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.
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.
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.
Re:an omission for you
phillup on 2005-02-10T17:01:29
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)
