• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who Won the Debate?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who Won the Debate?

  • Joe Biden

  • Paul Ryan

Results are only viewable after voting.
FuzzyBee: the purpose of fact-checking is to assess not merely the literal veracity of factual statements, but whether those factual statements are being presented fairly and in appropriate context. The issue isn't whether or not the number of unemployed women was higher, but rather Romney's portrayal of this as being a result of Obama's policies.

That is why it is a half-truth -- because Romney is not measuring the increase or decrease of employment in a time frame that accurately reflects Obama's policies.
 
emperus said:
It depends on who's getting the tax cut. If you're rich, you generally don't spend the extra tax cut, you save it, since if you needed something you have the money to buy it anyways. So the economy doesn't grow. But, then you get into the issue of the deficit. You're assuming that the cut in taxes will create enough economic activity to replace the loss to the Federal Government. When has that ever been true? Bush tried that and look where we are. Reagen tried that and ended up raising taxes.
Click to expand...
Deficits are created primarily when governments spend too much. Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is. I'm not assuming anything about the deficit. We could tax at 100% and still spend too much money.

All I am saying is that when you make an economy less fluid by raising taxes less money flows from hand to hand than it otherwise would have.
 
FuzzyBee said:
Well, he voted for both wars.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume that "them" refers to the wars and the drug plan and the tax cuts? Why can't it refer to the drug plan and the tax cuts? Why can't it refer to only the tax cuts? Tax cuts can be referred to as "them."
 
dank69 said:
You assume the taxpayer picks up the tab when someone can't pay for their abortion. That is not true. The hopitals pick up that tab. Your pants are on fire.
Click to expand...

Ok, so taxpayers are not going to be forced to directly pay for abortions.

Instead hospitals will be forced to pay for elective procedures and then pass those costs on to taxpaying Americans.
 
buckshot24 said:
Deficits are created primarily when governments spend too much. Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably wrong. The Bush tax cuts are one of the leading, if not THE leading, contributor to the deficit as it stands.


I'm not assuming anything about the deficit. We could tax at 100% and still spend too much money.

...
Click to expand...
We could spend the right amount and tax too little, as well.
 
buckshot24 said:
Deficits are created primarily when governments spend too much. Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is. I'm not assuming anything about the deficit. We could tax at 100% and still spend too much money.

All I am saying is that when you make an economy less fluid by raising taxes less money flows from hand to hand than it otherwise would have.
Click to expand...

Yes, the federal government spends too much. The rub, though, is that more than two-thirds of the federal budget are programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.

These are things that are sacred cows to both parties in one way or another.

The problem isn't Democrats spending too much or Republicans cutting taxes too much.. it's the American people who will not tolerate changes/cuts to the biggest and costliest things the federal government spends money on.
 
nehalem256 said:
Ok, so taxpayers are not going to be forced to directly pay for abortions.

Instead hospitals will be forced to pay for elective procedures and then pass those costs on to taxpaying Americans.
Click to expand...
That's a roundabout way of saying you are sorry for lying in order to make your point. Apology accepted. I expect you to refrain from using it in the future.
 
I would say it was a tie both guys were just awful. Ryan and his dodging specifics on his tickets tax plan. Biden made the event almost unwatchable with his laughing, mugging for the camera and interrupting.

Anyone who votes for either of these 2 are part of the problem.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
FuzzyBee: the purpose of fact-checking is to assess not merely the literal veracity of factual statements, but whether those factual statements are being presented fairly and in appropriate context. The issue isn't whether or not the number of unemployed women was higher, but rather Romney's portrayal of this as being a result of Obama's policies.

That is why it is a half-truth -- because Romney is not measuring the increase or decrease of employment in a time frame that accurately reflects Obama's policies.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should change their name to "PolitiContext," then, and remove the "True"/"False" misnomers, then. Or maybe they could be "PolitiFair".

I'd have to think an unbiased Politifactician (do those exist?) would have to give their own name a "Pants on Fire".

How do they judge "fair" in an unbiased way? Well, obviously they don't.

Compare the Romney statement summary to this one:

Obama said, "Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years."

On the numbers, his statistic isn't exact, but it's pretty close -- average tax rates are in fact lower than most years in the past five decades, at least for the three income groups we looked at.

However, the decline in average tax rates was already under way under Bush and the recession helped keep them low. We rate the claim Mostly True.
Click to expand...

Using your logic you applied to their assessment of Romney's statement, how in the world could this one get a different rating? Isn't context a big participant in their evaluation?
 
zsdersw said:
Yes, the federal government spends too much. The rub, though, is that more than two-thirds of the federal budget are programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.

These are things that are sacred cows to both parties in one way or another.

The problem isn't Democrats spending too much or Republicans cutting taxes too much.. it's the American people who will not tolerate changes/cuts to the biggest and costliest things the federal government spends money on.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no kidding! Amen!
 
FuzzyBee said:
Perhaps they should change their name to "PolitiContext," then, and remove the "True"/"False" misnomers, then. Or maybe they could be "PolitiFair".
Click to expand...

If you read the "about us" page, it says quite clearly what their ratings mean:

Half True – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Click to expand...

What is confusing about that? It's precisely what Romney does when he criticizes Obama for job losses that were taking place the day the moving van pulled up to 1600 Penn.
 
quest55720 said:
I would say it was a tie both guys were just awful. Ryan and his dodging specifics on his tickets tax plan. Biden made the event almost unwatchable with his laughing, mugging for the camera and interrupting.

Anyone who votes for either of these 2 are part of the problem.
Click to expand...
It's hard to keep a straight face when someone lies as much as Ryan did. Were you aware of the sheer amount of lies Ryan told? Did you educate yourself before watching or did you go in expecting the candidates to just tell you the truth? Fact check the debates for yourself. Then watch the debate again and try not to laugh when Ryan open his mouth.
 
dank69 said:
Why do you assume that "them" refers to the wars and the drug plan and the tax cuts? Why can't it refer to the drug plan and the tax cuts? Why can't it refer to only the tax cuts? Tax cuts can be referred to as "them."
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. I mean, it's either he was talking about the entire sentence, or he has no concept of how a sentence works in the English language.

🙄

That's some weak sauce on your part.
 
dank69 said:
Demonstrably wrong. The Bush tax cuts are one of the leading, if not THE leading, contributor to the deficit as it stands.
Click to expand...
The only way you could "demonstrate" that is by assuming what you believe to be true. That lowering taxes doesn't create more economic activity.
We could spend the right amount and tax too little, as well.
Click to expand...
That is why I call for tax cuts and not tax eliminations.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If you read the "about us" page, it says quite clearly what their ratings mean:



What is confusing about that? It's precisely what Romney does when he criticizes Obama for job losses that were taking place the day the moving van pulled up to 1600 Penn.
Click to expand...

... yet that measuring stick apparently isn't used in the Obama statement I quoted, is it?
 
buckshot24 said:
Deficits are created primarily when governments spend too much. Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is. I'm not assuming anything about the deficit. We could tax at 100% and still spend too much money.

All I am saying is that when you make an economy less fluid by raising taxes less money flows from hand to hand than it otherwise would have.
Click to expand...

The problem is that is not what RYAN is arguing. Ryan argues that by cutting taxes that will increase economic activity which will help make the plan revenue neutral (not add to the deficit).
 
FuzzyBee said:
...

Compare the Romney statement summary to this one:

Obama said, "Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years."

On the numbers, his statistic isn't exact, but it's pretty close -- average tax rates are in fact lower than most years in the past five decades, at least for the three income groups we looked at.

However, the decline in average tax rates was already under way under Bush and the recession helped keep them low. We rate the claim Mostly True.
Click to expand...

Using your logic you applied to their assessment of Romney's statement, how in the world could this one get a different rating? Isn't context a big participant in their evaluation?
Click to expand...
Wow, you are a dense one. Obama was rebutting a claim that he raised taxes, not claiming that he lowered all taxes to the levels they are right now. Yes, context matters.
 
FuzzyBee said:
... yet that measuring stick apparently isn't used in the Obama statement I quoted, is it?
Click to expand...

"Mostly true" is one tick above "half true". Pretty close. I guess they could have rated that statement as "half true". But they did make the point that it was not entirely Obama's doing.

I think Romney's attempt to pin job losses on Obama that he had no control over is more deceptive. Rating it one notch lower seems reasonable to me.
 
dank69 said:
Wow, you are a dense one. Obama was rebutting a claim that he raised taxes, not claiming that he lowered all taxes to the levels they are right now. Yes, context matters.
Click to expand...

"Taxes are lower on families than they've been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven't raised taxes."

If you think those are two polar statements, than it's obvious who the dense one is. The second sentence is posed as a result of the first. Crazy how our language works.

You're right - context does seem to matter, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top