"gabriel" wrote in message rvers.com...
Noel Hegan wrote:

This was on the front page of my newspaper today as a "introduction"
to the Bush state of the nation speech. From an American point of view
how does it read? Is it a true representation of the Bush
administration and the US economy?

You can use statistics to prove anything. You can omit certain numbers,
include an extreme number and leave out certain information.

For example, the comparison on how many American soldier deaths after the
Iraq war vs after WWII: Well the author leaves out all the context, and
leaves out the fact that the world is not the same. The article is aimed
at fooling people unaware of the fallacies of using statistics this way.

For what it's worth, I think bush (yes, lowercase) is a blithering fool,
manipulated by the extremists in his cabinet, and utterly incapable of
leading the country towards betterment (i.e., our social security system
is mathematically proven to be headed towards disaster, but bush just
gave the rich an unnecessary tax cut instead of fixing the system).


Here we go with the class warfare balony again. Just who are those damned rich? How much money do they need anyhow? Maybe we
should set the national wage to $100,000.00 then tax/refund what ever is necessary to arrive at that figure. How long do you think
that the rich will continue to invest in the economy? This is why communism is doomed to failure, and has, in fact, failed
everywhere it has been tried.

It is amazing that Russia now has Steve Forbes' flat tax and we have the Soviet's progressive tax. At least Putin understands
economy.

Of course, there are people who think differently than I :-)...

--
gabriel