Ai Fleischer said that the average tax cut was $2,000 per head, when he was being disingenous knowing full well that the _median_ tax cut was going to be $250 or so
You sure are reaching in your search for "lies", Al.
You do know, don't you, that the bottom 50% of "taxpayers" (it's in quotes because a very large portion of them are not payers at all and many even get a net negative income tax) pay only about 4% of all income taxes? How meaningful is a median number when half the people pay so little taxes to begin with?
BTW, would you have been happier if they had done another "tax rebate" like in '01 and sent a few hundred dollars out to everyone? That's certainly been a popular "solution" in the past as it is especially helpful to the poor (relative to the "rich" for whom a few hundred dollars is little more than a week's worth of gas for their SUVs). GST might even like it because it means almost nothing in terms of future deficits - oops, "stealing from the children." The problem with such a plan is that it really does nothing to stimulate sustainable growth in the economy. But it sure is "fair."
Anyway, the "liar liar pants on fire" routine is getting dull. No one has demonstrated any of the WMD statements to be a lie. Some of the statements may have reflected greater confidence in specific intelligence findings that an objective analysis would warrant, but that's about all one could objectively conclude so far, if even that. The fact that so many people in both major parties here, at the UN, and in other nations were convinced (and not by listening to GWB) that Saddam had WMDs (or at least the agents and the capability to produce them at will in quantity) tells me that Bush and co. were most likely convinced he had them too, which means they were not lying at all. Then you've got the fact that we've actually searched only a small part of the potential hiding places for weapons or production assets, and all the possibilities about what Saddam might have done with weapons and equipment in anticipation of war. If he had either, he's certainly scoring some points against his enemy Bush from our lack of success in finding them. Isn't it feasible that he decided his long-term survival would be better served by shipping them out or destroying them than by using them or having them found?
Sorry, Al, but you've jumped to the conclusion that it was all a big lie, but all we have so far is questions. Reasonable questions, I'll grant you, but questions nonetheless. You seem overly eager to condemn Bush based on your personal dislike for him and can't be bothered to wait and objectively weigh the evidence. Pardon me for having an issue with that. |
