Free Markets, Free People


Fact Check Org fact checks Obama’s budget speech and is not impressed–factually speaking

President Obama’s speech on April 13th was used as an opportunity to spread false information about the GOP’s budget plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) according to Fact Check.org.  Among the deceptive claims were these:

-  Obama claimed the Republicans’ "Path to Prosperity" plan would cause "up to 50 million Americans "¦ to lose their health insurance." But that worst-case figure is based in part on speculation and assumptions.

-  He said the GOP plan would replace Medicare with "a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry." That’s an exaggeration. Nothing would change for those 55 and older. Those younger would get federal subsidies to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.

-  He said "poor children," "children with autism" and "kids with disabilities" would be left "to fend for themselves." That, too, is an exaggeration. The GOP says states would have "freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations." It doesn’t bar states from covering those children.

-  He repeated a deceptive talking point that the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. That’s the Democrats’ own estimate over a 20-year period. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the deficit savings at $210 billion over 10 years and warned that estimates beyond a decade are "more and more uncertain."

-  He falsely claimed that making the Bush tax cuts permanent would give away "$1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire." That figure — which is actually $807 billion over 10 years — refers to tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000, not just millionaires and billionaires.

-  He said the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But the most recent nonpartisan congressional analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was lower in 1986.

You may say, “hey, those aren’t really that big of a deal – they’re not giant fibs”.  Well yeah, they are – and collectively they paint a completely false picture of both the Ryan plan and the Obama plan  because the way he presented each was to try to present them in such a way that you bought into the premise his falsehoods painted.

Had he just stuck with the facts, the GOP’s wouldn’t have sounded too bad and his wouldn’t have sounded very good (for instance the claim that ObamaCare will save $1 trillion assumes the “doc cut” will actually be made when there is absolutely no indication it will ever be made).

So he just made stuff up out of thin air or presented it in a highly-partisan way to make it sound much worse than it is.

We should expect better than that from the President of the US shouldn’t we?

And wasn’t he the guy who promised such “hope and change” in DC with his administration?  That’s one campaign promise (among many others) that simply will never get the green checkmark in the box beside it.  It is a complete and total “no-go”.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

13 Responses to Fact Check Org fact checks Obama’s budget speech and is not impressed–factually speaking

  • And water is wet.

    :p

    • How can you tell when a politician is lying ??   … his lips are moving

      • Well in this case, its a little deeper than normal.  Normally politicians lie in their promises.  But he makes claims few other politicians can make without being pilloried for them.

  • tax cuts for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000, not just millionaires and billionaires.

    I guess “millionaires and billionaires” sounds rhetorically more pleasing or perhaps just more specific than “rich people”.  All those chumps who listened to him that make, say, $300,000 per year or $750,000 per year heard, “Hey!  I’m not gonna get a tax hike!  After all, I’m not a millionaire.”

    McQ[Captain Bullsh*t] just made stuff up out of thin air or presented it in a highly-partisan way to make it sound much worse than it is.

    And in other shocking news (as jpm100 says), water is wet.

    • I’m not sure its actually possible, but if those taxes could kick in only once the person making 250k actually has a million dollars in assets, perhaps excluding their home, that would seem a whole lot fairer, than some poor guy who worked his fingers to the bone getting a start up running or getting his MD getting smacked his first year getting some real money.

  • He’s just telling us what 40% of us seem to want to hear, and what he wants us to hear.   Just doing his job ya know.

    And anyone who says different is a racist, of course.

  • OT: NPR was just talking about Gen. Petraeus “He’s a celebrity general, respected by both….”
    That’s where I turned off the radio.
    Seriously, cut their funding.

    • So… Did he become “respected” because the left finally figured out that he does (more or less) know what he’s doing, or because he’s working for Captain Bullsh*t now instead of Bush?

      • Ah, the answer is – he’s working for Captain Bullshirt now instead of Bush -

        I’d like to try GAS PRICE LIES for $20.00 next Alex.

  • The May 10 edition of the Harvard Business Review includes a post titled “Leading From Behind,” about the impact of today’s economy on leadership styles.  Author Linda Hill notes that today’s successful leaders are those who are skilled at “harnessing people’s collective genius.”
    Hill cites two conditions for success:
    First, leaders must ensure people in their organizations are willing to innovate. This is fundamentally about building community.
    Some leaders refer to this function as “creating a world to which people want to belong.” In these communities, people are valued for who they are and have the opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves.
    Second, leaders must build the organizational capabilities necessary for engaging in the innovation process. The three essential organizational capabilities are:

    Creative abrasion – The ability to generate ideas through intellectual discourse and discussion
    Creative agility – The ability to test and refine ideas through quick pursuit, and
    Creative resolution – The ability to make decisions in an integrative manner

    Today Eric Alterman complains

    Both men  rule without regard to the concerns of the base of their party. Both held themselves to be above politics when it came to making tough decisions. Both were possessed with superhuman self-confidence when it came to their own political judgment mixed with contempt for what they understood to be the petty concerns of pundits and party leaders. And worst of all, one fears, neither one appeared willing to change course no matter how many storm clouds loomed on the horizon.

    This is plain and simple “lead from behind” failure.

    • I read the rest of the drivel written by Alterman.  Jebus… It’s a repellent mixture of cri de coeur from a man disappointed in his hero (“Obama acts cool as a proverbial cucumber…) and outright delusion (the dems’ platform is “highly popular”; Paul Ryan’s plan is “brutal”; Captain Bullsh*t is “business friendly” with regards to Colombia; etc.).  It might be summed up thusly: “What’s wrong with our Hero???  He’s not being leftist enough!”

      I must also wonder about the (ahem) timing of The Harvard Business Review‘s article that you cite.  Even the left is starting to complain that Captain Bullsh*t “leads from behind”, which to me is a polite way of saying that he’s AWOL.  Is HBR trying to imply that Captain Bullsh*t’s patented “leading from behind” is actually a Good Thing?

      Unrelated to Captain Bullsh*t but on the HBR article, it amazes me that Hill seems to think that “leading from behind” is something new or revolutionary.  It isn’t.  What she’s describing is any good organization that arises BECAUSE of good leadership.  People do not feel “valued for who they are” or “that they have an opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves” UNTIL a leader takes charge and makes it clear to all by word and deed that this is his policy.  I must say that I dislike the shepherd / sheep metaphor with which she begins her article; a good leader does not treat his people like brainless sheep who must be constantly watched by him to ensure that they don’t wander off.  Rather, the good leader trains and mentors and gives his people the tools and responsibility and loyalty to deal with assigned tasks –  and handle unexpected problems - without his constant supervision.  This takes both time and courage, something lacking in most American businesses.