FactCheck.org is working for Bush on Social Security

[Cocoa]

totally muddying the waters.

http://www.factcheck.org/article303.html

My email to them explains my problem with this article:

Dear FactCheck.org,

The MoveOn ad is factually correct.

You have twisted yourself into a pretzel trying to make the ad "misleading." The ad doesn't in any way say what you interpret it to say, it's not claiming those people are "living today," so it's not misleading.

You have twice now in the last week reduced yourself to criticizing "pictures" when you can't find anything wrong with the FACTS in anti-Bush ads.

You are not picturecheck.org, you are FACTcheck.org.

By the way, are you ever going to get around to checking Bush's FACTS. When I heard him tell me SS is going to be bankrupt, I wasn't interpreting a picture, I heard him say the words.

FactCheck.org should stick to facts, not bogus interpretations of pictures.

[Hugin]

1. I wrote fatchance.org off...

...when Cheney mentioned it during the V.P. Debate.

=)

[Cocoa]

2. their previous art review

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.

[tsuki]

6. Like Enron, WorldCom?

[whistle]

3. This is part of the apologists group ....

....<snip>

MoveOn.org launched a false TV ad in the districts of several House members, claiming through images and words that President Bush plans to cut Social Security benefits nearly in half. Showing white-haired workers lifting boxes, mopping floors, shoveling and laundering, the ad says "it won't be long before America introduces the working retirement."

Actually, Bush has said repeatedly he won't propose any cuts for those already retired, or near retirement. What MoveOn.org calls "Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts" is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula. The White House has discussed such a proposal, and may or may not adopt it when the President puts forth a detailed plan expected in late February.

<end of snip>

That last sentence says it in full, "The White House has discussed such a proposal, and may or may not adopt it when the President puts forth a detailed plan expected in late February."

Bush would never put such a plan on the table, he would make sure it comes in the back-door where nobody sees it until it is too late to back out. That is exactly what these people plan to do. We must expose it and rub their noses in it for the absurdity that it is.

[EVDebs]

4. Operation Mockingbird in full flower !

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. Factcheck is part of the Annenberg School which was...

funded by Mr. Annenberg, a known right winger!

[nascarblue]

7. Ever since I heard Dick Cheney say Factcheck.org...

..I knew the fix was in.

[Cocoa]

8. Josh Marshall busts FactCheck

for using RNC's talking points verbatim.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_06.php#004712


Late Update: The secret RNC-FactCheck.org axis? Or is someone just an easy mark? We've been sitting for a while on a post about the atrociously bad fact-checking on Social Security being done by FactCheck.org, especially one they did on the Moveon ad. Notwithstanding the fact that the RNC says that President Bush has a "plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula," I think we've argued pretty persuasively above that this point is bogus. The RNC can use this tortured verbiage if they like. But they can hardly claim that Moveon is lying when they call this a cut since the Social Security Administration itself calls it a cut. And look at how Factcheck.org described the president's plan back on the 1st of the month. They called it a "plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula." Who's cribbing who here?

[Cocoa]

9. FactCheck gets HAMMERED

instant response from MoveOn, and supporting economists.

http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/fc_response.html

Response to FactCheck.org Article on MoveOn's Social Security Ad

MoveOn.org objects strongly to FactCheck.org's February 1 article calling our new Social Security ad "false". MoveOn.org stands by the ad, and the figures cited in the ad. Below is MoveOn.org's response to the FactCheck.org article, and supporting letters to the FactCheck.org article from prominent economists.

MoveOn.org Response to the FactCheck.org Article (Tom Matzzie)

Supporting Letter from Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Supporting Letter from Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution

Supporting Letter from Ross Eisenbrey, Economic Policy Institute

Supporting Letter from Lee Price, Economic Policy Institute

Supporting Blog Post by Max B. Sawicky, Economist

Supporting Letter from Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future

More…

[sandnsea]

10. Well duh

Factcheck has been bullshit all along. That's what drove me nuts when people quoted them during the campaign. They only present part of the story and it generally works against Dems.

[Spiffarino]

11. I've told them to stop emailing me

I bought into their bullshit at first. As the 2004 election came to a close I could see the fix was in, and I told them I thought they were full of shit. I unsubscribed, but a few weeks later, their stuff started showing up in my email again.

I think I'll have to use the words "you miserable fucking stooges" in the next message. Maybe then they'll get the hint.