheck.org/article281.html

 

 

- Twice claimed (in the last debate) 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush, which is 1 million too high.

 

- "The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we're losing," a fanciful figure based on industry averages that don't actually compare wages of jobs lost to those of newer jobs.

 

- "I have a plan to cover all Americans" for health care. Actually, his plan wouldn't cover all Americans. It would increase the percentage who have coverage from 84% currently to an estimated 92% to 95%. But several million would still be left uninsured.

 

- Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.

 

- Kerry claimed that "500,000 kids lost after-school programs," which isn't the case. A cut was proposed but Congress rejected it.

 

- Kerry wrongly claimed Bush "hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus." (Paraphrasing: He's met with them twice.)

 

- Bush "has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." In fact the surplus never exceeded $256 million, and it was gone a month before Bush was elected.

 

(On a positive note, Kerry seems to have stopped repeating that $200 billion cost-of-Iraq figure.)

[bloodhound]

the last one isnt a lie, but spun upto its limiting point. The figure Kerry mentioned was given by Congressional Budget Office in 2001 while projecting the cumulative budget surplus

 

[edit]oops, sorry, the site you gave already mentions that fact[/edit]

[Douglas]

All of these statements from John Kerry in the last debate were lies:

And here I thought that only Bush lied.

 

how about the latest lie........."Bush is to blame for the lack of flu vaccine this year."

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that John Kerry, a member of the senate for 20 years, thought that the budget surplus actually reached $5.6 billion. Nor do I believe that it was a mere slip of the tongue.

 

You, of course, can believe as you like. But the documentation I provided above does NOT support the notion that Kerry just made a mistake. Just the opposite, in fact.

[Sayonara]

And here I thought that only Bush lied.

how about the latest lie........."Bush is to blame for the lack of flu vaccine this year."

I don't think anyone claimed that "only Bush lies". In fact I seem to remember pretty much everyone talking about how all politicians lie.

 

The point of all that was that Bush lied to the American people in his capacity as president, and people weren't too pleased about it.

[J'Dona]

I tried posting this last night but it was 2:40 AM and I couldn't make it... I was going to PM it but I think there's a point to be made here for everyone.

 

I just wanted to say that I very much respect your posts on the forum, Pangloss. They seem to be the most centrist of any member, and you're very well informed, which makes them all the more valuable. What I mean by centrist is that you accept the shortcomings and advantages of both candidates, and are making your decision from there (as shown in particular by the two "The Lies of _____" threads). As far as the general public goes, so many people just pick sides in politics without actually understanding the issues that an informed vote such as yours would be one of the only really representative ones in the country. I don't post often in the politics forum but I read every post, and I'd rather read a discussion of yours than one of, say, Douglas's or budullewraagh's (sorry guys—I know that you know what you're talking about; you just tend to be a little bit biased).

 

So, I'm basically saying that I admire your impartiality, Pangloss. Considering that this is scienceforums.net, I would have hoped for more objectivity from its members, even if this is politics and not science. I just wish that all undecided voters in Florida were like you, because if it decides the election again, we wouldn't need to worry about parties influencing the votes.

[Douglas]

So, I'm basically saying that I admire your impartiality, Pangloss. Considering that this is scienceforums.net, I would have hoped for more objectivity from its members, even if this is politics and not science. I just wish that all undecided voters in Florida were like you, because if it decides the election again, we wouldn't need to worry about parties influencing the votes.

It seems to me, that with less than two weeks till the election, and just about everything that can be said "has been said", there shouldn't be any undecided voters.

[J'Dona]

It seems to me, that with less than two weeks till the election, and just about everything that can be said "has been said", there shouldn't be any undecided voters.

Unfortunately, a lot of what was said was false (look above for some of Kerry's lies, and the other thread for Bush's), so a close and objective look at the issues for the truth in them needs to be taken before voting. That's what Pangloss is doing. He might decide that he doesn't want to vote for either.

 

I'm sorry though Douglas, I really didn't mean to offend you or budullewraagh with the previous post. I just feel that Pangloss is being more scientific about his decision (i.e. passionless and objective, concerned with evidence and not subjective hypotheses), and rightly so, as it's a more representative vote and it opens the politics forum up for better discussion and debate.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the kind words. The hard part for me is avoiding the trap of total negativity and pessimism. I'm actually a very optimistic person by nature (hence the name).

 

I respect both Douglas and budellewraagh's posts quite a bit (in spite of bud's post about soldiers in another thread, which I still think he didn't mean quite the way it sounded). They're not total partisans and they're both pretty smart guys. Sometimes we get so focused on specific subjects that we forget that there's a larger context, and someone who seems to be a partisan on one subject may turn out not to be one when other subjects come up. (I didn't really say that very well but I think y'all know what I mean.) I make this mistake all the time myself.

[Pangloss]

Oh, regarding this point from Douglas:

 

It seems to me, that with less than two weeks till the election, and just about everything that can be said "has been said", there shouldn't be any undecided voters.

 

It's a valid point in a way, and I would even add that it's not very likely that we'll learn anything between now and November 2nd that will be terribly revealing about either candidate.

 

I guess for me it's a matter of principle. I don't have to decide until Nov 2, so I'm not going to. Also (in spite of my posts here which would indicate otherwise) most of my attention lately has gone into Florida issues, like the state Senate race and Amendment 3. The prez race has become a bit of a back-burner issue for me at the moment.

[Douglas]

most of my attention lately has gone into Florida issues, like the state Senate race and Amendment 3. The prez race has become a bit of a back-burner issue for me at the moment.

Are you on any forums that are discussing Florida issues?

[Douglas]

I'm sorry though Douglas, I really didn't mean to offend you or budullewraagh with the previous post. I just feel that Pangloss is being more scientific about his decision (i.e. passionless and objective, concerned with evidence and not subjective hypotheses), and rightly so, as it's a more representative vote and it opens the politics forum up for better discussion and debate.

No offense taken. I agree that Pangloss is much fairer than I am as far as objectively looking at both sides of the issues......However, though I'm tilted to the right, with some obvious bias, I believe that the majority of my posts are NOT subjective.

[Pangloss]

Are you on any forums that are discussing Florida issues?

 

I haven't been able to *find* any, sadly.

[Douglas]

I haven't been able to *find* any, sadly.

Have you checked these? I haven't

 

http://mb4.theinsiders.com/fufinsiderfrm13

http://orlando.about.com/mpboards.htm

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zeroforum?id=99

[Pangloss]

Thanks!! I'll check them out.

 

BTW I just did a write-up of all eight of the amendments to the state constitution that are on the ballot in November (for my friends). If you're interested I'll be happy to PM you a copy. Some of the stuff on there is pretty startling (a state-wide minimum wage hike, for example).

[blike]

Pangloss, could you post them? I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the three that deal with the health system.

[drz]

- Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.

 

Hmm, so why was my fiance, who makes 14k/year, reject for her pell grant?

[Pangloss]

Hmm, so why was my fiance, who makes 14k/year, reject for her pell grant?

 

 

What was said above is that the grant funding was increased. It still ran out, just like it runs out every year.

 

Was she rejected for her government-sponsored 2.9% loans that never really have to be paid back?

 

For what it's worth, I wasn't -- I had no trouble getting all the 2.9% money I wanted. Hell they're even sending me a check for the overages every term (which I promptly use to pay off higher-interest debt, no fool I). And I made six figures last year, so you'd better believe I was at the BOTTOM of THAT list. (chuckle)

 

Point being that getting financing for school is laughably easy in this country. Not being able to afford college is NEVER an excuse. Except, of course, during "sweeps week" on the network news shows.

 

Kids will go into massive debt just to have the right sneakers for show & tell. So fearing 2.9% college loans ain't what stops kids from going to college.

[blike]

Not being able to afford college is NEVER an excuse.

Indeed, it's such a strawman issue for candidates. If you can graduate with a 3.0 GPA from highschool (incredibly easy if you apply yourself) and >970 on the SAT, the state of Florida will pay 75% of your tuition. Most universities will pick up the other 25% if you apply early. That's free money, essentially. If you work a little harder, you can actually make money in college. My friend gets over $6,000 in scholarship surplus every year that goes straight into his pocket. Free college, free apartment, easily. If you apply yourself, the funds are there.

 

Furthermore, if you fail to secure scholarships for whatever reason, you can always take out federal stafford loans which don't acrue any interest until you graduate. Thus, you get a college degree and ~12k debt [state univ.] which can be payed off over a period of 10-20 years. That's not a huge burden, in my opinion.

 

It's all about how hard you work.

[john5746]

I basically agree, most people who have the intellect should be able to get the resources they need. Unfortunately, we have some taking remedial classes to be able to handle college coursework.

 

One problem I see is that a 4 year degree doesn't pay off as well as it did in the past. Especially, technical degrees - in a space of 4 years, you may find your degree not as "hot".

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the Presidential race though.

[Pangloss]

In Georgia if you have a B average the state will pay 100% of your tuition at any state school (thank you Zell Miller).

[john5746]

In Georgia if you have a B average the state will pay 100% of your tuition at any state school (thank you Zell Miller).

 

I have heard this might change due to grade "inflation". Seems high schools started giving higher grades to students after this law was passed. Who knew?

 

You would think other states would learn from this and base the tuition on test scores and SAT on a percentage basis, so the number could be fixed or predicted.

[drz]

actually, I said nothing about whether she went to school or not.

 

She did make it to class, through hardwork on herself and my behalf.

 

and if we "Ran out" or grants, why was she told she was denied because she makes to much money?

[Pangloss]

I have heard this might change due to grade "inflation". Seems high schools started giving higher grades to students after this law was passed. Who knew?

 

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that.

 

 

and if we "Ran out" or grants, why was she told she was denied because she makes to much money?

 

That's odd... normally they don't give you a reason. Are you sure that wasn't just a statement from some clerk in the financial aid office? Otherwise I guess the answer to your question is that you made too much money. Like I said, they always run out. I think only half the applicants get Pell money. Pell info is all over the Internet. If you don't believe me, go look it up.

 

I'm curious why you didn't apply for 2.9% financial aid. It's the cheapest money most consumers will have access to in their lifetimes, with an interest rate one point over prime and no interest until graduation, not to mention lengthy deferments afterwards. I guess if your cards are paid off and making enough money to pay for school, you might as well. But you said something about making $14k, so it seems a little odd.

 

But hey, more power to you. Me, I took the loans. It's not like I was taking money someone else would've gotten -- there's no limit on THAT supply.