Fact Check Party - TONIGHT - 9pm EST - Here at DU !!!!

OK everyone, I'm organizing a Fact Check party for tonights STFU speech.

When: 9pm EST
Where: Here on DU
What: Fact Check Party
Who: You!
Why: Because I'm sure we can get Bush's approval down in the teens.

How: Log on, move your TV or computer so you can see both at once. Get a few browsers up, one on DU, and a few on Google, Ask.com, whatever you use. Every time he makes a bullshit claim, call his ass on it. Post it here, stating the claim in the Subject, and the debunk in the Body of your reply.

This should be a ton of fun !

Who's on board ?

:)

12 colds ones and some rum. Gonna need it all to stomach watching this tonight!

But I can't watch him. Seriously. If I try, my neighbors will call the police because of all the screaming. They'll think my husband came back from the dead to beat me.

When someone posts a reply with a certain claim in the title, you can just go research it.
:)

I have a reader chat tonight at 9:00 Eastern. Otherwise, I'd love to follow the thread.

Got my beer.
:D

I guess he got lost on the way to the Independent section. :D

Here we go folks!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/08/bush.job.count.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy has cranked out fewer jobs under President Bush -- by millions -- than it had by the same point in the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Democrats say it's evidence that Bush's economic policies aren't working.

if one looks at the Labor Dept statistics you'll find the great majority of months since GWB took office below that thresh hold.

that bush has created 7 mil jobs in the last 6 years. at the same time in his presidency, clinton had created 18 mil jobs.

lol

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks

The earmarking process today

On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.

In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase.

When passed legislation reaches the president’s desk, a similar problem arises. Not wishing to stall the budgetary process or risk a public relations backlash for rejecting a bill for transportation or defense appropriations, presidents are often forced to sign bills loaded with earmarks. Many presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have advocated a line-item veto, whereby the president is able to veto specific spending projects in appropriations bills without vetoing the entire bill. While Congress has historically opposed this expansion of executive power, it did grant it in 1996 with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by Clinton. In February 1998, however, a federal district judge ruled that the law was in violation of the US Constitution. This ruling was affirmed in June 1998 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurityfacts

Facts about Social Security finances

To pay for benefits, Social Security receives income from three sources.
Most of the money that is needed to pay for benefits comes from payroll taxes. Currently, employees and employer each pay 6.2% to Social Security, for a combined tax rate of 12.4% of wages and salaries. Self-employed workers pay the full 12.4% out of their earnings. Taxes, however, have to be paid only up to an earnings ceiling, which is $90,000 annually in 2005. Earnings above the ceiling are not subject to the payroll tax. In 2003, Social Security received a total of $535.2 billion in payroll taxes.

As a result of reforms to Social Security in 1983, a trust fund was specifically set up as a savings account to pay for baby boomers. Since then, Social Security has taken in more money than it has paid out in benefits. Consequently, it has built up a trust fund over the years. Social Security earns interest on this trust fund. In 2003, the Old Age and Survivor's Insurance trust fund received 6.0% interest on its assets, earning $75.2 billion in interest, and the Disability Insurance trust fund received 5.9% interest, earning $9.7 billion in interest.

Finally, some Social Security benefits are subject to taxes, which are then paid to Social Security. In 2003, taxes on Social Security benefits amounted to a total of $13.4 billion.

Social Security is building up a trust fund.
Because income is currently exceeding expenditures, Social Security is building up a trust fund. Total income to Social Security was $632 billion in 2003. Its expenditures came to $479 billion, $471 billion of which was benefit payments. Consequently, Social Security managed to increase its trust fund by $153 billion in 2003. As a result, Social Security held a total of $1,531 billion in assets at the end of 2003. If Social Security faces a shortfall in income, the trust fund assets can be used to pay for the additional benefits.

Trust fund assets are invested in government bonds.
Social Security trust fund assets, currently worth over $1.5 trillion, are invested in special, non-tradable government bonds. Each year the U.S. Treasury issues these government bonds, up to the amount of the Social Security trust fund surplus, to be added to the account. The bonds earn an interest rate comparable to the market interest rate for tradable government bonds. During 2003, the effective annual interest rate earned on all bonds held by the trust funds was roughly 6.0%.

Social Security is not going broke.
Each year, in early spring, the trustees of Social Security release their report. As required by law, the trustees present what can be described as their best guesses for three different scenarios for the future of Social Security. In their annual report for 2004, the trustees project that Social Security will take in more in income than it will pay out in expenditures until 2018. Between 2018 and 2028, interest income earned on the trust fund assets is forecasted to make up the difference between income and expenditures. After 2028, Social Security is expected to draw down its trust funds to pay for the expenditures that are not covered by income. Finally, in 2042, the trust fund assets are expected to be gone, and income is projected to be less than expenditures. However, the trustees project that Social Security will still be able to pay 74% of its promised benefits from 2042 to 2078, and those benefits would still be higher in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than retirees are being paid today.

Social Security is not going broke. The trustees instead project a financing shortfall that may happen almost 40 years from now. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn't project a shortfall until 2052. The trustees' projections are based on pessimistic assumptions. Real growth is expected to fall to between 1.7% and 1.8% over the long-run, which has never been the case for an extended period of time during the post-war years. Similarly, the trustees assume that in the long-run the economy will settle on an average productivity growth rate of 1.6%, which is again too low by historical standards. Higher productivity and consequently faster real wage growth—which have both historically been about 2.0%—would be more realistic and improve Social Security's finances.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5134827

Four years after the No Child Left Behind Act became law, test results show progress in some areas. But many schools are not reducing the achievement gap between white and minority students, and closing that gap may take longer than the law's requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

Some are not Sunni.

From the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5108496.stm



*snip*

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1298264400&en=9adec6f021cd67f5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia led many of the violent protests today, also placed some blame on what he called the "occupation forces" for the bombing,

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c4c21195-764f-4bbf-bab8-d187effe6f02&k=51842

Major Sunni groups joined in condemning the attack, and a leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Askari_Mosque

On February 22, 2006, at 6:55 a.m. local time (0355 UTC) explosions occurred at the mosque, effectively destroying its golden dome and severely damaging the mosque. Several men, one wearing a military uniform, had earlier entered the mosque, tied up the guards there and set explosives, resulting in the blast. Two bombs were set off<7><8> by five<9> to seven<10> men dressed as personnel of the Iraqi Special forces<11> who entered the shrine during the morning.<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Members of the Senate who voted for:

* Wayne Allard (R-CO)
* George Allen (R-VA)
* Max Baucus (D-MT)
* Evan Bayh (D-IN)
* Bob Bennett (R-UT)
* Joe Biden (D-DE)
* Kit Bond (R-MO)
* John Breaux (D-LA)
* Sam Brownback (R-KS)
* Jim Bunning (R-KY)
* Conrad Burns (R-MT)
* Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
* Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
* Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
* Tom Carper (D-DE)
* Max Cleland (D-GA)
* Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
* Thad Cochran (R-MS)
* Susan Collins (R-ME)
* Larry Craig (R-ID)
* Mike Crapo (R-ID)
* Tom Daschle (D-SD)
* Mike DeWine (R-OH)
* Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
* Pete Domenici (R-NM)
* Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
* John Edwards (D-NC)
* John Ensign (R-NV)
* Mike Enzi (R-WY)
* Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
* Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
* Bill Frist (R-TN)
* Phil Gramm (R-TX)
* Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
* Judd Gregg (R-NH)
* Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
* Tom Harkin (D-IA)
* Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
* Jesse Helms (R-NC)
* Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
* Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)
* Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
* James Inhofe (R-OK)
* Tim Johnson(D-SD)
* John Kerry (D-MA)
* Herb Kohl (D-WI)
* Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
* Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
* Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
* Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
* Trent Lott (R-MS)
* Richard Lugar (R-IN)
* John McCain (R-AZ)
* Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
* Zell Miller (D-GA)
* Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
* Bill Nelson (D-FL)
* Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* Don Nickles (R-OK)
* Harry Reid (D-NV)
* Pat Roberts (R-KS)
* Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Rick Santorum (R-PA)
* Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
* Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
* Richard Shelby (R-AL)
* Robert Smith (R-NH)
* Gordon Smith (R-OR)
* Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
* Arlen Specter (R-PA)
* Ted Stevens (R-AK)
* Craig Thomas (R-WY)
* Fred Thompson (R-TN)
* Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
* Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
* George Voinovich (R-OH)
* John Warner (R-VA)

Members of the Senate who voted against:

* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Russ Feingold (D-WI)
* Bob Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Lets get to work.

that it takes a team of scholars working day and night to get the TRUTH out there. Don't worry, we'll be working on this!!

Sorry I can't help tonight. I gotta get up early so I'm going to bed. This sounds like a great idea, so I hope this keeps going tonight.

Pick any of the replies marked "Fact Check" and do some research, and post it back under that reply!

Thanks all!

I have classes...

efforts! i hope you will collate and post a complete report.

thanks!

ellen fl

for reference use.