Originally Posted By andyll I must say that they are increasingly becoming worthless. I don't know if its because their own biases are coming through or if they are falling victim to 'ratings' and want to get out quick fact checks. I went over to factcheck.org to see what they had on the Biden/Obama speeches and was surprised on some of the things they had quibbles with. Here is the page I looked at: <a href="http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/" target="_blank">http://factcheck.org/2012/09/f...d-biden/</a> 1) President Obama boasted that his plan would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, citing “independent experts.” But one such analyst called a key element of the plan a “gimmick.” OK... maybe its because I work in accounting but Obamas savings are no more a gimmick then any other budget projection. The federal budget is done in 10 year increments. It takes expected spending and expected income and comes up with yearly deficits ( or surpluses under Clinton ) If you are spending 200 Billion a year now and stop spending 200 Billion a year then it is a savings against the budget and deficit. They say its a gimmick because those costs were expected to go away anyway. So because I expect my car payment to go away next year I am not going to see a difference on my monthly disposable income even though I'm getting and extra $400 a month? They also say its a gimmick because the war spending is borrowed. That has no baring on if there are savings or not in a budget. The dissenting 'experts' are conservative groups. The CBO is the only expect that counts when it comes to budget claims. They say the 4 trillion number is correct. 2) Vice President Biden quoted GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney as saying “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth” to catch Osama bin Laden. Actually, Romney said he’d target more than just “one person.” I read their dispute of this claim. I read the full context of what Romney said. I don't see how they claim Obama misrepresented this. Romney said exactly that and the fuller content just explains why he feels that. 3) Biden: It’s called a territorial tax, which the experts have looked at, and they acknowledge it will create 800,000 new jobs — all of them overseas, all of them. If you make it more profitable to outsource companies will outsource more. A study concluded that. A group funded by corporations disputes it. Which should you believe? Which did factcheck.org believe. They also dispute Biden's claim because those outsourced jobs might be additional jobs. So what? If a company needs to hire someone and they hire them overseas instead of in the USA you have created a job overseas and not created one here. 4) Making the case that Romney lacks foreign policy chops, Obama twisted Romney’s words, claiming, “My opponent said it was ‘tragic’ to end the war in Iraq.” But that’s not quite what Romney said. He was speaking of the speed with which Obama was withdrawing troops, not to ending the war in general. Another 'what are they talking about? ' Removing the troops IS ending the war. Keeping troops there... including a significant amount for decades... is not ending the war. 4) Biden: Folks, Governor Romney believes it’s OK to raise taxes on middle classes by $2,000 in order to pay for … another trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. That’s exactly the opposite of what Romney actually says. yeah... so we are to believe Romney even though his plan does the opposite. The tax policy center states that if Romney cuts income rates like he claims and makes up the money with removing deductions then the middle class will pay $2000 more. So factcheck.org slams Biden because Romney made conflicting promises? 5) Biden Distorts Romney’s Medicare Plan This one bugs me more then any other one. Several claims were looked at: a) Biden says the Romney plan “would immediately cut benefits for more than 30 million seniors already on Medicare Fackcheck agrees that if Romney rolls back the HCR this is true. But because it doesn't cut traditional benefits ( ? ) Biden is wrong. Benefits are benefits whether they are 1 year old or 30 years old. b) Biden’s claim that “they’re not for preserving Medicare at all,” is also misleading It doesn't matter if the change is delayed... its still a change. It doesn't matter if the plan offers something called traditional medicare... if the benefits and payments go through an insurance company then it isn't traditional medicare no matter what you call it. c) Not on this page but... When Ryans budget first passed the CBO claimed the voucher program could cost seniors an additional $6000/year. In future budgets Ryan left in the cost savings but took out specifics which meant the CBO could not determine costs/savings. Now factcheck.org says its the Obama camp should use that $6000 number even though its the only number tied to the 'reform'
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks for your excellent post, andy! No one should be surprised that, for the most part, factcheck.org is a biased right wing organization. Andy's points prove this easily.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It may be just my imagination, but I thought factcheck used to be better. I think at the very least they've gotten a bad case of "CYA disease" lately, i.e. too much "well, this could be kinda true, but some people say it's not..." I'm liking Politifact better these days.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm all for discussing a specific rating or analysis by a factcheck organization. But I think both sides to their detriment attack fact-checking or use the phrase "fact-checking the fact-checkers." I like that Politifact welcomes robust discussions of their ratings, publishes letters (and well thought out ones, not just shrill ones) that disagree with specific ratings, etc. But the notion that groups are listening to politicians and calling them on their nonsense is important. Even four years ago Paul Ryan would've gotten away with his convention speech. But this time he really got taken to town. Imagine if these groups had been around or been more visible in 2004 with the Swiftboaters. And yeah, anything like this will get co-opted and exploited (Breitbart.com has a "fact-check" column that couldn't be more laughable if it tried), but I'm glad something like Politifact is around. At the very least, it helps me rein in my own enthusiasm; I like Obama, so when he says something, I tend to believe. Politifact reminds me that a well-meaning politician is still a politician.
Originally Posted By andyll <<I like that Politifact welcomes robust discussions of their ratings, publishes letters that disagree with specific ratings, etc>> I ran short of time but I was going to mention that one of the problems I had with factcheck.org is that there is no rebuttals, no mention of their funding, no mention of the qualifications of those doing the checks. <<Even four years ago Paul Ryan would've gotten away with his convention speech. But this time he really got taken to town.>> Sure he did. Romney did also. factcheck.org had a list of 3-6 items from their speeches. The problem is... Ryan/Romney had 3-4 out right lies on things they know are lies ( such as the welfare claim ) So both sides had roughly the same number of 'issues' with their speeches. Those of us that follow the issues in depth know there is no equivilency but the general public does not.
