More here. Remember the administrations (horrible) prediction record when they tell you healthcare costs should be contained.
Click here for what might possibly be the most disingenuous estimate ever given.
So what do you think is worse, intentionally downplaying the numbers but at the same time repeating that its difficult if not impossible to estimate the true cost….or actually publishing numbers that are far below what the real data eventually is?
It’s very obvious to me which is worse. I’m surprised you even ask.
On the one hand, the Obama Administration predicted that unemployment would be around 8% this quarter, but it’s actually almost 10%. OK, so they were a bit off.
But there was clearly no intentional deception involved. If there had been, it would have been in the opposite direction – to offer an inflated estimate of future unemployment numbers without the plan, thereby demonstrating the supposed effectiveness of the Recovery Plan. Instead, their (honest) estimate undershot the weakness of the job market even without any Recovery Plan.
On the other hand, the Bush Administration was a) applying political pressure on those responsible for calculating the potential cost for the Iraq War, b) offering intentionally misleading estimates, or c) refusing to supply estimates at all.
The case of the Bush Administration is obviously much, much worse than the former.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Powered by WordPress and K2
Entries Feed and Comments Feed
28 queries. 0.527 seconds.