------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

first you say that gore supporter have never insulted bush. yoo must be crazy! there a post that asked gore supporter why they supported him. not one logical answer, only insults.

this election is not over. gore may have the popular vote now, but that could very well change by next thursday. There are millions of absentee votes, and most will be coming from men, and the military. this will only give bush more votes.

gore has just lost New Mexico and is now undecided. as official results come in gore is losing ground in Iowa and Wisconsin. Just remember you are only seeing AP numbers on tv not the official numbers.

please inform us why you support al gore. by your previous post you should be able to do this without any insults. this will actually give you credibility when discussing these topics.

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

Here are the details:

1. Pulled Strings to Get In.
On May 27, 1968, George Bush Jr. was 12 days away from losing his student draft deferment, at a time when 350 Americans a week were dying in combat. The National Guard, seen by many as the most respectable way to avoid Vietnam, had a huge waiting list -- a year and a half in Texas, over 100,000 men nationwide. Yet Bush and his family friends pulled strings, and the young man was admitted the same day he applied, regardless of any waiting list.

Bush's unit commander, Col. "Buck" Staudt, was so excited about his VIP recruit that he staged a special ceremony for the press so he could have his picture taken administering the oath (even though the official oath had been given by a captain earlier.)

Bush and his allies have tried to deny this with several changing stories, but Bush himself admits lobbying commander Staudt, who approved him, and court documents confirm that close family friend and oil magnate Sid Adger called Texas Speaker of the House Ben Barnes, who called General James Rose, the head of the Texas Air National Guard, to get Bush in. Rose, who is now dead, told his friend and former legislator Jake Johnson that "I got that Republican congressman's son from Houston into the Guard."

Staudt's unit, the 147th, was infamous as a nesting place for politically connected and celebrity draft avoiders. Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen's son was in the unit, as was Republican Senator John Tower's, both of Sid Adger's sons and at least 7 members of the Dallas Cowboys.

2. Took a 2 month vacation in Florida after 8 weeks in the Guard.
Just 8 weeks after joining, Bush was granted 2 months leave to go to Florida and work on a political campaign, the Senate race of Republican Edward Gurney. Bush took a leave every election season, in 1970 to work on his dad's campaign, and in 1972 to work in Alabama.

3. Skipped Officer Candidate School and got a special commission as 2nd Lt.
As soon as Bush completed basic training, his commander approved him for a "direct appointment", which made him an officer without having to go through the usual (and difficult) Officer Candidate School. This special procedure also got Bush into flight school, despite his very low scores on aptitude tests -- he scored 25% on a pilot aptitude test, the absolute lowest acceptable grade, and 50% for navigator aptitude. (Bush did score 95% on the easier officer quality test, but then again the average is 88%).

What made Bush's appointment doubly unusual was his total lack of special qualifications. This procedure was generally reserved for applicants with exceptional experience or skills, such as ROTC training or engineering, medical or aviation skills. Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, reviewed the Guard's records on Bush for a special exhibit on his service after Bush became governor. Asked about Bush's direct appointment without special skills, Hail said "I've never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons."

Charles Shoemake, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air National Guard and retired as a full colonel, said that direct appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive credentials. Asked about Bush, he said "His name didn't hurt, obviously. But it was a commander's decision in those days."

Despite Bush Jr.'s weak qualifications, Col. Staudt was so excited about the direct appointment that he saged another special ceremony for the press, this time with Bush's father the congressman standing prominently in the background.

The direct appointment process was discontinued in the 1970s.

4. Assigned to a safe plane -- the F-102 -- that was being phased out.
As Bush has been quick to note, National Guard members do face the chance of being called up for active duty, though few actually did during the Vietnam war. So what a lucky break for Bush that he was assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut down as of June 30, 1970 -- just 3 months after Bush finished his training. Since training is so airplane specific, Bush was guaranteed from the beginning to be safe from combat.

Bush's campaign has even used his training on the obsolete plane to justify his early discharge, almost a year before his scheduled discharge, since other F-102 pilots were also being released early. But they can't answer the obvious question -- why spend so much money to train a National Guardsman for 2 years on a plane that was already being phased out, at a time when the Guard was letting F102 pilots leave early due to oversupply?

5. Celebrity Political Date.
During his flight training, Bush's celebrity showed in a couple of ways. Most famously, President Nixon sent a jet to pick up the young flight student for a date with his daughter Tricia. Alas, the potential political marriage and dynasty was not to be. Also, the commencement speaker at Bush's graduation ceremony was -- his dad, Congressman George Bush Sr.

6. Illegal, overruled transfer to a base with no work.
In 1972, Bush once again wanted to work on a political campaign, this time in Alabama. He applied for a transfer to a nearly defunct base with no active training or work, the 9921st Air Reserve Squadrom at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Bush's supervisors approved, but a higher headquarters overruled them, noting that the unit had no regular drills.

Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the unit's commander, told the Boston Globe "We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit. We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing." Even Albert Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Guard colonel who is helping the Bush campaign clarify the candidate's service, told the Globe he was mystified why Bush's superiors at the time would approve duty at such a unit. Lloyd was personnel director of the Texas Air Guard from 1969 to 1995.

Now, the officer who did that has stepped forward and very directly admitted that he tried to get the easiest possible assignment for Bush. The personnel officer in charge of Bush's 147th Fighter Group, now-retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, says he tried to give Bush a light load when he told him to apply to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala. Martin said in an interview that he knew Bush wasn't eligible for the 9921st, an unpaid, general training squadron that met once a week to hear lectures on first aid and the like. "However," he said, "I thought it was worth a try. . . . It was the least participation of any type of unit."

7. Just didn't show up for a year -- with no punishment.
National Guard records and Bush's own supervisor's and friends show no sign of him attending any drills or performing any service for nearly a year, from May 1972 until May 1973. This period began with Bush moving to Alabama for a political campaign.

He later applied to transfer to a base that had no work; the transfer was first approved, then cancelled. Bush did nothing for several months; then in September he applied to transfer to Alabama's 187th Tactical Recon group for 3 months. This was approved, but the unit's commander, General William Turnipseed, and his then admnistrative officer, Kenneth Lott, have both said recently that Bush never showed up. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said Turnipseed. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

Bush claims that he did some work in Alabama, but can't remember any details. �I can�t remember what I did,� he said. �I just�I fulfilled my obligation." Despite 2 years of searching through hundreds of records, his campaign has been unable to find any record of Bush's service there, nor could they find a single fellow serviceman who remembers his presence. The best they could produce was an ex-girlfriend from Alabama -- Emily Marks --who said George told her he would have to do some Guard duty later that year (1972) in Montgomery. But all that confirms is that he knew of his obligation.

In December 1972, Bush returned to Houston and was scheduled to resume duty there. But in May 1973, Bush's supervising pilots wrote in his annual efficiency report: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report" (i.e. through April 30, 1972). Bush described one of the supervisors, the late Col. Jerry Killian, as a personal friend, so it's likely he would have noticed Bush and given him the benefit of the doubt. Later that month, two special orders commanded Bush to appear for active duty. He served 36 days of active duty during May, June and July before leaving the Guard early.

Amazingly, Bush was not disciplined in any way for his absence, and received an honorable discharge. Under Air National Guard rules at that time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees.

8. Skipped all his medical exams after they started drug tests.
In April 1972, the military started including routine drug tests in servicemen's annual physical exam, including urinalysis, questions about drugs and "a close examination of the nasal cavities" (for cocaine). According to the regulation, the medical took place in the month after the serviceman's birthday. For George W. Bush, this meant August 1972.

It was May, 1972 -- one month after the drug testing was announced -- that Bush stopped attending Guard duty. In August 1972, he was suspended from flight duty for failing to take his physical. (Click here to see the document.) A Bush campaign spokesman confirmed to the London Sunday Times that Bush knew he would be suspended. "He knew the suspension would have to take place." Bush never flew again, even though he returned to his Houston base where Guard pilots flew thousands of hours in the F-102 during 1973. The only barrier to him flying again was a medical exam (and his lack of attendance).

Careful readers will recall that when Bush issued his partial denial of drug use, he said (or implied) that he hadn't used them since 1974, but he pointedly refused to deny drug use before then, i.e. during his military service. Several sources have also indicated that it was in December, 1972 -- 4 months after his medical suspension -- that a drunk Bush Jr. challenged his father to a fist fight during an argument over the son's drunk driving. (He had run over a neighbor's garbage cans.) Shortly thereafter, Bush Sr. arranged for his son to do community service at an inner city Houston charity.

Bush's campaign aides first said he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and some were assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living. The staff now admits that this explanation was wrong.

9. Left service 10 months early.
Even after that easy stint, Bush couldn't fulfill his obligation. He quickly made up the missed days he had to and applied for an early release, before he had to take his next annual physical exam (with drug test.) While the official discharge date was October 1, 1973, Bush's last day in uniform was actually July 31 -- a full 10 months before the end of his 6-year, part time commitment. Al Gore also requested and received an early discharge (from the Army, in his case) to go to school.

Weasel words; his story keeps changing.
When asked about his service, Bush has lied, changed his story repeatedly, and weaseled in a manner eerily reminiscent of Bill Clinton. First of all, he has flat-out lied. In his official autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' Bush said he flew with his unit for ''several years'' after finishing flight training in June 1970. His campaign biography states that he flew with the unit until he won release from the service in September 1973, nine months early, for graduate school. Both statements are lies. Bush only flew with the 111th for one year and 10 months, until April 1972 when he was suspended for failing to take his medical exam (and drug test), and never flew again.

Then there is his Clintonesque weaseling and word choice. Bush and his campaign claimed that no Bush family or friends pulled strings. Under pressure, this changed to "All I know is anybody named George Bush did not ask him [Ben Barnes] for help." By that he meant, himself or his dad. Of course, it later came out in court that a close Bush friend, Simon Adger, had asked Barnes to get Bush Jr. into the Guard, and that Barnes did so, via General Rose.

Now's it's not even clear that a George Bush didn't ask for help. When pressed, the former president's spokeswoman (Jean Becker) said he is "almost positive" that he and Mr. Adger never discussed the Guard matter. "He [Bush Sr.] he is fairly certain - I mean he doesn't remember everything that happened in the 1960s..." In any case, Bush Sr. and Adger were very close. Ms. Becker acknowledged that "President Bush knew Sid Adger well. He loved him." Adger may have needed only a hint.

Furthermore, George Bush Jr. admits that he knew Adger socially at the time, and further admits that he lobbied Col. "Buck" Staudt, the commander of the VIP unit Bush joined. Staudt claims that he, not General Rose (who he later replaced), was the one who made the decision on admissions anyway. Bush Jr. admits that he met Staudt in late 1967, during Christmas vacation of his senior year, called him later, and -- in Bush's words -- "found out what it took to apply."

When asked how Bush came to call Staudt, his spokeswoman Karen Hughes said he "heard from friends while he was home over the Christmas break that ... Colonel Staudt was the person to contact." She says that Bush doesn't recall who those "friends" were. But we know that Sid Adger was also a friend of Staudt's, served with him on the Houston Chamber of Commerce's Aviation Committee, and in 1967 held a luncheon honoring Gen. Staudt and his unit for winning an Air Force commendation. In fact, both of Adger's sons also joined General Staudt's unit, in 1966 and 1968 respectively.

Bush and his staff also claim that he vaulted ahead of the Air Guard waiting list because he was willing to fly an airplane, and there were openings. There is nothing to support this claim, however. For one thing, the F-102 was being phased out at the time and F-102 pilots were being released from service early, as indeed Bush himself was. And Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, says flatly that there was no pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at that time. Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he applied; while they were authorized for 29 pilots, there were two more already in training and one awaiting a transfer.

Bush also weasels on whether he was avoiding combat or not. He has stated on several occasions that he did not want to be an infantryman, and acknowledges that he came to oppose the war itself. He claims that he joined the guard to fly planes, and would have been happy to go to Vietnam, but ignores the obvious choice of the Air Force or the Navy -- which his dad, a genuine war hero, joined. Furthermore, when he signed up for the Guard, he checked a box saying "Do not volunteer for overseas service." Later, he made a perfunctory application to transfer to a program called "Palace Alert", which dispatched F-102 pilots to Europe or the Far East -- and just occasionally Vietnam -- for 3 or 6 month assignments. But Bush was not nearly qualified, as he must have known, and was immediately turned down, and the F-102 not used overseas after June, 1970 in any case.

And, as noted above, his story also changed on why he refused to take a medical exam -- including a drug test - in 1972. (The refusal ended Bush's flying career.) His staff first claimed that he didn't take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and there were surgeons assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living. His staff now admits that that explanation was "wrong", without saying where it came from or what the real reason was. Draft & National Guard Sources

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

You are saying that bush is not qualified to be president, because he in essence dodged the draft, partied did drugs, got a dui.

Well what has the current president done? And do you support him? I'll bet you say you don't.

Bush served period. And don't tell me that if you had the same means that you wouldn't do whatever it took to ensure that your son was not killed in some meaningless war.

In his seven years as a U.S. senator�from Tennessee, a state in the heart of the anti-union South�Gore voted in support of working families 88 percent of the time, according to AFL-CIO voting records.

His record shows he stood with unions and their members to protect workplace health and safety, community wage standards, Medicare and Social Security. He worked to defeat attempts to bring back "company unions" and destroy the 40-hour week. Gore worked to fend off "paycheck deception" initiatives that would have silenced the voice of working people in the political arena.

"He stood shoulder to shoulder with working men and women and our unions in fighting off the attacks of a radical Congress and fighting for the needs of working people and our children," AFL CIO President John Sweeney says.

He also is a steadfast defender of the freedom of working people to choose to join unions to have a voice at work. As the AFL-CIO convention resolution endorsing Gore states:

"More than any other national leader, Al Gore has used the power of his office to defend the freedom of workers to choose a union, free from interference by their employers, and he has repeatedly urged other elected officials to do so."

"As president," Gore says, "I will be a voice for working families in everything I do and say. I believe the right to organize is a basic American right that can never be blocked�and that right needs to be strengthened today."
---------------------------------------------
Foremost, I support Al Gore as THE environmental candidate because he cares deeply about conservation issues and he has demonstrated experience in putting that care into public policy.

1. Both Al Gore and Joe Lieberman have a public record of support for legislation to improve our environment; they have been leaders at the federal level.

2. Al Gore's book, 'Earth in the Balance', demonstrates the depth of his knowledge and commitment to environmental issues and, in particular, an understanding of the underlying causes and cures for global warming, which is not only a national but an international issue.

3. Al Gore has been key in the Clinton Administration to obtaining White House support for critical environmental and conservation issues.

4. Al Gore is responsible for the appointment of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner and other EPA top officials who have demonstrated superior knowledge and leadership on federal environmental policy issues over the past 8 years.

5. Clinton/Gore environmental appointees at the national and regional level (and on the Supreme Court) have been responsive to citizen-initiated environmental issues. I remember previous administrations at the federal and state level where this was not true. (Need I remind people of James Watt, Ann Gorsuch or Becky Norton Dunlop or Antonin Scalia?)

For these reasons, Al Gore is the only candidate who has made the environment a top priority during his service as an effective elected official.
---------------------------------------------
VRWC: Clinton and Gore deserve no credit for the economic expansion that happened to occur on their watch.

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte:
When they had the White House the Republicans took credit for the sun rising in the morning, all the while blaming Jimmy Carter for any problems. It's morning in America, so wake up and smell the coffee, the economy has only gotten better since the Republicans got out.

Deep Background:There are a number of very specific and clear steps taken by the Clinton administration that you can point to which assured continued economic growth:

� Raised taxes on the rich and delayed a promised middle class tax cut in order to meet a deficit larger than projected by the Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These steps relieved the economy of significant inflationary pressure, relieved pressure on interest rates and helped keep the deficit in check.

� Transferred Alice Rivlin from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to the OMB. With Rivlin as director the CBO was far more accurate in its projections than OMB under Republican administrations. Since policy is based on OMB projections, the rosey numbers Reagan/Bush policies used led to higher deficits. The OMB is now an effective tool for planners rather than the political instrument it once was.

� Appointed Bob Rubin as Secretary of Treasury and reappointed Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Together they managed the economy, tightly controlling the money supply and currency valuation, while keeping interest rates comparatively low, allowing growth without inflation.

� Derailed the radical departures offered by the Republican Congress in the 1995 budget crisis. In the winter of 1995 the President of the United States was the only person with the power to stop the Republican Congress from enacting its extremist agenda. Although the Republicans accused the Clinton OMB of using "phony numbers" history proved that the OMB's estimates were much closer to reality than the CBO's. Speaking of phony numbers, in his last days as Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich threatened to replace CBO officials if their estimates did not more closely reflect his own political ideological beliefs.

� Skillfully out manuvered the Republican Congress in each of the subsequent budget negotiations.

� Pushed a hike in minimum wage which helped sustain growth and strengthen the American market at a critical moment for the world's economy.

� Maintained economic stability and supported international currencies throughout the Asian economic crisis. At the height of the Asian recession, the Clinton administration never panicked and, while the general perception was the world economy was circling the drain, skillfully mangaged to maintain confidence in the strength of the American economy and market. One hallmark of the Clinton administration's economic success is that the Asian economic crisis is largely forgotten today.

VRWC: Did Gore violate campaign finance laws in the 1996 presidential election by attending a fund raiser at a Buddist church?

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte: Al Gore is decent honest man who has been unfairly and unjustly villified by those who have shown over the years that they will do and say anything to hurt a Democratic President or Presidential candidate.

After eight years of intense scrutinization investigators uncovered a possible technical violation of a campaign finance laws: He is accused of attending an event at a Buddist church that they claim was technically a fundraiser, in his official capacity as Vice President not as a candidate for the office of Vice President. At worst this is a minor violation and the money has already been returned.

Deep Background: In 1995 Gore attended an event at a church in California. During the event some people raised money for the Democratic party. That by itself is not illegal but Gore attended as Vice President, not as Vice Presidential Candidate, and it was not reported as a fund raiser. The legal questions for Gore comes down to did the event qualify a fund raiser under the campaign finance laws and did he know that the event was a fund raiser. Gore makes the argument that he doesn't believe it was a fund raiser and in fact it was not technically a fund raiser and his participation was perfectly legal. Considering all the appearances Gore made in course of the 1996 campaign, a possible technical violation of campaign laws is the worst all the investigations uncovered, that's a pretty good record.

Nearly every time the issue is brought up his opponents make an extra effort to point out that it was a Buddist temple. What is it Republicans have against Buddists? Does their religion disqualify them from political participation? Do Republicans only accept money from Christians? There are millions of devout and sincere Buddists living in the US, don't they have a right to participate in politics? Buddism is a major religion practiced by hundreds of millions world wide and millions in this country. Most religious Americans take their right to freedom of religion very seriously and most are tolerant and respectful of faith and beliefs of others and protectful of the religous rights of all their fellow Americans. Are the Republican's arguing that support from Buddists is somehow tainted because of their religious affiliation?

Remember too that a fund raiser at a church, at worst a technical violation of the campaign finance laws, has no relation to the major issue of Campaign Finance, an issue the Republicans officially ignore.

VRWC: Didn't Gore violate campaign finance laws in the 1996 presidential election by making fund raising calls from his office? And didn't he try to hide behind the accusations by citing some technical legal mumbo jumbo about the controlling legal authority?

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte: Al Gore did make fund raising calls from his office phone. The question is was that illegal? His accusers are arguing that he was technically in violation of a law which was passed for an entirely different purpose before telephones were even invented based on a related legal precedent that is not binding in the District of Columbia.

As far as the "Controlling legal authority" quote goes, the accusation here a complex technicality and the only defense is also a legal technicality. He should have said that he didn't break the law and let it go at that.

Deep Background: The law he is charged with violating barred politicing in Government buildings and was passed to prevent elected officials running for re-election from using their positions of power to influence Government employees to vote for them. The argument is that Gore violated this law by making campaign related phone calls from his office.

VRWC: Shouldn't Gore and Lieberman be held accountable for Clinton's personal scandals? After all, Gore supported Clinton throughout the scandal and while Lieberman may have been the first democrat to criticize the President, he voted against impeachment.

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte: Gore was loyal to the President of the United States. Lieberman was critical of the President, but he did not agree with the House Republicans that the scandal merited removal from office. Together their positions were in step with the vast majority of the American public.

VRWC: Did Al Gore really claim to have invented the internet?

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte: No. That is not true. He never said he "invented the internet." You'd think that when acusing someone else of lying, people would at least make the effort to accurately quote his words.

He did make a verbal stumble in an interview on CNN when he said the legislation he worked on created the internet, he immediately clarified what he meant to say. Compared to the verbal stumbles of W. Bush, this was nothing.

His political opponents jumped on this as evidence of dishonesty refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Deep Background: In a March 9, 1999 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." He didn't even use the word "invent" to describe his contribution.

What's lost in this entire discussion is the point that Al Gore was making. The internet we're using today evolved from a cold war era network designed to allow the military units, government contractors and research institutions to maintain reliable communications even in the event of a catastropic failure of the communications infrastructure caused by a nuclear attack. In the 60's the network was expaned with access opened to the general academic community. But there was very little public access, and almost no business or commerical activity. Hardly the backbone of the information superhighway that is impacting the fabric of American life.

Early in the Reagan/Bush years while the "internet" was an expensive network used exclusively by government agencies, defense contractors and universities the Republican White House did not see the potential of the internet. It literally took an act of Congress to open internet access to the public for personal commercial use. It's that act, which Gore championed, that led directly to the creation of the information superhighway that internet has become.

Al Gore did not create the internet or invent it, but the internet we're using to carry on this discussion today, bares little resemblance the network the republicans saw as a costly burden. Gore did take the initiative in passing the legislation that was required to allow the internet to become a major component of the American economy and to play a large part in the lives of millions of Americans. That's in the record, they can't take it away from him. If he hadn't championed the legislation someone else may have, maybe the following year or a few years later. Or maybe the internet would still be a quaint but expensive cold war legacy confined to the world of academia and government bureacracy.
VRWC: Al Gore constantly reinvents himself.

Sound Byte vs. Soundbyte: For the last eight years all people heard about Al Gore has been criticism and attempts to associate him with Clinton's scandals. Whenever Al Gore tries give people a better idea of who he is he's accused of reinventing himself.

W. Bush is very much a newcomer to the national spotlight and even public service. He's not accused of reinventing himself because he's still trying to invent himself.
---------------------------------------------
Prosperity itself is on the ballot; keep �new-economy�
Gore rallied union workers and new-economy voters alike today, warning that the progress of the last eight years could �slip through our hands� if the country adopts the agenda offered by Bush. He argued that the technology-driven growth of the 1990s could be stopped in its tracks by a return to the policies of the 1980s.
Arguing that �prosperity itself is on the ballot,� Gore focused on the new economy and what government should-and should not-do to ensure that the remarkable innovations in the technology sector seen in recent years continue. �We face a big choice. Will we make the right decisions, the responsible decisions, to unlock the full potential of this new Internet economy and make it work for all our people?�

Responding to Bush�s charge that he favors bigger government, Gore said, �government should never be a barrier� to the new economy, and he promised to preside over �a smaller, smarter government that knows when to get out of the way and isn�t a drag on economic growth.�

Source: Dan Balz, Washington Post, p. A10 Oct 28, 2000

Paying down debt reduces government intrusion
GORE: The third biggest spending item in our budget is interest on the national debt. We get nothing for it. I will pay down the debt every single year, until it is eliminated early in the next decade. That gets rid of the third biggest intrusion of the federal government in our economy. Now, because the governor has all this money for a tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, there is no money left over.
BUSH: What I�ve done is set priorities and funded them, and there�s extra money.

Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

After 8 years of prosperity, �you ain�t seen nothing yet.�
[The current era of prosperity] started for me-in the last eight years-when I had the honor of casting the tie-breaking vote to end the old economic plan and put into place a new economic plan that has helped us to make some progress--22 million new jobs and the greatest prosperity ever. But it�s not good enough. And my attitude is, you ain�t seen nothing yet. We need to do more and better. Too many people have been left behind. And the key is job training and investments in [social programs].
Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Prosperity results from current policy plus entrepreneurship
BUSH (to Gore): I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks has meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship. And that�s the role of government, is to encourage that.
GORE: I think that the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have. And it�s their ingenuity. I agree with that. But they were working pretty hard eight years ago, and they had ingenuity eight years ago. The difference is, we�ve got a new policy. Look, we have gone from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses; we�ve gone from a triple dip recession during the previous 12 years to a tripling of the stock market. Instead of high unemployment, we�ve got the lowest African-American and lowest Latino unemployment rates ever in history, and 22 million new jobs.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Make hard choices to keep prosperity rolling
Gore is using the nation�s roaring economy to sell himself as the man who will keep things humming along. �We cannot let this opportunity slip through our hands.� Gore said that as president he would use much of the projected federal surplus to reduce the national debt rather than spend the money on �massive tax cuts for the few,� as he contends Bush would do. �We have to ask the hard questions about what is right for our economy and our families. We have come a long way these last eight years but I am not satisfied. There are big choices at stake in this election. At the heart of all these choices is a single, fundamental question: Will we use our prosperity and record surpluses to prepare for the future?� Gore said he would pay $2 of projected surpluses toward debt reduction for every $1 he would devote to tax cuts or investments. �The biggest threat to the economy & the continued prosperity would be a giant tax cut mainly for the wealthy that would put us back into deficits again,� Gore said.
Source: AP Story, NY Times Sep 28, 2000

Helping middle-class is goal of economic plan
�The Gore-Lieberman economic plan,� he said, �has one guiding purpose: to help the middle-class families who have always been America�s purpose and pride, the people who pay the taxes, bear the burdens and live the American dream.�
Source: Katherine Q. Seelye, NY Times Sep 7, 2000

Lays out 10 goals in Prosperity for America�s Families plan
Gore�s 191-page �Prosperity for America�s Families� plan lays out ten ambitious goals within a balanced budget. Their goals include:
Make America Debt Free by 2012.
Protect Social Security and Medicare Surpluses via a �lockbox.�
Double the Number of Families with Savings in Excess of $50,000 via new, 401(k)-style, Retirement Savings Plus accounts.
Reduce Income Taxes on the Typical Family to the Lowest Level in 50 Years with $480 billion in targeted tax cuts.
Raise Family Incomes by One Third over the Next Decade
Enable 7 in 10 Families to Own a Home -- a new record
Lift College Attendance and Graduation Rates to New Records via tuition tax credits
Reduce Poverty to Below 10% for the First Time Ever by raising the minimum wage and other reforms.
Cut the Gap Between What Men and Women Earn by 50% Over the Next Decade
Create 10 Million New High Tech, High Skill Jobs
Source: Press Release, �Prosperity for America�s Families� Sep 6, 2000

Safeguard prosperity to reduce poverty
Realization of the goals that Gore laid out, like reducing the poverty level to below 10% for the first time in history, and increasing the college graduation rate to 75% of high school graduates, depend on continued prosperity. So does his plan to set aside $300 billion as a cushion against shortfalls in projections by the CBO, which estimates a federal budget surplus of $1.8 trillion over the next decade. The sum of Gore�s spending initiatives, as presented by his campaign, is about $1.4 trillion.
Source: Katherine Q. Seeyle, NY Times Sep 6, 2000

Enable more families to save, own homes, and pay less tax
His centerpiece is to eliminate the debt by 2012. One goal of the plan is to double the number of families, to 65 million from 32 million, that have at least $50,000 in savings. Other goals include lowering the income tax burden on the typical family to the lowest level in 50 years, raising the number of families who own homes to more than 70 percent, reducing the gap between what men and women earn by 50 percent and creating 10 million high-technology jobs.
Source: Katherine Q. Seeyle, NY Times Sep 6, 2000

Encourage �Retirement Savings Plus� accounts
By 2010, double the number of families with savings in excess of $50,000. Gore proposes �Retirement Savings Plus� accounts. If a middle-class family saves one dollar, the government will match this with one dollar of savings. For poorer families, the government will contribute three dollars to a savings account for every dollar contributed. The maximum annual account contribution is $2,000 a person.
Source: 191-page economic plan, �Prosperity for American Families� Sep 6, 2000

Confidence in markets & policy is basis for solid economy
My proposed economic strategy depends not just on spending or tax policy but on their interaction with financial markets & monetary policy. What links them is an intangible factor called confidence. If we allow our credibility to be called into question, with ever-increasing deficits & debt, if we shake the confidence that we have worked so hard to rebuild, then that could lead to higher interest rates, draining far more investment from our economy than deficit spending could ever put back into it.
Source: Speech to the Association for a Better New York Apr 25, 2000

Economic slowdown would prompt Reinvention push
On how an economic slowdown might change his budget priorities: I�m a veteran of the Reinventing Government push, one who believes that eliminating waste doesn�t have to be a meaningless mantra. That kind of fiscal challenge -- which I hope doesn�t occur -- could serve as an opportunity to push much more dramatic re-engineering of the way the government operates.
Source: Interview in Business Week, p. 42-43 Dec 20, 1999

Clinton-Gore budget concepts broke cycle of recession
On Goreonomics: I�m not trying to take credit for [the Clinton boom]. I played a role, along with other members of the Clinton-Gore team. The concepts we put in place made a difference. I cast the tie-breaking vote for [the �93 Clinton budget], a plan that passed on a straight party-line vote. Prior to that, we had a series of intermittent dips into recession. We broke that cycle.
Source: Interview in Business Week, p. 42-43 Dec 20, 1999

Low interest rates are a key to strong economy
If the entire surplus is spent [on one proposal], then there is no money left over for new initiatives. The numbers have to add up. One of the reasons we have a strong economy now is because we�ve been able to keep interest rates low, balancing the budget and better by having fiscal responsibility. So spending more than the entire surplus and then piling on top of that proposals that may sound great but for which there is no money is something that ought to be looked at very carefully.
Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Gore on Budget Surplus
Surest way to bust economy is Bush�s tax cuts
BUSH [to Gore]: The surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of Gore�s expenditures: it could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion. That means he�s either going to have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion.
GORE: What he�s quoting is not the Senate Budget Committee, it is a partisan press release by the Republicans. And as for the surest way to threaten our prosperity, having a $1.9 trillion tax cut, almost half of which goes to the wealthy, and a $1 trillion Social Security privatization proposal, is the surest way to put our budget into deficit, raise interest rates and put our prosperity at risk.

BUSH: I can�t let the man continue with fuzzy math. It�s $1.3 trillion, Mr. Vice President. And it�s going to go to everybody who pays taxes. I�m not going to be a pick-and-chooser. What is fair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief.

Source: (X-ref Bush) Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Set aside $300B as a �Surplus Reserve Fund�
Gore and Lieberman�s plan, Prosperity for America�s Families, was released today as a nearly 200-page book. Significantly, Gore and Lieberman do not spend the entire surplus, but rather propose setting aside $300 billion in a reserve fund that could not be used for new spending or tax cuts. This Surplus Reserve Fund would allow for further debt reduction or provide a cushion to help cover unexpected costs in the future.
Source: Press Release, �Prosperity for America�s Families� Sep 6, 2000

$4.56 trillion spending plan for 10 years� budget surplus
The Gore-Lieberman plan backs up [their 10-point list of economic goals in their �Prosperity for America�s Families� plan] with a detailed summary of how they would allocate the $4.56 trillion budget surplus projected for the next decade. The major elements of the Gore-Lieberman Plan, include the following, (under CBO scoring, in billions):
Social Security and debt reduction lockbox $2,388
Medicare and debt reduction lockbox $ 360
Medicare Interest Solvency Transfers $ 75
Medicare Prescription Drugs and other Medicare Policies $ 340
Targeted Tax Cuts $ 480
Investments in Education and Learning $ 115
Improving and Expanding Quality Health Care $ 120
Environment and Energy Security $ 120
National Security $ 100
Interest and Other, Net of Offsets $ 153
Surplus Reserve Fund $ 300
Unallocated $ 10
Source: Press Release, �Prosperity for America�s Families� Sep 6, 2000

Set aside one-sixth of surplus in case rosy estimates fail
It is hard to quantify the economic potential of the American people. But we can - and we are - setting concrete economic goals for the country, goals that reflect our values and honor our commitment to the future.
We are proposing - as a hedge against overspending based on �rosy estimates� - that before Congress spends money under its more optimistic projections, it set aside one-sixth of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus.

Source: 191-page economic plan, �Prosperity for American Families� Sep 6, 2000

Free America from debt by paying down $3 trillion
Al Gore has a plan to keep paying down the debt, making America free of its publicly-held debt by 2012. The plan devotes a substantial portion of the total budget surplus to debt reduction. Over the next ten years, the plan would pay down the debt by $3 trillion:
$2.3 trillion of Social Security surplus
$450 billion of Medicare surplus
$300 billion in an additional Surplus Reserve Fund
Source: 191-page economic plan, �Prosperity for American Families� Sep 6, 2000

Use surplus to strengthen Social Security, Medicare
If we have the discipline and foresight to save the surplus, to pay off the debt and help Social Security and Medicare, we can go a long way toward saving Social Security and Medicare for the future. If we squander the surplus on expensive tax cuts, we will likely force unnecessary and painful solutions - or even worse, we will pass these difficult choices to our children.
Source: 191-page economic plan, �Prosperity for American Families� Sep 6, 2000

Spend $164B surplus on Medicare, tax cuts, & debt
Budget surplus: Bush proposals Gore proposals
Estimate for 2002-2006 $586 billion $164 billion
Estimate for 2001-2010 No estimate made $746 billion
Economic assumptions Uses lower estimates of Congressional spending & 2.7% annual growth Assumes spending will grow at the rate of inflation; 2.6% annual growth
How surplus would be used
For fiscal years 2002-2006 2001-2010
Tax cuts $483 billion; total $1.3 trillion by 2010 $250 billion, includes some of Clinton�s FY2000 proposals
Some major spending proposals $46 billion for health care
$13 billion for education
$25 billion for defense
$64 billion to pay down the national debt
$432 billion for Medicare
$146 billion for health insurance

Source: NY Times, p. 22 Apr 30, 2000

Pay off the national debt by 2013
My economic plan begins with fiscal responsibility - a consistent, conservative fiscal policy that keeps interest rates low and helps create jobs. I�ll balance the budget & pay down the national debt every single year, barring a national emergency. I will put us on the road to completely eliminating the national debt by the year 2013. We have to make America debt-free before the Baby Boomers retire, so we can pay our obligations to them in the form of Social Security and Medicare. We have to make America debt-free now, because, in the new era of globalization, businesses have far better investment opportunities than ever before in history. In this new economy, maximum growth without inflation requires that we take that money out of sterile government bonds, and put it into enterprises that boost our productivity. And moving purposefully to a debt-free America will be one of the best ways to sustain and increase the confidence that is the foundation of our present and future prosperity.
Source: Speech to the Association for a Better New York Apr 25, 2000

Set aside 15-16% of budget surplus to fix Medicare
We have to look ahead and save some of the budget surplus for Medicare. If we wipe out Medicaid and wipe out the chance to save Medicare, and wipe out the surplus, then you might get a few more people in the short run.. Medicare cannot be an afterthought. The only way to fix Medicare fairly is to set aside 15 to 16 percent of the surplus to do it now. Otherwise, you�re putting Medicare at risk.
Source: Democrat Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 28, 1999

Balance or surplus except in crises.
Maintain fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low and investment rates high. Barring an economic reversal, a national emergency, or a foreign crisis, Gore has called for a balanced budget -- or better -- not just this year, but every year.
Source: www.AlGore2000.com/issues/econ.html 5/14/99 May 14, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Gore on Oil & Energy
Renewable energy instead of nuclear power
Q: Should the United States increase its use of nuclear power as part of a strategy to come closer to energy independence?
A: I strongly believe we need to take measures to increase our nation�s energy security and decrease our dependence on unreliable foreign sources of oil. However, I do not support an increased reliance on nuclear power. In order to achieve sound economic and environmental goals, I believe that we must increase renewable energy sources and environmentally sound domestic energy production and develop new energy-saving technologies, while reducing our reliance on imported energy. Through the power of free markets and American ingenuity, my plan will dramatically reduce pollution and enhance our energy security - and create more jobs in the process.

Source: Associated Press Oct 16, 2000

Drilling ANWR too high a price for a few months of oil
GORE: Governor Bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to the big oil companies to go in and start producing oil there. I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months worth of oil, and the oil wouldn�t start flowing for many years into the future. And I don�t think it�s a fair price to pay, to destroy precious parts of America�s environment.
BUSH: We need an active exploration program in America. The only way to become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore at home. And you bet I want to open up a small part of Alaska because when that field is online, it will produce a million barrels a day. Today we import a million barrels from Saddam Hussein. I would rather that a million come from our own hemisphere, our own country, as opposed from Saddam Hussein.

Source: (X-ref Bush) Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Tax incentives for development of renewable energy
Q: What is your energy policy?
GORE [to Bush]: We have to free ourselves from big oil, from OPEC. We have to give new incentives for the development of resources, like deep gas in the western Gulf, but also renewable sources of energy and domestic sources that are cleaner and better. I�m proposing a plan that will give tax incentives for the rapid development of new kinds of cars, trucks, buses, factories, boilers, and furnaces that don�t have as much pollution.

BUSH: I want to build pipelines to move natural gas. I want to develop coal resources. It�s an issue I know a lot about. I was a small oil person for a while. This is an administration that�s had no plan. And now, the results of having no plan have caught up with America. We�ve got abundant supplies of energy here, and we better start exploring it. There�s an interesting issue up in the Northwest, as well. And that is whether or not we remove dams that propose hydroelectric energy. I�m against removing dams in the Northwest.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve
This summer I called for a federal investigation of concentration, non-competitiveness and pricing practices in the oil industry, and we�re still awaiting the results of that inquiry. But this isn�t rocket science, even though gasoline right now seems to be priced a lot like rocket fuel. We know what is going on here, and we have to end it. And I promise you this - if I am president, I am going to stand up to big oil and demand fairer gasoline prices for families and an end to unfair profiteering.
We also have to press OPEC and big oil to act responsibly and we also need aggressive national action right now. In the face of rising prices for gasoline and home-heating oil, I support oil releases from our national strategic petroleum reserve.

These short-term measures are urgent and vital, but by themselves they are not enough. I�m proposing an energy security and environment trust, a commitment to a more prosperous economy powered by cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy for families.

Source: Speech to employees at Burchoil in Hollywood, MD Sep 21, 2000

$150B Energy Security and Environment Trust Fund
Q: What would you do to promote the use of cleaner energy?
A: Encouraging consumers and producers to use cleaner energy is critical to ensuring we have clean air and fighting the threat of global warming. That is why I have proposed a bold, unprecedented Energy Security and Environment Trust Fund - a $150 billion fund to help develop clean new technologies. This fund will provide tax credits and financial incentives to power producers who reduce pollutant emissions; consumers who purchase energy-efficient vehicles, homes and home appliances; and communities that build energy-saving forms of public transportation. These measures will stimulate economic growth, create new jobs, reduce our nation�s dependence on unreliable foreign sources of oil and clean up the nation�s air and water.

Source: Associated Press Sep 12, 2000

Tax breaks for fuel efficiency will fuel prosperity
Gore would give families up to $6,000 to purchase more fuel-efficient cars and Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), along with other tax breaks for the purchase of energy-efficient pick-up trucks, 18-wheelers, building equipment and homes. These fuel-efficient vehicles will further reduce the nation�s dependence on foreign oil, helping consumers save money at the pump. Gore says, �We can have a next-stage prosperity where you don�t have to build your lives around a fuel source that is distant, uncertain and easily manipulated. We will demand and develop new technologies to free ourselves from gas-tank price-gouging, and we will sell those technologies to the world. We�ll build a new generation of fuel-efficient vehicles -- and then make it easy for families to afford them.�
Source: Press Release, �New Gore Energy Policy� Jun 28, 2000

New energy technology will lead to more prosperity
Today, Gore unveiled portions of his new energy policy that would curtail brownouts, clean up aging power plants, and reduce the nation�s dependence on unreliable imported oil. �There can be a next stage of prosperity in which American creativity builds not just a better product, but also a better planet, a next stage of progress in which it is an every-day accomplishment for Americans to develop path-breaking technologies that create millions of high-wage jobs, clean up the environment and combat global warming at the same time,� Gore said. �A next stage of prosperity and progress in which we encourage and support the Edisons of tomorrow, and empower them to build a better, cleaner and more prosperous world.�
Source: Press Release, �New Gore Energy Policy� Jun 27, 2000

Energy policy: focus on future tech & incentives
Gore�s energy policy includes:
More reliable electricity grid: provide tax breaks to encourage power plants at factories and residential complexes; extend economic incentives for natural gas exploration; and provide tax breaks for electricity produced from renewable energy sources such as wind & methane. This portion of the plan would cost $2 billion over 10 years.
Technologies for tomorrow challenge: develop market-based, enforceable and comprehensive standards to reduce pollution and increase efficiency. This portion of the plan would cost $68 billion over 10 years.
Private investment in new technology: increase the use of domestic energy & transportation technology that could help reduce pollution. The plan would expand investment in the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and the Advance Technology Program (ATP).,li>Measured performance standards: measure actual emission reductions achieved by projects supported through this initiative.
Source: Press Release, �New Gore Energy Policy� Jun 27, 2000
-------------------------------MORE TO COME...

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

Focus on gun safety, not hunters & sportsmen
Q: Do you support the Brady Bill?
BUSH: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their families. We ought to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn�t have them. That�s why I�m for instant background checks at gun shows. I�m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I also believe that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. The federal government can help.

GORE: All my proposals are focused on that problem: gun safety. None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles. They�re aimed at the real problem. Let�s have a three-day waiting period, A cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn�t have guns don�t get them.

Source: (X-ref Bush) St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

Restrict guns from wrong hands, not sportsmen & homeowners
I will not do anything to affect the rights of hunters or sportsmen. I think that homeowners have to be respected in their right to have a gun if they wish to. The problem I see is that there are too many guns getting into the hands of children and criminals and people who for whatever reason, really should not be able to get guns.
I think these assault weapons are a problem.
So I favor closing the gun-show loophole. In fact, I cast the tie-breaking vote to close it.
I think we ought to restore the three-day waiting period under the Brady Law.
We should toughen the enforcement of gun laws so that the ones that are already on the books can be enforced much more effectively. Some of the restrictions that have been placed by the Congress in the last few years, I think have been unfortunate.
I think that we ought to make all schools gun free. Have a gun-free zone around every school in this country.
And child safety trigger locks on a mandatory basis and others.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Gun licensing by states, but no registration
BUSH [to Gore]: I disagree on this issue. He�s for registration of guns. I think the only people who are going to show up to register or get a license, are law-abiding citizens. The criminal�s not going to show up and say, hey, give me my I.D. card, and I don�t think that�s going to be an effective tool to make the, keep our society safe.
GORE: I�m not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases: A photo license I.D. like a driver�s license for new handguns.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

No special lawsuit protection for gun makers
Gore has a checkered history when it comes to guns. As a Congressman in rural Tennessee, he was not against them As a senator and Vice president, he changed tack completely, working hard for the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. It is perhaps his proudest association with the president, after the economy. Gore would:
introduce mandatory photo licenses for handgun purchases
limit gun sales to one per person per month
crack down on gun shows
ban �junk guns� (cheap handguns often used in violent crimes)
increase penalties for knowingly selling a gun to someone ineligible to purchase one
require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority
oppose efforts to provide special legal protection for gun manufacturers, or to loosen existing limits on concealed weapons
increase penalties for gun-trafficking and gun-related crimes
Source: The Economist, �Issues 2000� special Sep 30, 2000

Mandatory background checks & child safety locks
I�ll fight to make every school in this nation drug-free and gun-free. I believe in the right of sportsmen and hunters and law-abiding citizens to own firearms. But I want mandatory background checks to keep guns away from criminals, and mandatory child safety locks to protect our children.
Source: Speech to the Democratic National Convention Aug 18, 2000

Agrees with Bush on banning weapons; but wants registration
Where They Agree: Regarding guns, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would, if elected president:
Support the current ban on assault weapons.
Prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons.
Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.
Raise the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21.
Require that trigger locks be sold with handguns.
Where They Differ
Bush also would:
Provide more money for enforcement of gun laws.
Support automatic detention for young people who commit crimes with guns.
Oppose government-mandated registration of guns owned by people who don�t break laws.
Gore also would:
Require photo licensing for handgun purchases.
Limit gun purchases to one per month and require a three-day waiting period.
Require manufacturers and federally licensed sellers to report sales to a state authority.
Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times Apr 21, 2000

Nationally mandated, state-run system of photo licensing
Noting that more than one of the guns used at Columbine was purchased at a gun show, Gore stressed the need to close the gun show loophole that allows purchasers to avoid background checks when buying guns at gun shows. Gore also called for requiring child-safety locks on handguns; banning junk guns and assault weapons; and requiring a nationally mandated, state-run system of photo licensing and a full background check for all new handgun purchases.
Source: Press Release, Fort Lee, NJ Apr 20, 2000

Take on the NRA with presidential leadership
BRADLEY. We make a mistake when we take a tragic incident and we look at that one individual case [instead of] a much broader case. Everybody was struck by Columbine. Why? Because we saw our own kids, they looked like our kids, we thought. But 13 kids are killed every day in America with a gun and 800,000 kids took a gun to school last year. Now that is not going to change unless there�s concerted leadership from the national government that�s willing to marshal public opinion to overcome the vested interest, the special interest that�s embodied in the NRA.
GORE: I agree with that. I was a co-sponsor of the Brady Law. I cast the tie-breaking vote to close the so-called gun show loophole. The NRA has targeted me as a result. We have got to take them on strongly and pass new gun control legislation-not aimed at hunters and sportsmen, but at these handguns that are causing so much distress in our country.

Source: Democrat debate in Los Angeles Mar 1, 2000

Passed toughest gun control in 30 years; same for next 30
BRADLEY [to Gore]: I�ve offered the strongest gun control proposal of any presidential candidate in history. Gore was a conservative Congressman-he voted with the NRA.
GORE: The Clinton-Gore administration has passed the toughest gun control measures in the last 30 years. I cast the tie-breaking vote to close the gun show loophole.

BRADLEY: What you�ve seen is an elaborate �Gore Dance.� It is a dance to avoid facing up to your conservative record on guns. It is a dance that denies the fact that you do not support registration and licensing of all handguns, but you want to give the impression of that, so you say, �I�m for licensing of all mmmm-handguns.� What does that mean? It means, �I�m for licensing of all new handguns,� only new. Not the 65 million that are out there.

GORE: I support a complete ban on junk guns, assault weapons, and yes, I support photo license I.D.�s for the purchase of all new handguns when somebody goes down to the gun store.

Source: (X-ref from Bradley) Democrat debate in Harlem, NYC Feb 21, 2000

Maximize gun control within what�s politically possible
BRADLEY [to Gore]: I have proposed registration & licensing of all 65 million handguns in America. President Clinton has said he is for that. We�re in the midst of this tremendous rash of gun violence in America.. Registration and licensing is what we do for automobiles. Why can�t we do it for handguns in America and why don�t you support it?
GORE: I do support licensing of the purchase of all new handguns. The president said, yeah, he supports that idea. But it doesn�t have a prayer of ever becoming law. It�s much more sensible to try to get the maximum gun control that we possibly can. We have to find a way to make our political system work, taking into account the fact that there are so many people who are going to fight tooth and nail against measures [like those Bradley proposes].

BRADLEY: [You�re saying], essentially, that it�s too difficult to do. The essence of leadership is taking something that is difficult and making it possible [by] engaging the American people.

Source: (Cross-ref. from Bradley) Democratic Debate in Durham, NH Jan 5, 2000

Counter gun lobby with �family lobby� to shield kids
Gore stressed the need for stricter gun control laws. �Families need help getting guns off our streets, out of our schools and away from children and criminals,� he said. �And I say to every family in America: Let us create a family lobby as powerful as the gun lobby. If we did that, then instead of fighting off new protections for gun manufacturers that would shield them from lawsuits, we can start passing legislation to actually shield our children from gun violence,� Gore said.
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics �Family agenda� Jun 18, 1999

Voted against some gun limitations while in Congress
Gore, as a member of Congress, voted:
Against a 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases in 1985, but then in favor of a seven-day waiting period in 1991.
Against gun dealer licensing and inspection requirements in 1985.
Against requiring serial numbers on all handguns manufactured in the United States.
Against retaining the ban on the interstate sale of handguns in 1985.
Source: CNN.com/AllPolitics �Republicans use Gore�s words� Jun 17, 1999

Supports background checks at gun shows, in tie-breaker
Al Gore made a rare Senate appearance and cast a tie-breaking vote that enabled a gun control amendment to prevail, with a vote of 51-to-50, over a less stringent version. The amendment would require background checks with the sale of firearms at gun shows. �I personally would like to dedicate my tie-breaking vote to all of the families that have suffered from gun violence,� Mr. Gore added. Today�s vote was only the 4th in Mr. Gore�s Vice Presidency in which he broke a tie in the Senate.
Source: New York Times, p. A-1 May 21, 1999

Supports Brady Law and ban on assault weapons
Al Gore believes we must do more to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of violent criminals, without affecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters. He worked to enact a ban on deadly assault weapons, and the Brady Law, which has stopped thousands of felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.
Source: www.AlGore2000.com/issues/crime.html 5/16/99 May 16, 1999

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

Source: Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, p. A10 Oct 17, 2000

Federal matching funds for poor and middle class savings
Q: How would your tax cut benefit a single woman with no dependents?
GORE: If you make less than $60,000 a year and you invest $1,000 in a savings account, you�ll get a tax credit which means that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000.
If you make less than $30,000 a year, you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1,500.
If you make more than $60,000 and up to $100,000, you�ll get a match, but not as generous.
You�ll get access to lifelong learning and education, help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or training.
If you want to purchase health insurance, you will get help with that.
If you are part of the bottom 20% or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.
And if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs longterm care, then you will get help with that.
BUSH: [Under my plan] everybody who pays taxes is going to get tax relief.
Source: St. Louis Debate Oct 17, 2000

Except for wealthiest, exempt people from estate tax
GORE [to Bush]: Under the plan that I�ve proposed, 80 percent of all family farms will be completely exempt from the estate tax, and the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced. The problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the wealthiest 1 percent. The amount of money that has to be raised in taxes from middle class families would be a heavy burden.
BUSH: Eliminate the death tax completely because people shouldn�t be taxed twice on their assets. It�s either unfair for some or unfair for all. I think if you�ve got tax relief, everybody benefits.

Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

Claim that every family is eligible for tax cut is unlikely
GORE: �Every middle class family is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal.�
ANALYSIS: This statement is only true if every middle class family has children in day care or in college.

An accounting firm assessed how Gore�s proposals would affect hypothetical families, and their report found that the following would receive no tax breaks:
Single person with no children earning $39,000
Retired couple earning $59,000
Single earner couple with two children earning $78,000
Source: Presidential Debate, Boston Globe, �Number Crunch�, p. A15 Oct 11, 2000

Cut taxes for 99% of middle class, not the wealthiest 1%
GORE: He would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined. Under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending, I will put another dollar into middle class tax cuts.
BUSH: We�re going to hear some phony numbers about what I think. Over the next 10 years, there�s going to be $25 trillion of revenue. Why don�t we pass $1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? I want to share some of that money with you, so you�ve got more money to save and dream for your families. It�s the difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself.

GORE: I agree that the surplus is the American people�s money. That�s why I don�t think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1%, because the other 99% have had an awful lot to do with building our prosperity.

Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

Target surplus at national debt, rainy days, & education
Gore would like to continue the �disciplined� and �prudent� economic policies of the Clinton administration. In particular, he would:
Pay off federal debt in public hands by 2012.
Set aside $300 billion of the surplus as a reserve in case rosy projections do not materialize.
Introduce tax credits for retirement accounts targetd at low- and middle-income Americans.
Reduce the �marriage tax penalty� by increasing the standard deduction for married couples.
Offer tax credits for health insurance, make the child-care credit refundable, provide tax relief for stay-at-home parents, introduce tax credits for long-term care.
make up to $10,000 in college tuition costs tax deductible; create tax-advantaged accounts to save for education and training; create a new refundable After-School Tax Credit.
Source: The Economist, �Issues 2000 Special Briefing� Sep 30, 2000

End marriage penalty; reform estate tax; targeted cuts
I�m fighting for a full range of targeted tax cuts for middle-class families. To help you save for college and retirement. To pay for health insurance and child care. To reform the estate tax. And to end the marriage penalty. But let me say it plainly: I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and wreck our good economy in the process.
Under the tax plan the other side has proposed, for every ten dollars that goes to the wealthiest one percent, middle-class families would get one dime. And lower-income families would get one penny. It gives the most to those who need it the least -- and the least to those who need it the most. And that�s just wrong. Instead, let�s cut taxes for the people who have the hardest time paying taxes and saving for the future.

Source: Speech, �Prosperity For America�s Families,� Cleveland, OH Sep 6, 2000

Lower taxes for working families with targeted tax reform
Offer tax cuts to those who need them most. With this plan, the tax burden on the typical family will be the lowest in 50 years.
Eliminate the marriage penalty for millions
Provide incentives to save thru Retirement Savings Plus Accounts
Help pay for college thru the College Opportunity Tax Cut
Expand the childcare tax credit and make it refundable
Help families pay for long-term care needs
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
25% refundable tax credit for health insurance
Source: 191-page economic plan, �Prosperity for American Families� Sep 6, 2000

Tax cuts to benefit middle-class, not just the rich
Gore took aim at Bush�s plan for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. Gore is offering $500 million in cuts over the same period, targeted at middle- and low-income households. Gore said the plan would help boost savings and aid families saving for college, while Bush�s plan would offer a typical family less than it would yield the richest Americans. �We don�t begrudge the wealthy a tax cut. I will never support a tax cut for the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else, that wrecks our economy.�
Source: Staff & Wire Reports, CNN.com Aug 21, 2000

Don�t eliminate gas tax; ask oil interests to charge less
On gas prices: Gore said, �I�m pleased that Saudi Arabia is proposing to increase production. I call on the big oil companies to let that pass through in the form of price reductions at the gasoline filling stations. What we need is not a trickle of relief, we need significant reduction.�
Bush said, �The long-term solution is an energy policy. The short-term solution is the price of crude on the market. The administration ought to convince OPEC to increase the supply of crude oil.�

Source: AP article in Washington Post Jul 3, 2000

Eliminate the marriage penalty for working families
Gore supports marriage penalty tax relief by increasing the standard deduction, so that a married couple would get the same standard deduction as if they remained single. Raising the standard deduction for married couples filing joint returns to twice that of a single taxpayer would deliver substantial marriage tax relief to middle-class families. Everyone who claims the standard deduction would benefit from the tax relief, especially middle class families.
Source: Press Release, �Working Families� Jun 15, 2000

$500B in tax cuts targeted to working families
Declaring that the �right kind of tax cuts are good for our economy,� Gore today discussed his plan for a $500 billion in tax cuts for working families. Among other things, Gore�s plan would:
Eliminate the marriage penalty for working families.
Make health care more affordable [via] a 25% tax credit for premium costs for each employee of a small business that decides to join a purchasing coalition.
Help families care for children and loved ones [via] making the existing child care tax credit refundable; a new refundable After-School Tax Credit; and a $3,000 tax credit for long-term care.
Help families save for college and job training tax free [via] tax deductions for up to $10,000 in college tuition costs.
Create 401 (j) accounts to allow families and employers to put money away to save for education and training tax-free.
Source: Press Release, �Working Families� Jun 15, 2000

Help caregivers with tax reform, nursing home alternatives
Gore called for giving families with long-term care needs and their caregivers a $3,000 tax credit and reforms making it easier for Medicaid to cover care at home and in community settings in addition to nursing homes. The total cost of Gore�s new National Caregiving and Family Support Initiative is nearly $30 billion over ten years. Gore would:
Provide caregivers with support services, information, and respite. Under Gore�s plan, states would expand the availability of adult day care, respite care and home care services. At least 80% of Gore�s Initiative would be set aside for adult day care, home care coordination and other respite services.
Make tax credit available to Americans with long-term care needs -- and friends and family who care for them.
Make it easier to provide care at home, in the community.
Source: Press Release, �National Caregiving Initiative� Jun 7, 2000

$250B over 10 years in targeted tax cuts
Gore has proposed allocating $250 billion to $300 billion to tax cuts over the next decade for specific goals. In particular, he supports expanded tax incentives for education and retirement savings, a reduction in the marriage penalty for low- and middle-income couples, and a permanent extension of the tax credit for corporate research and development.
Source: New York Times, p. 22 Feb 27, 2000

Save Social Security, Medicare, and address debt before cuts
Q: Why won�t the candidates just keep the tax rates the same & pay off the national debt?
A: I think this risky tax scheme is reckless & would be very harmful to our country, because what we need to do instead is to use the surplus to safeguard Social Security first and foremost. Secondly we need to put money from the surplus into the Medicare program to strengthen it before the retirement of the baby boom generation. Then we need to pay down the national debt because that keeps interest rates low.
Source: Democrat debate in Harlem, NYC Feb 21, 2000

Rules out tax increase in good economic times
On the appropriate time for a major tax cut: My [proposed cuts] are relatively modest, between $200 billion and $350 billion [over 10 years]. I don�t rule out [a larger cut] in [a slowdown]. It depends on the circumstances. But I rule out a tax increase, barring some dramatic change in our economic circumstances.
Source: Interview in Business Week, p. 42-43 Dec 20, 1999

Eliminate estate taxes for the little guy, not the wealthy
Gore�s plan could eliminate estate taxes for more than 90% of family farms and more than 70% of small businesses. �Some on Capitol Hill believe we should completely repeal the estate tax and give a massive tax break to the wealthiest Americans Under their plan, fully half the benefits go to less than 3,000 families.� Gore�s plan would raise the tax exemption from $2.6 million to $5 million for each family.
Source: Press Release, �Estate Tax Relief for Working Families� Jun 21, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al Gore on Critique of Bush tax plan
Bush�s tax plan is class warfare on behalf of billionaires
Gore said Bush�s proposed elimination of the estate tax would give $25 billion to the wealthiest 3,000 families in America. �What he is really saying is a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest few. It is in fact a form of class warfare on behalf of billionaires,� Gore says.
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, NY Times Nov 1, 2000

Impossibly large tax cut will yield big debt and recession
I have to assume that my opponent�s tax plan was designed in some kind of supply-side vacuum. Because, no matter how you add it up, it means a return to massive deficits. According to the American Academy of Actuaries, his plans make paying down the debt - and I quote - �impossible.� I will not let us be dragged back into a cycle of big tax giveaways to the wealthy, big deficits, big debt and repeat recessions.
That wouldn�t just be bad for our budget and our economy, it would be potentially devastating for America�s families and American business. That huge tax cut would mean higher interest rates, which would make it harder to buy a home and which would choke off borrowing and investment in the private sector. And that, in turn, would mean lower productivity and lower levels of economic growth. Our people have worked too hard and achieved too much to waste it on the wrong kind of tax cut that puts the economy at risk.

Source: Remarks at Portland (OR) Community College Oct 31, 2000

We both target our tax cuts: Bush targets the rich
My opponent likes to criticize my tax cuts for being targeted. So let�s be clear on this. Both of us have proposed targeted tax cuts.
The difference is, the Bush plan targets the benefits primarily to the top 1% - families who make, on average, $1 million a year. My tax cut targets the benefits to middle-class families. Senator McCain said it best when he raised concerns about then governor�s plan during the primaries: �I don�t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut, but I think you and your parents do.

Source: Remarks at Portland (OR) Community College Oct 31, 2000

Comparison of wealthy tax cut to middle class exaggerated
Gore used the audience to illustrate his argument that Bush�s tax plan favors the rich. If all 130 audience members were middle class, he said, their combined tax cuts under the Bush plan would be less than the cut enjoyed by �just one member� of the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers.
Gore�s assertion was misleading, if not wrong. Using an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, the average annual tax cut for members of the top 1% under the Bush plan would be $46,072. Gore relied on a definition of middle-class at the low end of the spectrum - a range of $24,400 to $39,300 per household, with an average of $31,000. The average tax cut for that group would be $453 under the Bush plan, CTJ said. Multiplied times 130, the total is $58,890 - $12,818 more than the average tax cut for the top 1%. The vice president�s example would have worked only if there were no more than 101 people in the audience. Campaign aides said Gore had in mind comparing to someone making $1 million a year.

Source: NY Times analysis of St. Louis debate Oct 19, 2000

Single wealthy person�s tax cut equal to roomful of people
BUSH [to Gore]: Under my plan, the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today; afterwards, they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.
GORE: Look, this isn�t about Gov. Bush, it�s not about me. It is about you. If everyone here in this audience [of several hundred] was in the middle of the middle class, then the tax cuts for every single one of you, all added up, would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top, wealthiest 1%. Now, you judge for yourselves whether or not that�s fair.

BUSH: Fifty million Americans get no tax relief under his plan.

GORE: That�s not right.

BUSH: And you may not be one of them; you�re just not one of the right people.

GORE: That 50 million figure, the journalists are the keepers of the scorecard and whether or not you�re using facts that aren�t right. And that fact is just not right.

Source: (X-ref Bush) St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000

Claim that Bush benefits �top 1%� only true with estate tax
GORE: Bush would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending he proposes for [social programs plus defense].
ANALYSIS: Gore uses a report by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy organization whose mission includes �requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.� CTJ says that 42.6% ($546B) of Bush�s tax cut would go to the top 1% income group, those who earn at least $319,000 annually. CTJ INCLUDES repeal of the estate tax, which they say will help the top 1% almost exclusively.

Gore has applied CTJ�s figure of 42.6% to the $1.3 trillion value that Bush gives his tax cut, and comes up with $546 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%. And he contrasts that with the roughly $475 billion in Bush�s spending initiatives. But if the estate tax is REMOVED from the equation, Bush�s tax cut falls to $1.06 trillion and CTJ says 30% of it goes to the wealthiest 1%. That totals $318 billion, about $157 billion less than Bush�s new spending initiatives.

Source: Presidential Debate, Boston Globe, �Number Crunch�, p. A15 Oct 11, 2000

Yes, it�s your money-but it�s your programs too
�The other side has placed its top priority on taking virtually all of this projected surplus and giving it all in the form of a giant tax cut, mainly to the wealthy,� Gore said. �And their theory is that�s going to be good for the country, and they say it�s your money. Well, it is your money. But it�s your Medicare, it�s your Social Security, it�s your environment, it�s your school system, it�s your country.�
Source: Kevin Sack & James Dao, NY Times Aug 31, 2000

Too large a tax cut would wreck economy & military readiness
Gore said that Bush�s tax cut would plunge the country into deficits, and added that it would �wreck our good economy and make it impossible to modernize our armed forces and keep them ready for battle.�
Bush defended his tax-cut proposal. I�m not changing my opinion on it. It�s the absolute right thing to do for America. Bush�s plan would reduce federal tax rates across the income spectrum, lowering the highest rate to 33% from 39.6% and the lowest rate to 10% from 15%.

Source: Frank Bruni, NY Times Aug 23, 2000

Bush�s tax cut gives average family only 62 cents
I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and wreck our good economy in the process. Under the tax plan the other side has proposed, for every ten dollars that goes to the wealthiest one percent, middle class families would get one dime. And lower-income families would get one penny.
In fact, if you add it up, the average family would get about enough money to buy one extra Diet Coke a day. About 62 cents in change. Let me tell you: that�s not the kind of change I�m working for.

I�ll fight for tax cuts that go to the right people - to the working families who have the toughest time paying taxes and saving for the future. I�ll fight for a new, tax-free way to help you save and build a bigger nest egg for your retirement. I�m talking about something extra that you can save and invest for yourself. Something that will supplement Social Security, not be subtracted from it.

Source: Speech to the Democratic National Convention Aug 18, 2000

Bush�s tax plan is �economic snake oil�
Al Gore today ridiculed Bush for proposing an economic plan laced with �economic snake oil,� a plan with a tax cut that Mr. Gore said was so reckless even the Republicans in Congress had better sense than consider it. �Governor Bush�s tax scheme is so risky, so reckless, that just yesterday the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, given an opportunity to vote for it, turned it down, turned the other way, said we don�t want to even cast a vote on that thing,� Gore said.
Source: Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times Mar 17, 2000

$792B tax cut is a �risky tax scheme�
In virtually every public appearance, Gore ominously utters the words �risky tax scheme.� He has been chanting that mantra since 1996; in his debate with Jack Kemp, he chanted it eight times. Then, it was a put-down of Bob Dole�s proposed 15% tax cut; now it�s a put-down of the tax cuts pending in Congress.
Source: Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe editorial, p. A15 Aug 30, 1999

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

WASHINGTON, DC -- Al Gore uttered, well, an "Al Goreism" when he claimed to support smaller government, says the party that exemplifies smaller government.

"Al Gore saying he supports smaller government is like Bill Clinton saying he supports celibacy. It's a nice theory, but it's not going to happen," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director.

"No matter how you measure it -- total cost, number of employees, or number of regulations -- Al Gore has helped make the federal government bigger. And he will make it even bigger if he is elected president. For that matter, so will George W. Bush. The only question for both of them is how big and how costly."

In a campaign speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, Gore said allegations that he favors "big government" are false.

"I'm opposed to big government," said Gore. "I'm for a smaller, smarter government."

Gore claimed that as vice president, he helped reduce the federal workforce by 300,000 employees (to only 1.8 million). He also promised that, if elected president, the "number of people doing work for the federal government" would not grow.

But Gore's claims don't pass the "Thomas Jefferson Test," said Dasbach.

"A genuinely smaller government -- as envisioned by the Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson -- would cost less, employ fewer people, and regulate our lives less," he said. "By almost every measurable standard, Al Gore consistently works to make the government bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive." For example:

* Gore has helped increase the number of government workers.

"Gore's claim that he reduced the federal workforce is only true if you count just salaried employees -- and ignore contract workers, people employed by federal grants, and state and local government employees fulfilling federal mandates," said Dasbach

According to the Brookings Institution's book, The True Size of
Government, the federal government now employs (directly or indirectly) 16.9 million workers -- a number that rose steadily through the 1990s. That includes 2.4 million grant-created jobs, 5.6 million contract-created jobs, and 4.7 million mandate-created jobs.

In fact, according to Brookings, 90,000 non-Defense Department, non-Energy Department federal jobs were added during the Clinton/Gore administration -- while a whopping 240,000 such jobs were added during the previous Republican administration.

* Gore wants to further increase the cost of the federal government.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Gore has proposed $2.7 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade. And George W. Bush has proposed at least $760 billion in new spending.

"Both Gore and Bush want to dramatically increase the cost of government," noted Dasbach. "Gore is currently ahead in the I-Want-To-Spend-More-Of-Your-Money sweepstakes, but there's no reason to believe that Bush, backed up by a budget-busting Republican Congress, wouldn't catch up fast, were he elected."

* Gore has helped increase the number of federal regulations.

During the Clinton/Gore administration, 14,167 new federal regulations were implemented between 1997 and 2000, according to Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute. And there are at least 137 new Clinton/Gore regulations currently moving through the pipeline that will cost at least $100 million each.

In all, federal regulations now cost Americans $758 billion a year, according to Thomas Hopkins of the Rochester Institute of Technology -- a price tag equivalent to about 45% of the federal budget.

If you look at Al Gore's record and promises, a clear pattern emerges, said Dasbach.

"Al Gore and big government go together like, well, Al Gore and lying," he said. "Gore supports more big-government workers, more big-government spending, and more big-government regulations. In short, he supports big government. And that's true no matter what your definition of 'big' is."

However, Americans who want a genuinely smaller government need look no further than Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, said Dasbach.

"A vote for Harry Browne is the only vote you can cast for a government that is clearly, measurably, and unequivocally smaller," he said. "A vote for Harry Browne is a vote to end the income tax, to completely privatize retirement accounts, and to end the insane War on Drugs.

"That's because with Libertarians, smaller government really means smaller government. But with Al Gore, smaller government is simply his big-government Lie Of The Day."

Then why do nearly 100% of economists support George W Bush?? Good luck explaining that one.

$792B tax cut is a �risky tax scheme�
In virtually every public appearance, Gore ominously utters the words �risky tax scheme.� He has been chanting that mantra since 1996; in his debate with Jack Kemp, he chanted it eight times. Then, it was a put-down of Bob Dole�s proposed 15% tax cut; now it�s a put-down of the tax cuts pending in Congress.
Source: Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe editorial, p. A15 Aug 30, 1999

Don't you get it? Gore supports higher taxes. How come every tax cut proposed is a "risky tax scheme"?

Bush�s tax cut gives average family only 62 cents
I will not go along with a huge tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else and wreck our good economy in the process. Under the tax plan the other side has proposed, for every ten dollars that goes to the wealthiest one percent, middle class families would get one dime. And lower-income families would get one penny.
In fact, if you add it up, the average family would get about enough money to buy one extra Diet Coke a day. About 62 cents in change. Let me tell you: that�s not the kind of change I�m working for.

This is an out and out lie. It saves the average family $1,500. This is a widely known fact. I have posted this in many other threads where I made fun of Al Gore and his countless lies. You must not have read those posts...

I�ll fight for tax cuts that go to the right people - to the working families who have the toughest time paying taxes and saving for the future. I�ll fight for a new, tax-free way to help you save and build a bigger nest egg for your retirement. I�m talking about something extra that you can save and invest for yourself. Something that will supplement Social Security, not be subtracted from it.

Who are the "right people"? The ones that sit on their ass collecting freebies all day? Social security IS a pyramid scheme. It is stealing from one to give to another. You are proud to support a candidate that support this ridiculous Lockbox crap where the person CAN'T EVEN INVEST THEIR OWN MONEY?? SORRY BUT 2% INTEREST DOESN'T CUT IT.

2. Al Gore's book, 'Earth in the Balance', demonstrates the depth of his knowledge and commitment to environmental issues and, in particular, an understanding of the underlying causes and cures for global warming, which is not only a national but an international issue.

Scientists have yet to come to any real conclusion on global warming. Speculation is a word you can use to describe his work, also.

�The other side has placed its top priority on taking virtually all of this projected surplus and giving it all in the form of a giant tax cut, mainly to the wealthy,� Gore said.

Yet another lie. After Bush's tax cut plan the wealthiest 1% pay 64% of the taxes. Right now they pay 62%.

Comparison of wealthy tax cut to middle class exaggerated
Gore used the audience to illustrate his argument that Bush�s tax plan favors the rich. If all 130 audience members were middle class, he said, their combined tax cuts under the Bush plan would be less than the cut enjoyed by �just one member� of the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers.
Gore�s assertion was misleading, if not wrong. Using an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, the average annual tax cut for members of the top 1% under the Bush plan would be $46,072. Gore relied on a definition of middle-class at the low end of the spectrum - a range of $24,400 to $39,300 per household, with an average of $31,000. The average tax cut for that group would be $453 under the Bush plan, CTJ said. Multiplied times 130, the total is $58,890 - $12,818 more than the average tax cut for the top 1%. The vice president�s example would have worked only if there were no more than 101 people in the audience. Campaign aides said Gore had in mind comparing to someone making $1 million a year.

HAHAHA. Did you even read your own post?? This is not from me, but from you. Your own post bashes Al Gore.

Claim that every family is eligible for tax cut is unlikely
GORE: �Every middle class family is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal.�
ANALYSIS: This statement is only true if every middle class family has children in day care or in college.

An accounting firm assessed how Gore�s proposals would affect hypothetical families, and their report found that the following would receive no tax breaks:
Single person with no children earning $39,000
Retired couple earning $59,000
Single earner couple with two children earning $78,000

Your own post bashes Al Gore again...

Gore has proposed about 30 targeted tax cuts, generally in four areas: retirement savings, health care, education and the environment.

Can you say Socialism?

The other $800 billion of Bush�s tax cut, including repeal of the estate tax, would mostly go to people in the wealthiest tax brackets. Gore offers virtually nothing for taxpayers making that much money.

Can you say Socialism?

Save Social Security, Medicare, and address debt before cuts
Q: Why won�t the candidates just keep the tax rates the same & pay off the national debt?
A: I think this risky tax scheme is reckless & would be very harmful to our country, because what we need to do instead is to use the surplus to safeguard Social Security first and foremost. Secondly we need to put money from the surplus into the Medicare program to strengthen it before the retirement of the baby boom generation. Then we need to pay down the national debt because that keeps interest rates low.
Source: Democrat debate in Harlem, NYC Feb 21, 2000

All these programs need to be abolished...

Help caregivers with tax reform, nursing home alternatives
Gore called for giving families with long-term care needs and their caregivers a $3,000 tax credit and reforms making it easier for Medicaid to cover care at home and in community settings in addition to nursing homes. The total cost of Gore�s new National Caregiving and Family Support Initiative is nearly $30 billion over ten years. Gore would:
Provide caregivers with support services, information, and respite. Under Gore�s plan, states would expand the availability of adult day care, respite care and home care services. At least 80% of Gore�s Initiative would be set aside for adult day care, home care coordination and other respite services.
Make tax credit available to Americans with long-term care needs -- and friends and family who care for them.
Make it easier to provide care at home, in the community.

Giveaways to the elderly...

BTW, almost all of your sources came from Democratic strongholds where nearly 100% vote Democrat. You call that objective?

This comes from the LP homepage, they are neutral to the 2 major parties. They are anti-Bush, and anti-Gore both.

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

from the book, "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America". All of these claims are well sourced.

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

About the only economic experts who still believe in increasing minimum wage are those who work for the Clinton administration. David Card and Alan Krueger, both of Princeton, authored a study "proving" that minimum wage hikes do not hurt employment....

But, when other researchers tried to duplicate the results, they could not. Turns out that those working for Card and Kruger simply picked up the telephone and asked employers whether they intended to increase, decrease, or keep employment flat. Researchers seeking to duplicate the results of Card and Krueger went one step further. They requested payroll cards in order to verify employment.

When researchers requested payroll cards, the non[effect of hiking minimum wage completely dissapeared. in fact, both Pennsylvania and New jersey suffered a decrease in employment folling their minimum wage hike.

In 1981, the federal Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that a 10% increase in minimum wage reduces teen employment by 1-3%. Other studies by top economists confirmed these results. Nobel laureate economist Gary becker, after reviewing the Card-Krueger study concluded that "the Card-Krueger studies are flawed and cannot justify goin against the accumulated evidence from many past and present studies that find sizable negative effects of higher minimums on employment."

Still, Clinton allies use the Card-Krueger study to promote increases in minimum wage, and the media routinely cites the study's results without mentioning other academicians' opposition.

Again, as mentioned, nearly 90% of economic experts polled believe minimum wage undermines employment. Suppose 90% of cardiovascular surgeons beleived triple bypass operations to be unnecessary. The nightly news leads with that story. But, when economists, nearly unanimously, oppose minimum wage, big deal.

Republicans are more quick to point fingers &
let their emotions take over than Democrats from what I've seen.

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

Damn Steel your one typing MOFO!

He copied and pasted...

Republicans are more quick to point fingers &
let their emotions take over than Democrats from what I've seen.

Show me some evidence, it is exactly the opposite. Take a look at steel's post and my thorough rebuttal, and tell me who is winning..

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

And like I said, want to show me any evidence that a socialist system works better than a Libertarian system? Bring it on, or STFU.

Another thing to add, want to see Democrats using emotion? My evidence is in the thread "Gore got 93% of the black vote". Check it out, I called out those that used emotion pretty well.

[This message has been edited by Snoopdog (edited November 12, 2000).]

weapon x-REGISTERD SEPT.2000-POSTS-1141

I will readily admit I have no life right now. It's a long-ass story so I won't get started. Right now all I do is eat, workout, sleep, and sit in front of the computer. But don't think I'm a computer nerd or something. I'm 5'10" 187 @ approx 10%. I'm on a huge cycle right now, will prob approach 210 by the end of it.

The reason I got angry at you was because I just had this feeling you weren't looking at the issue with an open mind. The Libertarian position would affect my life greatly if it came to pass, and make things soooo much easier for me. That's why I take this so seriously.

I would like to party more, but to be honest, I've learned too much to just recklessly go about "fucking & partying". If that is all you knew at the time, I understand, but I've just learned too much at this point. This summer I hope I can show off my body, gonna be on the juice about 3/4 of the time till then. Anyway, don't take anything I say personally. I get mad like everyone else.

REALLY IM JUST FUCKING BORED TODAY..

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

Here's some knowledge that isn't "cut and paste":

If you're in the top tax bracket, Bush has pledged to reduce taxes from 39.6% to 33%. I'll take it. I have heaqrd no such pledge from Gore.

A little tax history: As recently as 25 years ago, top tax brackets were up to 70%. But there were many many deductions to circumvent this. During the Reagan presidency the rates were lowered all the way to the high 20%'s, but many of the deductions were taken away. There were still numerous deductions for owning property and employing people.

George HW Bush pledged "no new taxes" but he raised them a little anyway. In his defense, we prepared for and fought a war during his Presidency. Although the war was only 100 hours, the preparation was months.

Preparing to fight an armored conflict is not cheap. During peacetime, it is not uncommon for a few tanks or Bradley vehicles to be "deadlined" or not quite ready for mission. This is supposed to be fixed ASAP, but spare parts can be a little hard to come by. During a mobilization, spare parts are everywhere, because the money is allocated for the impending war. And then there is the considerable expense of moving all the equipment aroud the world.

So yes, Bush put taxes back over the 30% level, to about 33%. But I'll give him a pass because of the war. Hard to predict.

Clinton's administration brought taxes to their current level. He raised taxes mnore than either Reagan or Bush. But the real bitch of it is that most deductions that existed have been removed. There are far fewer deductions for owning a company or properties.

It is a fully logical conclusion that Gore will not lower taxes at all.

Another thing that bothers me about Gore is his claim that "we are the best trained and equipped military in the world".

The man has no understanding of military readiness. First, all conventional Army units are short staffed, some by as much as 40%.

More importantly, and more troubling, General John Coburn, chief of Army Maintenace and Operations, just sent a letter to General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, painstakingly detailing the shortcomings predicted for fiscal year 2001. Some of the highlights include: inability to perform required maintenance on Apache, Kiowa Warrior, and Blackhawk helicopters, and the PARTIAL to FULL grounding of the entire Chinook fleet. There is also no funding for upgraded suits to decrease risk of injury from landmines, and a severe lack of funding to continue any automation of battelfield systems. In other words, no new communication equipment.

Gore is without a doubt out of touch with our fighting men and women. During the Clinton administration, the Army decreased in size 40% but deployments went up 300%. I can tell you morale is low. Bush may not be General Patton, but he's got a Sec. of Defense for his running mate, and stays in touch with Gen. Powell.

Anyone who gies a rat's ass about our military cannot cast an informed vote for Gore.

------------------
Big-Al
Train hard or go home!

I know you have a response for me. Tell me something good about Gore and the military, especially since you were thinking of joining.

Tell me something good about Gore's tax plan, in light of the last 20 years.

Remember, don't bash Bush, just support your guy.