• 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!

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

Of course you wouldn't but the fact remains you cannot keep a plan that no longer exists and the Obama administration lied by never addressing that issue. I like the Obama Administration lie that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment capped at 8%? Or the lie that the stimulus plan saved or created millions of jobs when the reality is there is no evidence of that. Or the Obama lie that "I inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit from Bush. Deficits are yearly and fiscal year 2009 ended in Sept. 2009 so Obama had 9 months of that fiscal year and lied about what he inherited.

I agree, Polifact is nothing more than a leftwing mouthpiece embraced by other leftwingers.

CBO says the stimulus created jobs. That's not evidence?
You say Obama didn't actually inherit the 2009 deficit, but the deficit forecast for 2009 was 1.2 trillion before Obama even took office, according to the CBO. (the discrepancy between the 1.2 trillion from the CBO and 1.3 trillion Obama stated does come from that fiscal year division, so Obama was slightly off there)

Look, regulation is not a takeover. The FAA is proposing a couple changes to the aviation industry: increasing experience requirements for airline first officers, and tighter restrictions on airline flight crew duty time limitations. (while paradoxically increasing allowable flight time in some instances...)

This doesn't make United Airlines a government-owned operation.
 
Feel free to show larger ones. :coffeepap

I gave you a couple as did a few other posters. I don't believe that Palin's is a lie because no one knows what is going to happen 4 years from now. If it isn't a govt. takeover why is the govt. fighting the lawsuits so vigorously?
 
I gave you a couple as did a few other posters. I don't believe that Palin's is a lie because no one knows what is going to happen 4 years from now. If it isn't a govt. takeover why is the govt. fighting the lawsuits so vigorously?

Horrifically bad logic. The FAA regulates the aviation industry heavily. Has the government taken over the airlines?
Maybe the government is fighting the lawsuits because that's what a government does when its laws are challenged - go the courts and make their case while the other side does the same.
 
Deuce;1059165558]CBO says the stimulus created jobs. That's not evidence?

Nope, because BLS is the keeper of unemployment and employment data, it is non partisan so tell me how employment can drop 4 million and there be job creation.

BLS link, create own chart

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

You say Obama didn't actually inherit the 2009 deficit, but the deficit forecast for 2009 was 1.2 trillion before Obama even took office, according to the CBO. (the discrepancy between the 1.2 trillion from the CBO and 1.3 trillion Obama stated does come from that fiscal year division, so Obama was slightly off there)

Yes, there was a projection but it wasn't 1.2 trillion dollars and Obama had 350 billion of the TARP to spend, the 842 billion stimulus, and the GM/Chrysler takeover on his watch and his responsibility. Deficits are yearly, Oct. to Sept. Bush was in office from Oct. 1 to January 21 and couldn't have created that much of a deficit. Obama could have stopped spending anytime he wanted to.

Look, regulation is not a takeover. The FAA is proposing a couple changes to the aviation industry: increasing experience requirements for airline first officers, and tighter restrictions on airline flight crew duty time limitations. (while paradoxically increasing allowable flight time in some instances...)

No one knows what the healthcare bill is going to do but what we do know is that it was a lie that people who liked their plan and doctor could keep them when those doctors actually dropped coverage. How can an unknown be a lie?


This doesn't make United Airlines a government-owned operation.


What does that have to do with the healthcare debate. No one has to fly United. Tell those people who lost their doctors and plan because the healthcare bill caused them to drop patients?
 
What does that have to do with the healthcare debate. No one has to fly United. Tell those people who lost their doctors and plan because the healthcare bill caused them to drop patients?

Apparently you missed the entire point. Regulation is not a takeover. The doctors aren't going to be on a government payroll, the health insurance companies are not being nationalized. In fact, we're funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of private insurance companies via subsidies.
 
Apparently you missed the entire point. Regulation is not a takeover. The doctors aren't going to be on a government payroll, the health insurance companies are not being nationalized. In fact, we're funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of private insurance companies via subsidies.

This is more that govt. regulation, it is a govt. mandate. It is you that doesn't get it.

What you don't seem to understand is this is the first step towards a single payer system as people are going to be screaming for govt. help when doctors drop patients and healthcare companies raise premiums to their policy holders.
 
Last edited:
I gave you a couple as did a few other posters. I don't believe that Palin's is a lie because no one knows what is going to happen 4 years from now. If it isn't a govt. takeover why is the govt. fighting the lawsuits so vigorously?

Not a single one close to being as large a lie. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Not a single one close to being as large a lie. Sorry. :coffeepap

So you have personally unanimously voted this as the lie of the year, not surprising. Something that doesn't go into effect for 4 years cannot be called a lie now except in the leftwing world.
 
Um, that's sort of the exact opposite of what I said.

I'll be fair though, apparently it was voted by the readers, so it has more to do with the bias of people who go there than the bias of the website itself. Still, looking at a list of the "Lies of the Year", every single one of the top 4 are by Republicans, as are the majority of them in general; and beyond that, as I just explained, #1 shouldn't even qualify since it's not so much a complete blatant lie as it is a stretch of the truth, or simply a belief/prediction of what's to come.



Something that is actually, undeniably an outright lie. Like Alan Grayson's "Taliban Dan" ad, though preferably one that had a bigger impact.

With the one that they chose, the reasons they gave in the article for it being a "lie" was that it simply doesn't match with the words in the bill. That's also what they said about Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment, which made #1 last year. Both times, though, they looked at it the wrong way, since the two statements aren't about what's literally set forth in the bill, but about what will actually happen once the law takes effect.

That was such a big fat lie, even some liberals were disgusted by it., and he got his butt kicked in the election.
 
This is more that govt. regulation, it is a govt. mandate. It is you that doesn't get it.

What you don't seem to understand is this is the first step towards a single payer system as people are going to be screaming for govt. help when doctors drop patients and healthcare companies raise premiums to their policy holders.

Mandates are still not a takeover, which is where that whole lie part comes in.

Maybe possible future takeover is a guess, not a takeover. With the largest Democratic majority in a long time, we couldn't even get a public option, much less single-payer. You're paranoid.
 
Federal requirement for purchasing health insurance is not a regulation, it's a takeover of the freedom of choosing to purchase or not purchase health insurance.

It's also significant regulation in the private industry which can be termed "takeover" if you want to be dramatic.
When a company buys another, it's a takeover, yet they may leave much of the structure, employees, etc., in place. Shareholders still get their cut, former empoyees of the "taken over" company may still get their cut, and may still hold some power. ? They may just impose new requirements and reporting structure, etc. No different really than significant government involvement in the health insurance industry. So...why act like the word "takeover" is so black and white, only when it is convenient for politifact

Let's be clear, between medicaid, medicare, other miscellaneous federal health insurance benefits (some for kids I think) and now the new healthcare bill.....people, if you don't think this is massive government involvement in the health care industry you're just full of ****. It's been taken over for years, this is just another step towards more invasive federal control of it.

I can't believe that qualified as the worst lie, what a crock. I applaud the effort of checking political facts, I despise the fact that apparently it's just another interpretation war with the thin veneer of "well um, we're the fact checkers, it's a fact!"
 
Last edited:
Of course you wouldn't but the fact remains you cannot keep a plan that no longer exists and the Obama administration lied by never addressing that issue. I like the Obama Administration lie that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment capped at 8%? Or the lie that the stimulus plan saved or created millions of jobs when the reality is there is no evidence of that. Or the Obama lie that "I inherited a 1.3 trillion deficit from Bush. Deficits are yearly and fiscal year 2009 ended in Sept. 2009 so Obama had 9 months of that fiscal year and lied about what he inherited.

I agree, Polifact is nothing more than a leftwing mouthpiece embraced by other leftwingers.

There's a difference between portraying a statement as an absolute versus making a statement one hopes or believes will produce a certain outcome. Since President Obama came into office, there have been an variety of falsehoods thrown out there concerning not only himself but many aspects of his Administration, his policies and perceived results of legislation signed during his brief tenure. From the Right, making statements that come across as absolute fact, such as "death panels", free access to health care for illegal aliens other than via ER visits, free health care credits to illegal aliens, a government takeover of health care as opposed to a government mandate that all citizens must have health insurance or establishing a commission panel to review and/or recommend best health care standards and practises (something that's already taking place via the Department of Health and Human Services and has since its inception), or that the President will cost the taxpayers $200 billion per day during a trip to India...

Over exaggeration or outright lies?

I'll give you the 8 percent unemployment; he shouldn't have made that assurance. However, I wouldn't call that a lie because no one not even the President could guarantee that the unemployment rate would have remained low. As to President Obama's claim that he inheriting a budget deficit in excess of $1.3 trillion...

From Wikipedia:

The annual budget deficit is the difference between actual cash collections and budgeted spending (a partial measure of total spending) during a given fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. The U.S. Federal Government collected $2.52 trillion in FY2008, while budgeted spending was $2.98 trillion, generating a total deficit of $455 billion.

So from Oct 01, 2007 - Sep 30, 2008, the deficit was $455 billion. What happened after Oct 01, 2008...

However, during FY2008 the national debt increased by $1,017 billion, much more than the $455 billion deficit figure.

Knowing that TARP was enacted in October of 2008 carrying additional expenditures of atleast $800 billion into FY2009, I'd have to say the President's claim is true here (or damned close to it). Job creation under the Stimulus, these figures have been batted around alot since March 2009 and with so many variables to counting "real private-sector" job creation versus "rehiring, temp jobs or government/contract" jobs, I don't think there's any real way to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of this claim. So, for this reason I'd say it was false. But everything else, it really depends on which side of the partisan divide you're on. Although I'm more liberal leaning, I try to present from a more moderate/centrist position. From my perspective, the issues presented by PoliticFact as to who told the biggest lie(s) seem to be very accurate. In short, Republicans told the biggest whoopers of 2010.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice;1059165699]There's a difference between portraying a statement as an absolute versus making a state one hopes will produce a certain outcome. Since President Obama came into office, there have been a pletra of falsehood thrown out there concerning himself but many aspects of his Administration, his policies and perceived results of legislation signed during his brief tenure. From the Right, making statements that come across as absolute fact, such as "death panels", free access health care to illegal aliens other than ER visits, free health care credits to illegal aliens, a government takeover of health care as opposed to a government mandate that all citizen must have health insurance or establishing a commission panel to review and/or recommend best health care standards and practises (something that's already taking place via the Department of Health and Human Services and has since its inception), or that the President will cost the taxpayers $200 billion per day during a trip to India...

Do you know how much the India trip cost? Those so called falsehoods have never been addressed or refuted with hard facts. Still waiting for them. As for the healthcare program no one knows what is going to happen four years from now so we don't know if there will be death panels although rationing is already being proposed in some areas and being discussed. My point is the Palin comments aren't a proven lie because the program hasn't gone into effect.
Over aggageration or outright lies?

I'll give you the 8 percent unemployment; he shouldn't have made that assurance. However, I wouldn't call that a lie because no one not even the President could guarantee that the unemployment rate would have remained low. As to President Obama's claim that he inheriting a budget deficit in excess of $1.3 trillion...

From Wikipedia:



So from Oct 01, 2007 - Sep 30, 2008, the deficit was $455 billion. What happened after Oct 01, 2008...

What is missing here again is the difference between debt and deficit.

Knowing that TARP was enacted in October of 2008 carrying additional expenditures of atleast $800 billion into FY2009, I'd have to say the President's claim is true here (or damned close to it). Job creation under the Stimulus, these figures have been batted around alot since March 2009 and with so many variables to counting "real private-sector" job creation versus "rehiring, temp jobs or government/contract" jobs, I don't think there's any real way to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of this claim. So, for this reason I'd say it was false. But everything else, it really depends on which side of the partisan divide you're on. Although I'm more liberal leaning, I try to present from a more moderate/centrist position. From my perspective, the issues presented by PoliticFact as to who told the biggest lie(s) seem to be very accurate. In short, Republicans told the biggest whoopers of 2010.

TARP was passed and signed in October 2008. Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion to Obama. Most of TARP has been repaid and should have gone against the 2009 deficit but didn't. So if TARP was repaid how can Bush be responsible for the deficit caused by TARP which was actually the 350 billion he spent? Bush had nothing to do with the GM/Chrysler takeover or the 842 billion stimulus both of which added to the 2009 deficit. The point is there is no way that Obama could have inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit for four months of fiscal year 2009 but that message resonated with the left.

I don't buy the statement that the Republicans told the biggest whoppers of 2010 not with this Administration and Pelosi/Reid in charge of Congress. Polifact is presenting a leftwing spin that leftwingers buy. IMO Obama and the Democrat Congresses had the biggest lies of 2010 and the electorate agreed with me.
 
Can we PLEASE forget about the ****ing India trip? It's a non-issue people. Every President has travelled, and trips cost money. The insane figure floated around was exactly that... insane. Geeze.
 
That was such a big fat lie, even some liberals were disgusted by it., and he got his butt kicked in the election.

Pretty much all of us were disgusted. Even that HORRIBLE LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA hammered him on it.
 
Mandates are still not a takeover, which is where that whole lie part comes in.

Maybe possible future takeover is a guess, not a takeover. With the largest Democratic majority in a long time, we couldn't even get a public option, much less single-payer. You're paranoid.

Paranoid? LOL, yep, I am paranoid that liberal social engineering never stops or goes away, but I am supported by history. Name for me JUST ONE liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, that does what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and went away? Why would I be paranoid? Liberals get their foot in the door, create dependence, and grow their power. What are the American people going to do that lost their healthcare or doctor because they were dropped? I hope you aren't this naive.
 
Do you know how much the India trip cost? Those so called falsehoods have never been addressed or refuted with hard facts. Still waiting for them.
True, but since Presidents long before Obama have taken trips overseas at taxpayers expense and such trips are added to their schedule well in advance, I see this as a non-issue.

As for the healthcare program no one knows what is going to happen four years from now so we don't know if there will be death panels although rationing is already being proposed in some areas and being discussed. My point is the Palin comments aren't a proven lie because the program hasn't gone into effect.

Yet, her "death panel" montra was picked up by the Republican/Conservative base and they ran with it. As the saying goes, "Tell a lie often enough eventually it becomes the truth."

What is missing here again is the difference between debt and deficit.

TARP was passed and signed in October 2008. Bush spent 350 billion of it and left 350 billion to Obama. Most of TARP has been repaid and should have gone against the 2009 deficit but didn't. So if TARP was repaid how can Bush be responsible for the deficit caused by TARP which was actually the 350 billion he spent? Bush had nothing to do with the GM/Chrysler takeover or the 842 billion stimulus both of which added to the 2009 deficit. The point is there is no way that Obama could have inherited a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit for four months of fiscal year 2009 but that message resonated with the left.

But here's where you're wrong on two counts and I've addressed the issue of TARP with you before and corrected you on it.

The auto bailout was made part of TARP by former Pres. GW Bush in December 2008. He asked Congress to deal with the matter, they refused. So, he included them himself.

On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson,[18] deems necessary to avert the financial crisis. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers.

As to TARP itself, while it is true that at least half of the funds were allocated before Bush left office and he did leave the rest (bank bailout and auto bailout measures) to Pres. Obama to manage, approval for TARP and most of the spending thereof did occur before Obama took office. As such, TARP did add to the FY2009 budget deficit. Therefore, Pres. Obama did, in fact, inherit a deficit at or in excess of $1 trillion regardless of whether or not any TARP funds were repaid in FY2009.

*Note: TARP was $700 billion, not $800; my error.

I don't buy the statement that the Republicans told the biggest whoppers of 2010 not with this Administration and Pelosi/Reid in charge of Congress. Polifact is presenting a leftwing spin that leftwingers buy. IMO Obama and the Democrat Congresses had the biggest lies of 2010 and the electorate agreed with me.

As I said, "...it really depends on which side of the partisan divide you're on."

"Nuff Said...
 
Objective Voice;1059165798]True, but since Presidents long before Obama have taken trips overseas at taxpayers expense and such trips are added to their schedule well in advance, I see this as a non-issue.

During very difficult economic times and right after an election he takes off to India? Yes, every President has taken trips but what he does just lacks common sense and it is the perception that is bad.

Yet, her "death panel" montra was picked up by the Republican/Conservative base and they ran with it. As the saying goes, "Tell a lie often enough eventually it becomes the truth."

How do you know it is a lie? Has the program been implemented yet? What does rationing mean to you?

But here's where you're wrong on two counts and I've addressed the issue of TARP with you before and corrected you on it.

The auto bailout was made part of TARP by former Pres. GW Bush in December 2008. He asked Congress to deal with the matter, they refused. So, he included them himself.



As to TARP itself, while it is true that at least half of the funds were allocated before Bush left office and he did leave the rest (bank bailout and auto bailout measures) to Pres. Obama to manage, approval for TARP and most of the spending thereof did occur before Obama took office. As such, TARP did add to the FY2009 budget deficit. Therefore, Pres. Obama did, in fact, inherit a deficit at or in excess of $1 trillion regardless of whether or not any TARP funds were repaid in FY2009.

*Note: TARP was $700 billion, not $800; my error.

Again, you are ignoring the facts, TARP was 700 billion and Bush spent 350 billion of it leaving 350 billion for Obama. It doesn't matter what it was spent on because most of it has been repaid. Where did the repayment go? Yes, any TARP payments should have gone against the deficit but the repayments should have reduced that deficit. Again, where did the repayment go? Not that difficult of a question. Think? As for the deficit how could Bush cause a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit by spending 350 billion dollars?
 
During very difficult economic times and right after an election he takes off to India? Yes, every President has taken trips but what he does just lacks common sense and it is the perception that is bad.

Yes, we sure wouldn't want him promoting US trade and security in these trying economic times with a war going on not far from there...

The only people who perceive this badly are people who perceive everything he does badly.

How do you know it is a lie? Has the program been implemented yet? What does rationing mean to you?

Because of what is in and not in the bill.
 
At first I thought that PolitiFact was a mostly non-biased site that maybe tilted a tiny bit towards the left, but it's harder to believe that every time I see them.

Okay, forget that they chose two right-wing "lies" in a row for two years (as is the 2nd place lie this year). Seriously? "Government take-over" is the biggest lie they could find? That's a huge stretch of the truth at worst, and a valid political position at best. Who's to judge what does, and doesn't, constitute a "takeover"? It's pretty clear that the law calls for a huge and unprecedented increase in the government's power when it comes to health care. More importantly though, who's to say what the actual effects of the bill are that aren't just written on paper? It could very well lead to what's basically a government takeover of the industry - Obama himself has all but admitted such. Hell, even Politifact labeled an entry using the exact same wording as merely "false", rather than "pants on fire"; to call it the "lie of the year" thus makes no sense at all.

politifact is basically a left-centrist blog masquerading as a non-partisan fact-check site. some of the twists they will go through to defend Obama or attack Conservative spokespersons would be impressive if they weren't sad.





as for "lies of the year", though, i think "you can keep your health insurance" certainly rates honorable mention.
 
Paranoid? LOL, yep, I am paranoid that liberal social engineering never stops or goes away, but I am supported by history. Name for me JUST ONE liberal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, that does what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and went away? Why would I be paranoid? Liberals get their foot in the door, create dependence, and grow their power. What are the American people going to do that lost their healthcare or doctor because they were dropped? I hope you aren't this naive.

When Government screws up the answer to the problem is more Government.
Lib Think
 
Back
Top Bottom