Great Article about Republican "Propaganda" techniques

1.) I did a google news search on
bush admits (fault, mistake)
and found zero references to that which you refer. I tried several variations. Do you have a link? The Republicans will not have their standard bearer admit he made a mistake.

2.) What you desire as an outcome and what the Bushies *promise* are two different things. By stating what you wish as the result and getting it does not make the promise for something else true. You may not have noticed this, but the general consensus on the right has moved to *taxing* the poor and lowering taxes on the rich. You read that right.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/


On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax credit.

chatterbox Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.


Meme Watch: A Unified Theory of Bush Lies?
Why did Bush's tax cut exclude so many low-income families?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, June 2, 2003, at 2:15 PM PT


On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."

That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax credit.


Continue Article

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



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


A Republican spokesperson for the House Ways and Means Committee told the New York Times that the benefit had not been extended to these low- and middle-income families because $30 billion in tax cuts had to be taken out of the bill to suit Sen. George Voinovich, a Republican deficit hawk.

That was obviously not true. As the Times reported, extending the benefit would have cost a mere $3.5 billion. It could have been put back in had Congress been willing to lower the top income tax rate to 35.3 percent rather than 35 percent, according to the CBPP. Or, if that had been too controversial, $3.5 billion in tax shelters could have been shut down.

Asked about the exclusion of the child-care credit for low- and middle-income families, White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer reaffirmed that all taxpayers would receive tax cuts, because the people affected by the exclusion weren't taxpayers. They were folks who received public assistance via the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program to help the working poor, who would merely have to settle for a little less cash than they would have received had there been no exclusion. But any low-income folks who earned enough to pay taxes would henceforth pay less.

That turned out not to be true. Researchers at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found 8.1 million tax filers would receive no tax cuts.

Fleischer had specifically stated, "People in the 10 percent bracket, they benefit the most from" the Bush tax cut.

That turned out not to be true. Crunching the Tax Policy Center numbers, CBPP found that 89 percent of all single taxpayers (as opposed to "head of household" taxpayers) in the 10 percent bracket would receive no tax relief. It said some "head of household" taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket were left out, too.

When people give many different explanations about why they did something, and all of them turn out not to be true, chances are they don't want to talk about the real explanation. Why did the Bush administration allow Congress to take tax breaks away from the poor? A possible hint can be found in this remark by Fleischer:

[F]or people who have had their entire income tax burden forgiven, I think they're very appreciative of the fact that they pay no income taxes in America and still benefit from a national defense, which is paid from income taxes; they still benefit from school programs that are paid at the federal level income taxes. They still benefit from a host of programs that income taxes help them in their daily lives; yet they pay zero income taxes. In fact, they get back money from the Treasury which is in the form of public assistance, above and beyond income taxes.

Chatterbox detects a note of pique here, as if Fleischer, in saying these subsidized free riders were "very appreciative" of their status, really meant to say that they damn well ought to be "very appreciative." Whence this resentment of housekeepers and janitors? Perhaps from the conviction that poor people ought to pay more in taxes, or at least ought to receive less from the Earned Income Tax Credit, because otherwise they will never learn to appreciate that the government services they crave cost money. Perhaps what Fleischer and others in the Bush administration long to say, and yet can't, is that taxing the poor, far from being a regrettable byproduct of lowering taxes on the rich, is a good in and of itself.

As Chatterbox has noted previously, this tax-the-poor meme has acquired some respectability inside the conservative think tanks and on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Fox commentator Tony Snow endorsed it on television, and, shockingly, even conservative-but-sensible Newsweek economics columnist Robert Samuelson made a pitch for it. The Bush administration rolled it around on the back of its tongue and then spat it out, no doubt realizing its incompatibility with Bush's now-laughable slogan, "compassionate conservatism." Maybe, though, it's back.


3.) I'm not defending Bill Clinton. It's too bad that's your only defense for a bunch of incompetents and liars.

Time Magazine printed a series of articles two years ago with excruciating detail of who knew what when, which has been backed up with other sourced articles in other news media, and essentially the Bushies blew off the terrorism threat because it Clinton touched it and they wanted to start on their own projects.

 

But see, I mentioned the Clinton bit because you guys lost any right to b**** about lying, even lying that didn't happen, when you gave us excuse after excuse on why Clinton lied and had to lie. You even had one of your own, Dan Rather, call Clinton an honest man. An honest man!

Al Franken did not "exhaustively" catalog any lies, but twisted facts to fit his distorted agenda. Al Franken was a comedian on SNL, but now he is a respected commentator on political issues? Puh-leeze. Your post was full of half-truths and distortions designed to catch Bush in "lies" that he didn't committ.

I don't like the guy either, but I'm not going to sit here and call him a liar when he has done no such thing. If anything, he's been truthful and upfront with his policy agenda, much of which I disagree with and has been detailed in previous posts ad infiniteum. So cease with these constant talking points that you liberals parrot like some dimwitted birds.
1. Bush lies!
2. Bush stole the election!
3. No matter the amount of growth, it is a JOBLESS recovery!
4. Bush only cares about the rich!
5. Bush is a slave to the evil corporations!
6. Bush has alienated the world!
7. Bush is responsible for all of the world's environmental problems!
8. Bush wants to put arsenic in your drinking water, run over your dog with a SUV while driving on a cocaine and alcohol-fueled binge!
All of that is getting old. Can't you people come up with something substantive, rather than ridiculous?

And one last thing about Clinton: he did nothing in his eight years of misrule against terrorism except to blow up an aspirin factory with cruise missiles, refuse to take Osama when the Sudanese handed him over on a silver platter, blow up a bunch of three dollar tents with 250 grand cruise missiles in Afghanistan and made the fundamentalist whackoes think that we were a bunch of p*****s when he yanked our troops out of Somalia with our tails between our legs without accomplishing one damned thing. This whole fabrication that he had a "plan" to deal with the situation, but that the Bushies took a pass on that is so ridiculous that I can't believe that you'd parrot that. Get your head of James Carville's and Paul Begala's ass, quit believing their ass-covering spin and inform yourself.

 

This was about propaganda...did you identify any wild pro Clinton propaganda in that whole missive? No, conversely you identified why Clinton was a liar..by means, of, what else, the same old Republican propaganda. Way to prove your point...which was what now?

Did you read the book? I'm guessing you didn't. How do you know whether or not it is exhaustively catalogued? You are just speculating and talking out of your ass again.

Anyway, there are several hundred annotations in it, which were part of his researched the lies, slander, and garbage that professional loudmouths like Ann Coulter.

Here's an excerpt : Ann Coulter made an allegation in her book "Slander", without checking the facts as to whether or not the allegation was true, and Franken busted her on it, cold:

Maybe your right bama, it wasn't exhaustively catalogued--because the research necessary to prove her right (or wrong) required only modest effort.

Bama, I could go on and on and on about Bush's lies, and the lies of his administration, about the deficit, the war, etc. The doublespeak the administration uses (i.e. Healthy Forests plan, Clear Skies initiative) is a lie in and of itself. But obviously, you have already decided that you are correct no matter what any reasonable interpretation would yield....and you'd rather build up generic straw men to knock down. So you go ahead and do that, c'est la vie.

Oh, and for this

next time you're going to steal a metaphor from a Sean Hannity speech verbatim off of a right wing website, credit the boy.

Anyway, for those of you who haven't made up your mind, here's a more neutral assessment of that claim

http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story123493.html

Plus, don't even start with missed opportunities, lest I bring up the spurned overtures from Syria to the Bush administration to provide info on terrorist networks.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
http://www.cdt.org/policy/terrorism/adm-anti-terror-otl.html (Clinton's Anti-Terror Agenda)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/516805.stm (1999 FBI Re-Organized to fight terrorism)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ (a 1996 story of Clinton pushing anti-terror legislation and the Repubs dragging their feet)
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html
http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/policy.html

I expect a full and complete retraction of your comments that Clinton did "nothing". Could he have done more? Of course, but that is only obvious after the fact. The facts are that Clinton did more to fight terrorism than any President before him. Clinton wanted to do more, but Republican controlled Congress didn't think or act like it was a priority. They (Rep's) thought Clinton was crazy for closing Penn Ave in front of the White House!

This revisionist history you practice is scary.

 

Sam,
Your pathetic response to my point is that I'm wrong, you're right. I guess you think think a book written by a dumbass former comedian who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the wall is legit, just like Michael Moore, who writes similar tomes and twists the facts in a similarly perverse fashion. Bush is not the anti-Christ! Sheesh. Agree or disagree with him if you like, but the man is not the total sleaze you constantly make him out to be. I'm just so glad that it was Bush that won the election and not numbnuts Gore. We would have lobbed some cruise missiles and stopped right there.
I don't even like the man, but I'm just so sick of seeing his name dragged through the mud with these baseless allegations you hurl like so much spittle. So we called Bill a liar, but now you have to simply do the same to us. How childish. I've enjoyed listening to the left whine for four years and look forward to another four years of your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

link

Bush did not lie on the reasons for going to war:
link

 

Why is it wrong for President A to lie and justify it with technicalities, but it's OK for President B to lie and justify it with technicalities?

 

When Bush lies, people die.

 

Bama, you may need to re-read the last few pages.

I've made it overwhelmingly clear that my problems with GWB are with his politics, not his personality. Call it a lie, call it whatever you want, but when the President prdicts that we'll halve the deficit, and that Saddam has WMDs and that the reconstruction of Iraq will pay for itself, and those things turn out not to be true, and when he had information at the time that would tend to indicate such.....then I am not going to trust his future predictions. And nor should you.

But your way of defending against t his is to declaim what a scumbag Clinton is? something just doesn't make sense.

 

You should really consider reading the book if you are going to trash it as tripe. As Sam mentioned, Franken exhaustively cites his sources and uses the truth, as opposed to writers like Ann Coulter (whose books I read so that I would KNOW how full of **** she was) who takes quotes out of context, twists facts to support her craziness, and even resorts to making up information.

You are proving yourself to be one of the people who has been snowed by the very same propaganda we are discussing in this thread.

 

Do you support the Democratic Deficit Relief program or are you against this agenda?

Do you support the Conservative Deficit Development or do you support Democratic Deficit Relief?

Too easy.

I'm sure most of us have noticed this game for years. How could the Dems not be doing a better job of using their 'language' to drive home liberal ideas?

J. Biden is the best at avoiding the language trap, i've watched him many times skillfully dance around laced questions to get his point across.

 

The fact that Al Franken is comic writer doesn't delete the fact ath his book is very well researched, and he had a team of people researching every claim he makes in his book. He points out in the book that he went to a lot of effort to do that research so that, unlike, people like O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity etc. his book would have accurate information.

Trust me if Franken's book was not factual O'Reilly would have found a way to sue him. I can't believe that when I watch O'Reilly he's still seething over that book. Anyway if you would care to research Franken's books and find errors in it then you are more than welcome to try, but if you don't read the book, and don't do the research but still try and claim that the writer doesn't know anything, your arguments will fall flat.

 

1. Bush had intel that Iraq was not a threat that they either no WMD's or very little, and the intel wasn't just about nukes. It was also about Chem weapons. I've posted that information in two threads already. It's documented that various agencies including the Air Force, and State Department sent intel contrary to that cited by Bush as a reason for going to this war. The fact is that Bush ignored the intel he didn't want to hear.

Secondly Clinton was also wrong in believing that after '98 and his target destruction of WMD supplies that they still existed. The difference is that contrary to what you claim, Clinton didn't plan an invasion and carry it out contrary to the United Nations which is the only body that had any resolutions regarding Iraq being broken.

Clinton did commit perjury and deserved punishment for that. Clinton did not take illegal campaign contributions. The person who dug up the dirt on those going after Clinton was Larry Flynt who's not a minion of Clinton.

But Bush appointed someone to his whitehouse that committed a felony by exposing the identity of an undercover agent. Furthermore this person did it while we are currently engaged in a war on terror and have troops in the field. Then Bush has done zero real investigation to find out who this felon is. There are only about a dozen people who have the security clearance to do this crime. It shouldn't be that hard to find which one is guilty.

Unlike half the stuff you complain about Clinton this is actually real and actaully could affect people's lives and the security of our nation.

 

re: poor people don't pay taxes - the easy explanation for those who can't do math or logic.
On my W-2, the first 90000 or so of my income is automagically taxed for Social Security and Medicare. We are using those funds to pay for the tax cuts for the rich. In a nutshell people who make less than the Social Security max tax income are funding the tax cuts.

These are the people the Wall Street Journal derisively called, the "lucky duckies".

 

Haven't these so called Nobel prize winners heard of 9/11?

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science


Wired News Report Page 1 of 1

01:33 PM Feb. 18, 2004 PT

The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

The scientists listed various policy issues as being unfairly influenced by the administration, including climate change, mercury emissions, reproductive health, lead poisoning in children, workplace safety and nuclear weapons. New regulations and laws are necessary to fix the situation, the statement says.

"The United States has an impressive history of investing in the capabilities of scientists and respecting their independence. This legacy has brought us sustained economic progress, science-based public health policy, and unequaled scientific leadership within the global community," the statement said. "The Bush administration's misuse of science threatens to undermine this legacy."

The researchers also took issue with a White House Office of Management and Budget bulletin regarding peer review, a process fundamental to science by which researchers check each other's work for accuracy and balance before it's published. The bulletin (PDF), drafted in August 2003, would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say.

The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer-reviewed by unbiased researchers. But opponents say the bulletin's guidelines would scrutinize only academic researchers for bias, not industry scientists.

 

Hmmm, policies and personal wishes are somehow worth trying to change science?

This is ludicrous, and this man is in charge. Is that really the kind of leadership we want?