Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

phillup (4419)

  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of phillup (4419)

Wednesday February 09, 2005
05:49 PM

Bush Lies

[ #23112 ]

This morning I read an article in the (somewhat) local paper that had the words "Bush Lying" in the heading. That isn't news to me, but it was certainly out of character for the newspaper. The newspaper has an online site, but it seems pretty lame to me. So, this link may or may not show you the synopsis of the article.

While looking for a linkable version, I stumbled across an interesting site that had a quote I can identify with.

Other Bush backers claim that some of his lies are "technically correct" or "tailored to fit the audience," or some such circumlocution. What they're talking about are lies of omission rather than lies of commission. In lies of omission it's what they imply, not what they say. For example, the other evening Bush told Congress and the American people that he was putting a "lock box" on Social Security. Now, it's very clear that Bush wanted us to feel secure in the belief that he was protecting all of our Social Security funds for the future. No question, right? Yet, the very next day when his budget book was released, we learned that Bush told a lie of omission. What he didn't tell Congress and the American people is that he would later take from $.6 to $1 trillion out of that "lock box" to cover his tax cuts. No doubt, Bush lied. He wanted folks to believe something that he knew was not true. Of course, politicians do this all the time. It's second nature. In sum, the thing that really bothers us about Bush's lies is that he is also a hypocrite and pretends he's above lying. As a liar, he reinforces our assumptions about politicians. As a hypocrite, he reinforces our assumptions about his character.

I also think that the quote is somewhat pertinent since it is a "blast from the past" about statements Bush has made regarding Social Security.

Meanwhile we see this little snippet:

The first clue to the truth lies in a measure of the federal deficit this crowd adores obscuring but is forced by law to disclose. It's found only in a large table buried in the budget documents and estimates the government's operating red ink -- the amount by which spending exceeds revenue from income taxes and other fees. Last year it was far above the deficit figure that that typically makes its way into headlines -- $567 billion, compared with the "official" figure of $412 billion.
The difference is almost entirely accounted for by the large surplus in Social Security payroll taxes over benefit spending that the government "borrows" to make the books look less ridiculous.

Which is the first time I've ever seen the link between deficit spending and Social Security even hinted at.

At the end of the day, all money comes from the general fund. There is no "lock box" holding a separate pile of cash for Social Security.

Yet, GWB says that Social Security will be bankrupt. He omits to tell us that this can't really happen without the government itself being bankrupt.

GWB tells us that he will reduce the deficit by half by some future date with his budget. He omits to tell us that the budget does not include the cost of his proposed SS reforms or the current wars. Or, that with those included he can't possibly meet that goal.

He also omits telling the people that this assumes congress does not pass another tax cut, to include making the current temporary tax cuts permanent. One of his "mandate" items.


Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a version of the article I read in the paper "in the wild".

The article talks about how the Bush numbers assume a growth rate of 1.8 percent, when the economy has never, ever performed so poorly during any 15 year period.

Even during the depression it grew at two percent.

One of the things that stood out to me in the article was this snippet:

The administration is projecting a 6 percent growth in the stock market for the investment accounts. But the market is linked with the economy -- so if the economy truly grows at 1.8 percent as the projections say, there's no way for the market to grow at 6 percent.
"It is mathematically impossible to see the return Bush is promising." he said.

("He" is Doug Orr, the economist that charges Bush is lying.)

I'd really like to see the proof of that mathematical impossibility.

UPDATED: speling

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • In protest, you may like to begin omitting one "m" from "ommit"
    • Ick. Thanks.

      I think that I should not write in the little box.

      I should use my editor instead since it has spell check.

      (I hear that on OSX every text box has spell check because of some system feature... but I can't find it. :-( I would expect it to be in the services menu, but do not see it)