Who Won the Debate?

[Charles Kozierok]

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.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Why don't you try to explain to us what is wrong with that statement. I would love to hear it.

Well, he voted for both wars.

 

[dank69]

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform



I do not disagree that CURRENTLY the federal government does not fund abortions. But the Democratic Platform is pretty clear about wanting to change that.

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.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

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.

 

[dank69]

Well, he voted for both wars.

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."

 

[nehalem256]

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.

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.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is.

This is like saying people don't get fat from eating too much, but exercising too little.

Or vice-versa.

 

[dank69]

Deficits are created primarily when governments spend too much. Tax cuts aren't the reason for deficits, spending too much is.

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.

...

We could spend the right amount and tax too little, as well.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

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.

 

[dank69]

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.

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.

 

[quest55720]

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.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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.

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.

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?

 

[buckshot24]

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.

Yeah, no kidding! Amen!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

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

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.

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.

 

[zsdersw]

Yeah, no kidding! Amen!

... which won't get any better if Romney/Ryan wins and the Senate gets a Republican majority.

 

[dank69]

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.

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.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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."

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.

 

[buckshot24]

Demonstrably wrong. The Bush tax cuts are one of the leading, if not THE leading, contributor to the deficit as it stands.

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.

That is why I call for tax cuts and not tax eliminations.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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.

... yet that measuring stick apparently isn't used in the Obama statement I quoted, is it?

 

[emperus]

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.

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).

 

[buckshot24]

... which won't get any better if Romney/Ryan wins and the Senate gets a Republican majority.

It couldn't get any worse than it is under Obama. $1.5-1.1 deficits are unacceptable.

 

[dank69]

...

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.

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?

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.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

... yet that measuring stick apparently isn't used in the Obama statement I quoted, is it?

"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]

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.

...

Or by observing what has actually happened over the last three decades.

 

[FuzzyBee]

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.

"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?