FactCheck.org is back to their old tricks

[Cocoa]

This is classic FactCheck.org technique, they attempt to impose a phony "balance" on a debate where the republicans are clearly the ones doing the misleading.

Here they claim there are only "minor factual problems" in the SS debate -- ignoring Bush UTTER LIE that SS will be "bankrupt".

They give a thumbs-up to a pro-privitization ad.

Then, not being able to find anything wrong with the FACTS in AARP's anti-privitization ad, they resort to criticizing a PICTURE.

Classic FactCheck.org.



http://www.factcheck.org/article301.html

<snip>

A pro-Bush TV ad gets the central fact right about Social Security: by the time today's young workers retire there are projected to be only two workers paying Social Security taxes for every one person receiving Social Security Benefits. Today there are 3.3 workers per beneficiary.

But a different ad opposed to Bush's efforts uses a misleading photograph. It shows wild trading in commodities like cocoa futures to depict the risk that workers could face with private Social Security accounts. Actually, what's being proposed is not investment commodities, but in far less risky stock and bond mutual funds, which would be broadly diversified.

more...

[Hugin]

1. After Cheney mentioned them in the debate they were discredited to me. n/t

[hfojvt]

2. funny how a "projection" becomes a "central fact"

And I always said about a Bush lie, that it is not so much that what they say is untrue, but that they ignore huge facts which would contradict what they are saying. He is like a used car salesman who goes on and on about the new tires and the paint job. The car does have new tires and a good paint job, but the salesman is trying to distract you from the fact that THE TRANSMISSION IS SHOT. That is where the lie is, in what is deliberately left out.
Bush tells the truth, when SS started the ratio was 16 to 1, now it is 3.3 to 1 and it is expected to be 2 to 1. However, the key is that today, at 3.3 to 1 the system is running a sizeable surplus, so going to 2 to 1 in the future is not the iceberg they are trying to make it look like. It is more like an ice cube that they are magnifying 1000 times.