GOP Debate Fact Check
- Thread starter mcbrett
- Start date
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
True, Shiner.
I found the following interesting:
ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."
THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.
There has to have been more written on the topic. Otherwise, fact check just sounds kind of dumb. What Romney stated was correct and Obama would be damn happy to see a drop in national unemployment. Moreover, it is much more difficult to lower unemploymnent when there aren't that many unemployed people (ie. a drop from 5.6% to 4.7% is pretty impressive considering the economic climate of the country as a whole).
I found the following interesting:
ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."
THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.
There has to have been more written on the topic. Otherwise, fact check just sounds kind of dumb. What Romney stated was correct and Obama would be damn happy to see a drop in national unemployment. Moreover, it is much more difficult to lower unemploymnent when there aren't that many unemployed people (ie. a drop from 5.6% to 4.7% is pretty impressive considering the economic climate of the country as a whole).
not to be outdone Obama has a 4 Pinnochio Whopper on his hands. I am sure you just missed this one.
“We said working folks deserved a break, so within one month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.”
— President Obama, Sept. 5, 2011
The president’s Labor Day speech in Detroit featured an assertion that contained a number of warning signs that it might be an errant fact: “biggest middle-class tax cut in history.”
First of all, anytime a politician claims he or she has done something historic, watch your pockets. That’s usually a dubious claim.
Then, “biggest” can mean all sorts of things. If we are talking about dollars, then are they inflation-adjusted or measured against the overall economy? Raw dollar figures are essentially meaningless without that context.
Finally, the “middle-class” modifier. What’s the definition of “middle-class”? There are many ways one could slice and dice that classification.
Clearly the president wants to demonstrate he’s a tax-cutter. And certainly White House officials have been frustrated that the $116 billion Making Work Pay tax cut was largely unnoticed by Americans.
We decided to put the president’s claim to the test.
The Facts
We took an informal survey in our office and asked people what they thought the president’s statement meant. Everyone agreed he was claiming the biggest tax cut in terms of dollars.
Imagine our surprise when the White House responded that he wasn’t talking about dollars at all.
“The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population,” an administration official said, pointing to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut under the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus bill.
Huh?
In other words, this isn’t about the size of the tax cut, but about the fact that every working family, except those making more than $190,000, received as much as $800 in tax cuts.
That strikes us as very odd way to claim “the biggest,” but maybe that’s because Obama can’t make that claim. We ran the numbers every which way, but the fairest over time is to look at the tax cut as a percentage of national income (Gross Domestic Product minus depreciation.)
John F. Kennedy seems to win the prize for biggest tax cut, at least in the last half century. By the same measure, the income tax provisions of George W. Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as Obama’s tax cut over the same three-year time span. (Yes, a large portion of Bush’s tax cut went to the wealthy, but it also benefited the working poor. We still don’t know what Obama means by “middle class,” since his definition also seems to include the working poor.)
Incidentally, the report that the administration official cited as “outside validation” for the 95 percent statistic just mentioned it as an aside. We checked with one of the co-authors, and he said the source for the figure was a White House fact sheet.
We’re not that impressed by the 95 percent claim, in any case. Essentially, all this means is that the top 5 percent of taxpayers did not receive the tax cut. Some economists might argue the cut-off limited the effectiveness of the provision as economic stimulus.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama’s claim of having passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” is ridiculous. He might have been on more solid ground if he had claimed the “broadest” tax cut, but that doesn’t sound very historic.
We went back and forth over whether this was a three or four Pinocchio violation, until we found evidence that Obama knew he was saying a whopper. Here’s how he put it in his 2010 State of the Union speech: “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.” That phrasing, at least, would not have been so misleading.
Four Pinnocchios
The Link
“We said working folks deserved a break, so within one month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.”
— President Obama, Sept. 5, 2011
The president’s Labor Day speech in Detroit featured an assertion that contained a number of warning signs that it might be an errant fact: “biggest middle-class tax cut in history.”
First of all, anytime a politician claims he or she has done something historic, watch your pockets. That’s usually a dubious claim.
Then, “biggest” can mean all sorts of things. If we are talking about dollars, then are they inflation-adjusted or measured against the overall economy? Raw dollar figures are essentially meaningless without that context.
Finally, the “middle-class” modifier. What’s the definition of “middle-class”? There are many ways one could slice and dice that classification.
Clearly the president wants to demonstrate he’s a tax-cutter. And certainly White House officials have been frustrated that the $116 billion Making Work Pay tax cut was largely unnoticed by Americans.
We decided to put the president’s claim to the test.
The Facts
We took an informal survey in our office and asked people what they thought the president’s statement meant. Everyone agreed he was claiming the biggest tax cut in terms of dollars.
Imagine our surprise when the White House responded that he wasn’t talking about dollars at all.
“The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population,” an administration official said, pointing to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut under the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus bill.
Huh?
In other words, this isn’t about the size of the tax cut, but about the fact that every working family, except those making more than $190,000, received as much as $800 in tax cuts.
That strikes us as very odd way to claim “the biggest,” but maybe that’s because Obama can’t make that claim. We ran the numbers every which way, but the fairest over time is to look at the tax cut as a percentage of national income (Gross Domestic Product minus depreciation.)
John F. Kennedy seems to win the prize for biggest tax cut, at least in the last half century. By the same measure, the income tax provisions of George W. Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as Obama’s tax cut over the same three-year time span. (Yes, a large portion of Bush’s tax cut went to the wealthy, but it also benefited the working poor. We still don’t know what Obama means by “middle class,” since his definition also seems to include the working poor.)
Incidentally, the report that the administration official cited as “outside validation” for the 95 percent statistic just mentioned it as an aside. We checked with one of the co-authors, and he said the source for the figure was a White House fact sheet.
We’re not that impressed by the 95 percent claim, in any case. Essentially, all this means is that the top 5 percent of taxpayers did not receive the tax cut. Some economists might argue the cut-off limited the effectiveness of the provision as economic stimulus.
The Pinocchio Test
Obama’s claim of having passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” is ridiculous. He might have been on more solid ground if he had claimed the “broadest” tax cut, but that doesn’t sound very historic.
We went back and forth over whether this was a three or four Pinocchio violation, until we found evidence that Obama knew he was saying a whopper. Here’s how he put it in his 2010 State of the Union speech: “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.” That phrasing, at least, would not have been so misleading.
Four Pinnocchios
The Link
majorwhiteapples
5,000+ Posts
McBrett:
Did you even read what you linked, it makes little to no sense. Why don't you go ahead and link to the whole article so that we can read it for our selves instead of your little bits and pieces that fit your opinion. thanks and go ahead and make it a great day!!!!
Did you even read what you linked, it makes little to no sense. Why don't you go ahead and link to the whole article so that we can read it for our selves instead of your little bits and pieces that fit your opinion. thanks and go ahead and make it a great day!!!!
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
While most of their "fact" checking consisted of saying, "Well, yeah, that's true, BUT...blah blah blah", this one "fact" stood out:
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
I just re-looked at some of these "fact checks"…there's some interesting things...
AwK - That's a pretty weak factcheck, but on the pollution and CAA point I think it would be a fair point to say that Texas would likely not have cleaned up air but for federal regulation. So for Perry to take credit for simply following fed regs, while he is on a campaign of cutting regs, is a little have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too. But they didn't really say that, and again this was a really weak attempt at fact checking.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
Entirely predictable thread.
I posted probably 80% of the article- and left out some fact checks I found less interesting. I did NOTHING to sway this article either way, and it comes from the most objective source around- the AP. Of course, for General- everyone that is not a far right blog is liberal.
You guys really hate it when some of your ideas are questioned. Whereas others enjoy the discussion, and treat it as an opportunity to learn, expand or reinforce what one believes- a lot of you knee jerk attack the source, the poster or dismiss it despite the facts in your face. I think the AP covered their tracks quite well here in their language. And had their been a Democratic debate- you'd see the same fact checks we saw in 2008 and every other election year.
Credibility issue?? If some of you guys can produce more credible reports and analysis than the AP why don't you go public with it and walk the walk. If they are wrong- contact them, or contact a local newspaper and point it out- you'd have a story to tell. But the truth is- you don't!
I posted probably 80% of the article- and left out some fact checks I found less interesting. I did NOTHING to sway this article either way, and it comes from the most objective source around- the AP. Of course, for General- everyone that is not a far right blog is liberal.
You guys really hate it when some of your ideas are questioned. Whereas others enjoy the discussion, and treat it as an opportunity to learn, expand or reinforce what one believes- a lot of you knee jerk attack the source, the poster or dismiss it despite the facts in your face. I think the AP covered their tracks quite well here in their language. And had their been a Democratic debate- you'd see the same fact checks we saw in 2008 and every other election year.
Credibility issue?? If some of you guys can produce more credible reports and analysis than the AP why don't you go public with it and walk the walk. If they are wrong- contact them, or contact a local newspaper and point it out- you'd have a story to tell. But the truth is- you don't!
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Totally predictable, McBrett. Why don't you try to counter some of the comments that were made rather than attack posters?
Uninformed- because the comments had no substance- they simply said the AP was "wrong" or "biased." And frankly, Rex or General vs. the AP with cited facts- sorry- the AP is correct.
Re: the minimum wage jobs- I felt the AP covered their tracks well in the article by stating the perspectives on the percentages given.
So- as I said- if someone here has an actual beef with a fact the AP incorrectly used- they should announce it to the world (aka Houston Chron, Dallas MN, etc.) and I'm sure they will point it out. I've contacted newspapers in the past about news events and they are actually very receptive to the public if you are professional about it.
Re: the minimum wage jobs- I felt the AP covered their tracks well in the article by stating the perspectives on the percentages given.
So- as I said- if someone here has an actual beef with a fact the AP incorrectly used- they should announce it to the world (aka Houston Chron, Dallas MN, etc.) and I'm sure they will point it out. I've contacted newspapers in the past about news events and they are actually very receptive to the public if you are professional about it.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
both ag and I made comments
Rex Kramer
1,000+ Posts
Please point out to me how it is a "fact" to provide misdirection as a rebuttal to Perry's comments on how the science isn't settled. Keep in mind, he didn't say the globe wasn't warming. He said the science isn't settled, and he's right.
To delve further, are oil and gas production contributing to the globe warming? Perhaps. How big a % is it? Is that settled? Is it settled that ceasing such production - to the point that it WILL have a SEVERE adverse effect on the economy - is the way to go? And why would the consensus of "scientists" be the only voice we'd listen to there? Again, Perry said nothing wrong. And to assert his comments were "factually" incorrect is just misdirection and blatant intellectual dishonesty. And I don't give a **** with how non biased ******* mcbrett claims the source is.
To delve further, are oil and gas production contributing to the globe warming? Perhaps. How big a % is it? Is that settled? Is it settled that ceasing such production - to the point that it WILL have a SEVERE adverse effect on the economy - is the way to go? And why would the consensus of "scientists" be the only voice we'd listen to there? Again, Perry said nothing wrong. And to assert his comments were "factually" incorrect is just misdirection and blatant intellectual dishonesty. And I don't give a **** with how non biased ******* mcbrett claims the source is.
heck you almost made it through a full post without a **** or **** dropped, Rex!
But really what you're trying to do is put us down the rabbit hole of what "settled" means. It's a fools errand though because much of what we spend money on is not a straight cause-and-effect guarantee. We wage war hoping it will do some good, but without any guarantee. We do that because we see the enemy as a threat that must be stopped.
I believe the science is settled on whether global warming is a threat to us and whether man is a major contributing factor. The unsettled part is the exact right course of action - you're completely correct there. But I think it's intellectually dishonest of you to expect settled guarantees of "if we do x, y will happen" when we don't get that with just about anything in life, let alone government spending.
The core problem remains the same - the right-wing plugs their ears and simply refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming science that says AGW is a threat to us and we are a major contributing factor. I have said this a few times recently on this board and it fits here as well - if we can't even agree on the problem, we have no hope to agree on a solution.
But really what you're trying to do is put us down the rabbit hole of what "settled" means. It's a fools errand though because much of what we spend money on is not a straight cause-and-effect guarantee. We wage war hoping it will do some good, but without any guarantee. We do that because we see the enemy as a threat that must be stopped.
I believe the science is settled on whether global warming is a threat to us and whether man is a major contributing factor. The unsettled part is the exact right course of action - you're completely correct there. But I think it's intellectually dishonest of you to expect settled guarantees of "if we do x, y will happen" when we don't get that with just about anything in life, let alone government spending.
The core problem remains the same - the right-wing plugs their ears and simply refuses to acknowledge the overwhelming science that says AGW is a threat to us and we are a major contributing factor. I have said this a few times recently on this board and it fits here as well - if we can't even agree on the problem, we have no hope to agree on a solution.
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 431
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 44
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
