• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Politifact get any more embarassing?

If Hilary said that the sun revolved around the Earth Politifact would give her a "Half True"
 
KLATTU said:
They're going to fact check PREDICTIONS?
'With certainty' cap-and-trade would wreck the economy, Rubio says | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Our problem here is Rubio is making a "with certainty" prediction of economic "devastation," and because of that assertiveness Rubio is setting himself up for evaluation and criticism.

Now, I do not necessarily agree with the article nor do I support Cap-and-Trade policies. I'll get that out of the way first. However, Cap-and-Trade policies did not "devastate" the EU economic model as an example. That word devastate is one that Rubio picked himself, and therefor that doomsday standard is up for discussion. The article is somewhat accurate in that the EU, California and New England all have some version of emissions caps and tax (and/or trade) policy. They have all had it for enough time to evaluate the impact. Each have current economic models that have various economic concerns but overall we cannot expressly link that to this policy. Each have had some degree of impact from the policy as that is the design, to reduce emissions.

I would have said Rubio was half-truth.

Depending upon how far a government goes with the cap part of the policy then it could be rather devastating to an economic model dependent on organizations that pollute in a manner the policy is intended to impact, but Rubio did not make that clarification at all. He foolishly generalized that all these policies of the like are devastating to an economy. That was at best misleading using such a generalization.
 
sawdust said:
Disprove it.
Click to expand...

I would but politi fact already did that.

Rubio's problem was using the words "certainty" and "devastating."
 
OrphanSlug said:
Our problem here is Rubio is making a "with certainty" prediction of economic "devastation," and because of that assertiveness Rubio is setting himself up for evaluation and criticism.

Now, I do not necessarily agree with the article nor do I support Cap-and-Trade policies. I'll get that out of the way first. However, Cap-and-Trade policies did not "devastate" the EU economic model as an example. That word devastate is one that Rubio picked himself, and therefor that doomsday standard is up for discussion. The article is somewhat accurate in that the EU, California and New England all have some version of emissions caps and tax (and/or trade) policy. They have all had it for enough time to evaluate the impact. Each have current economic models that have various economic concerns but overall we cannot expressly link that to this policy. Each have had some degree of impact from the policy as that is the design, to reduce emissions.

I would have said Rubio was half-truth.

Depending upon how far a government goes with the cap part of the policy then it could be rather devastating to an economic model dependent on organizations that pollute in a manner the policy is intended to impact, but Rubio did not make that clarification at all. He foolishly generalized that all these policies of the like are devastating to an economy. That was at best misleading using such a generalization.
Click to expand...

There is a problem comparing European and American economies. America is more productive. European economies establish more social welfare and have less class mobility. Their tax rates are substantially higher. They, for the places I've been, employ a VAT to help pay for social programs. German normal unemployment hovers around 10 percent. We consider maximum employment to be achieved when unemployment hits 5%.

I would not look at Europe and their cap and trade policies effect on their economies as any kind of benchmark. We are vastly different.
 
Deuce said:
I would but politi fact already did that.

Rubio's problem was using the words "certainty" and "devastating."
Click to expand...

Polite fact has proven itself to be untrustworthy. I trust you. Take a stab at it.
 
Deuce said:
I would but politi fact already did that.

Rubio's problem was using the words "certainty" and "devastating."
Click to expand...

LOL- how can you fact check devastating ?

And you sure as hell can't fact-check a prediction.

As I've I brilliaintly and famously stated before, Rubio's prediction is fair game for pundits and of course, other political candidates. But it can't be fact checked.
 
KLATTU said:
LOL- how can you fact check devastating ?

And you sure as hell can't fact-check a prediction.

As I've I brilliaintly and famously stated before, Rubio's prediction is fair game for pundits and of course, other political candidates. But it can't be fact checked.
Click to expand...

True. I'd also like to know how taxes can change the climate. An answer to that would certainly be fascinating.
 
KLATTU said:
They're going to fact check PREDICTIONS?
Click to expand...
They've been fact-checking PREDICTIONS for awhile now. There's nothing new here, except that you don't like their assessment.

By the way, they're not particularly partisan. E.g. they've found that 27% of Obama's statements are mostly false, false or blatantly false; for Pelosi, it's around 43%, etc.
 
Visbek said:
They've been fact-checking PREDICTIONS for awhile now. There's nothing new here, except that you don't like their assessment.

By the way, they're not particularly partisan. E.g. they've found that 27% of Obama's statements are mostly false, false or blatantly false; for Pelosi, it's around 43%, etc.
Click to expand...

They have ? First I've become aware of it.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like it.
Politifact leans left . {Denial of that is ostrich head in the sand material.} But that isn't the point . There are plenty of fact checkers who lean right so that cancels it out.

My problem with Politifact is that they don't stick to to checking FACTS. They throw WAAYYYYYYYYYYY too much of their own 'spin ' in there.
 
sawdust said:
I'd also like to know how taxes can change the climate. An answer to that would certainly be fascinating.
Click to expand...

Here's an answer you'll reject: cap-and-trade policies don't involve taxes. That's a line Republicans came up with a few years ago to defeat some proposed legislation — cap and tax.

The irony here is familiar. It reminds me of the debate about the ACA. The element of individual responsibility that is the foundation of that approach came from … conservatives. Back in the day when there was a healthy dialogue between the two parties that led to effective governance. Cap-and-trade is an practical, market-based approach to a very serious problem.

Rubio has been pushing this since at least 2010. These people should confine their activities to Madison Avenue. They can sell soap while the professionals in designing and implementing public policy do their thing.

Here's a short analysis from the communists at NPR, published about a year ago: GOP Demonizes Once Favored Cap-And-Trade Policy

I laugh at people who disparage PolitiFact. I figure that says a lot more about their bias than anything else. Some people don't like facts — they can get in the way of ideological pursuits.
 
sawdust said:
True. I'd also like to know how taxes can change the climate. An answer to that would certainly be fascinating.
Click to expand...

Greetings, sawdust. :2wave:

:agree: The transfer of the greatest amount of wealth in history from the West to other parts of the world - based on nothing more than theory - is ridiculous and unfair! And who is going to oversee this and make these decisions? If anything, it seems like the money should be coming to us, not from us! We're the one losing jobs, because so much of what used to be produced here has been sent overseas where workers are paid next to nothing. Cap and Trade is simply a way to make an already extremely wealthy few become more wealthy on the backs of the 99.9% who will do the paying, which is *bull****!*
 
sawdust said:
There is a problem comparing European and American economies. America is more productive. European economies establish more social welfare and have less class mobility. Their tax rates are substantially higher. They, for the places I've been, employ a VAT to help pay for social programs. German normal unemployment hovers around 10 percent. We consider maximum employment to be achieved when unemployment hits 5%.

I would not look at Europe and their cap and trade policies effect on their economies as any kind of benchmark. We are vastly different.
Click to expand...

It was once true that European nations showed less social/economic mobility, owing to historic class structures. Since WWII, it is no longer the fact. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France all show greater class mobility than the US


Then - just to ensure I'm on topic :lol: PolitiFact: Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe?

from the Economist link:
. . . although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world.
Click to expand...

For those who don't care to read the Economist piece; the summary is basically that social mobility in the US, as a nation, has not changed for the past 40 years while it has greatly increased in some European nations. A Danish child born in the lowest quintile is more than twice as likely to improve economic class as an American from the lowest quintile.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
It was once true that European nations showed less social/economic mobility, owing to historic class structures. Since WWII, it is no longer the fact. Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France all show greater class mobility than the US


Then - just to ensure I'm on topic :lol: PolitiFact: Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe?

from the Economist link:


For those who don't care to read the Economist piece; the summary is basically that social mobility in the US, as a nation, has not changed for the past 40 years while it has greatly increased in some European nations. A Danish child born in the lowest quintile is more than twice as likely to improve economic class as an American from the lowest quintile.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem that I see with the data you've produced. It compares children and parents with respect to class mobility. Children from lower class parents who receive higher education grow to a higher class than their parents. I have no issue with that. When I speak of class mobility however, I look at from an entrenpueis vantage point where during the lifetime of an individual they grow between class structures. My experience in Europe is that a shop keeper becomes a shop keeper his entire life and while there are exceptions to the rule, like the guy who started Ikea, there is little class movement within the lives of working people. The reason for this is that the employer, employee relationship is different in much of Europe than it is here. The economic relationship between the two parties lasts for a long time even after the employment period ends. As a result, creating new employment is done slowly and very carefully because of it's long term economic impact.
 
sawdust said:
Here's the problem that I see with the data you've produced. It compares children and parents with respect to class mobility. Children from lower class parents who receive higher education grow to a higher class than their parents. I have no issue with that. When I speak of class mobility however, I look at from an entrenpueis vantage point where during the lifetime of an individual they grow between class structures. <snip>
Click to expand...

OK - different definitions then. I would say that "class mobility" is more often used for the class change experienced by a child and not those undergone by a working age person.

Increased class mobility, with my understanding, must then be seen as more readily accomplished in those European nations where higher education is either free or extremely cheap - unlike in the US where college student debts continue to increase every year as funding is withdrawn from colleges and universities.
 
Deuce said:
I would but politi fact already did that.

Rubio's problem was using the words "certainty" and "devastating."
Click to expand...

sawdust said:
Polite fact has proven itself to be untrustworthy. I trust you. Take a stab at it.
Click to expand...

How about addressing his second (and bolded by me) statement? He didn't say as a predition, he said as fact.

"I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy."
— Marco Rubio on Sunday, April 19th, 2015 in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation
 
polgara said:
Greetings, sawdust. :2wave:

:agree: The transfer of the greatest amount of wealth in history from the West to other parts of the world - based on nothing more than theory - is ridiculous and unfair! And who is going to oversee this and make these decisions? If anything, it seems like the money should be coming to us, not from us! We're the one losing jobs, because so much of what used to be produced here has been sent overseas where workers are paid next to nothing. Cap and Trade is simply a way to make an already extremely wealthy few become more wealthy on the backs of the 99.9% who will do the paying, which is *bull****!*
Click to expand...


Exactly.
 
Somerville said:
OK - different definitions then. I would say that "class mobility" is more often used for the class change experienced by a child and not those undergone by a working age person.

Increased class mobility, with my understanding, must then be seen as more readily accomplished in those European nations where higher education is either free or extremely cheap - unlike in the US where college student debts continue to increase every year as funding is withdrawn from colleges and universities.
Click to expand...


Let me try to restate. Capitalism allows individuals to move up, or down the economic ladder during their lifetimes. In European social democracies, capitalism in regulated to the point that economic mobility is difficult.
 
pbrauer said:
How about addressing his second (and bolded by me) statement? He didn't say as a predition, he said as fact.

"I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy."
— Marco Rubio on Sunday, April 19th, 2015 in an interview on CBS' Face the Nation
Click to expand...

I can tell you that certainly it will rain again.

I can tell you that certainly it will never rain again.

Both sentences are predictions, the right one is fact if proven, the other is wrong. Such is the nature of predictions.
 
sawdust said:
Let me try to restate. Capitalism allows individuals to move up, or down the economic ladder during their lifetimes. In European social democracies, capitalism in regulated to the point that economic mobility is difficult.
Click to expand...


Your statement "In European social democracies, . . . economic mobility is difficult." is false according to the data. "Socialistic" practices - such as free college education and single-payer healthcare provides for better social mobility. Coming out of university and not having to worry about health insurance allows a greater entrepreneurial effort because of lower costs and zero educational debt.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, sawdust. :2wave:

:agree: The transfer of the greatest amount of wealth in history from the West to other parts of the world - based on nothing more than theory - is ridiculous and unfair! And who is going to oversee this and make these decisions? If anything, it seems like the money should be coming to us, not from us! We're the one losing jobs, because so much of what used to be produced here has been sent overseas where workers are paid next to nothing. Cap and Trade is simply a way to make an already extremely wealthy few become more wealthy on the backs of the 99.9% who will do the paying, which is *bull****!*
Click to expand...


Could you tell me how you see "cap and trade"? What do you think it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom