• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

PolitFact proves it's bias against Romney

IndepCentristMA

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
669
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, there are some who are confused about whether PolitFact is biased against Mitt Romney or not... Let this PolitFact article put that to rest...

PolitiFact Florida | Romney says debt plus unfunded liabilities equals $520,000 per household

This brings up a Romney claim that the debt and the unfunded liabilities add up to $520,000 per household.

They asked the Romney campaign about it, and they cited an article in the USA Today in 2011 that said that exact thing.

They then went around trying to debunk the article... but at best they found is economists who said it's unfair to use unfunded liabilities as a measure against current households... But the facts are still true... and the point is still true that if we do not revise the entitlement programs that we are going to owe that amount...

They even agreed with Romney... but rate his statement as "Half True"

"Our ruling

Romney said that the debt and unfunded liabilities of the federal government adds up to $520,000 per household. Romney relied on a 2011 article in USA Today that added up the debt at that time and the amount owed for entitlements -- the largest one was the amount owed for Medicare.

Most economists we spoke with disagree with calling the amount we will owe in the future for entitlements "unfunded liabilities," because the government has the power to change the programs, either by reducing spending or increasing taxes. Those obligations are different than our current debt.

But Romney’s underlying point is true: Without significant changes, we are on track to owe a mind-boggling sum if we spend large sums without sufficient revenues. We rate this claim Half True"


How is an accurate statement, backed by an independently produced article, that accurately reflects the numbers only Half True?

This is the lens Romney is being viewed through by the media... even when he tells the truth they still arent satisfied and call it "Half True"...


Romney is running on the fact that we need to change and revise the entitlement programs or we will be bankrupting ourselves and leaving our grandchildren with an unpayable debt... He cited an article which shows just that... yet PolitFact says it's Half True... how can you consider them a reliable fact check site after that? If the fact check sites are biased and inaccurate, what reliable source of the media can be relied upon?

This does not bode well for an accurate election...
 
Politifact....is counting the ballots across the nation?

What the wha?

The election is based on the facts presented before us.... but if all the facts are being skewed in one direction... we are not being given a clear choice or an accurate representation of the two candidates...
 
I'm not sure why Politifact should be biased. Do you think they are being bribed or threatened by the USG?

What they said about "half-true" is, well, half true. But their statement But Romney’s underlying point is true: Without significant changes, we are on track to owe a mind-boggling sum if we spend large sums without sufficient revenues.

So, I feel they explained themselves and NOT to Romney's disadvantage. Now the question is whether either candidate has any clue or intention of dea;ling with it. I contend that neither one will even come close.

((I the background, a dog howled and a can clattered as it was kicked down the road))



So, there are some who are confused about whether PolitFact is biased against Mitt Romney or not... Let this PolitFact article put that to rest...

PolitiFact Florida | Romney says debt plus unfunded liabilities equals $520,000 per household

This brings up a Romney claim that the debt and the unfunded liabilities add up to $520,000 per household.

They asked the Romney campaign about it, and they cited an article in the USA Today in 2011 that said that exact thing.

They then went around trying to debunk the article... but at best they found is economists who said it's unfair to use unfunded liabilities as a measure against current households... But the facts are still true... and the point is still true that if we do not revise the entitlement programs that we are going to owe that amount...

They even agreed with Romney... but rate his statement as "Half True"

"Our ruling

Romney said that the debt and unfunded liabilities of the federal government adds up to $520,000 per household. Romney relied on a 2011 article in USA Today that added up the debt at that time and the amount owed for entitlements -- the largest one was the amount owed for Medicare.

Most economists we spoke with disagree with calling the amount we will owe in the future for entitlements "unfunded liabilities," because the government has the power to change the programs, either by reducing spending or increasing taxes. Those obligations are different than our current debt.

But Romney’s underlying point is true: Without significant changes, we are on track to owe a mind-boggling sum if we spend large sums without sufficient revenues. We rate this claim Half True"


How is an accurate statement, backed by an independently produced article, that accurately reflects the numbers only Half True?

This is the lens Romney is being viewed through by the media... even when he tells the truth they still arent satisfied and call it "Half True"...


Romney is running on the fact that we need to change and revise the entitlement programs or we will be bankrupting ourselves and leaving our grandchildren with an unpayable debt... He cited an article which shows just that... yet PolitFact says it's Half True... how can you consider them a reliable fact check site after that? If the fact check sites are biased and inaccurate, what reliable source of the media can be relied upon?

This does not bode well for an accurate election...
 
The election is based on the facts presented before us.... but if all the facts are being skewed in one direction... we are not being given a clear choice or an accurate representation of the two candidates...
As if politifact is the ONLY source of information.

sigh.

what is next, you are going to chronicle the perceived inaccurate reports of all media, including the falsehoods made against Obama....or are those OK?

I guess you need anything to distract you from the completely accurate reports of the absolutely elitist views Willard holds behind closed doors of wealthy donors.
 
I'm not sure why Politifact should be biased. Do you think they are being bribed or threatened by the USG?

What they said about "half-true" is, well, half true. But their statement But Romney’s underlying point is true: Without significant changes, we are on track to owe a mind-boggling sum if we spend large sums without sufficient revenues.

So, I feel they explained themselves and NOT to Romney's disadvantage. Now the question is whether either candidate has any clue or intention of dea;ling with it. I contend that neither one will even come close.

((I the background, a dog howled and a can clattered as it was kicked down the road))

Their only motivation to be biased is their very own personal bias... duh...

As I have shown in the past in previous articles, greater than 85% of their employees vote in the Democratic primaries... indicating clearly their political disposition, and thus, the lens by which they're judging these statements... as in how it relates to liberal policy... thus by adding the liberal slant, it makes the "facts" they present as "facts" actually favor those who they wish to be in power... It has also been proven that this is the case as well, since their numbers heavily slant against Republicans...

That they said about half true is just that, half true... they basically justified that Romney's statement is true... but they didn't like the implication behind it... so they're gonna call it half true just so it doesn't stick as a known fact...

My problem isn't with their article, as much as the ultimate rating they posted... People don't read these articles as much as they go by their unscientific rating scale... Which given that they have a mostly true rating, and did not use it on something Romney said, which is mostly true... with the slight kicker meaning little, being "well they can change that", because Romney is the one running to change it, and Obama has only made the situation worse, and has no intention to change it... So his point was "we need to change it so this isn't the case" is still TRUE... not HALF TRUE...
 
As if politifact is the ONLY source of information.

sigh.

what is next, you are going to chronicle the perceived inaccurate reports of all media, including the falsehoods made against Obama....or are those OK?

I guess you need anything to distract you from the completely accurate reports of the absolutely elitist views Willard holds behind closed doors of wealthy donors.
Right... because I said somewhere that they're the only source :roll:

They are by no means the only Fact Check sites, but theyre considered to be less biased than the other fact check sites, which are known to be even more biased than this...

They're one of the most respected of the so-called Fact Check sites, that most of the media outlets refer to, to back up the facts for the candidates... Thus this particular source slanting information becomes that much more important.

I don't need any distraction from that point... I am going to make that particular point, so people realize the blatant lean of the media in this campaign...

I have stated my opinion backing Romney's comments on those very threads, with no problem... What Romney said there is accurate as well... yet another indication of bias of the media...

The ones that need distractions are the President and his supporters, running away from his actual record... and the $16T debt (which wasn't mentioned once during the convention), 8.1% unemployment (which came out as a drop following the convention, but only because people dropping out of the workforce, which will occur again, considering 40% of those on unemployment have been on it over 26 weeks), and $3.86/gal gasoline prices (eventhough it's two weeks after Labor Day, when gas prices normally plummet)...
 
How sad for Romney supporters that the best they can do is try to undermine the factcheckers who call him out on his numerous lies.
 
Their only motivation to be biased is their very own personal bias... duh...

As I have shown in the past in previous articles, greater than 85% of their employees vote in the Democratic primaries... indicating clearly their political disposition, and thus, the lens by which they're judging these statements... as in how it relates to liberal policy... thus by adding the liberal slant, it makes the "facts" they present as "facts" actually favor those who they wish to be in power... It has also been proven that this is the case as well, since their numbers heavily slant against Republicans...

That they said about half true is just that, half true... they basically justified that Romney's statement is true... but they didn't like the implication behind it... so they're gonna call it half true just so it doesn't stick as a known fact...

My problem isn't with their article, as much as the ultimate rating they posted... People don't read these articles as much as they go by their unscientific rating scale... Which given that they have a mostly true rating, and did not use it on something Romney said, which is mostly true... with the slight kicker meaning little, being "well they can change that", because Romney is the one running to change it, and Obama has only made the situation worse, and has no intention to change it... So his point was "we need to change it so this isn't the case" is still TRUE... not HALF TRUE...

I don't think it matters much what politifacts says. If you go out on the street and ask the next hundred people you encounter what they think of the Politifacts article, at least 99 will get a blank look on their faces. What matters is the outright lies and distorted facts dispersed by the candidates and their staffs, and even then, most minds are made up by now and only a few will be swayed.
 
Right... because I said somewhere that they're the only source :roll:
Hung by your petard...again.

The election is based on the facts presented before us.... but if all the facts are being skewed in one direction... we are not being given a clear choice or an accurate representation of the two candidates...
 
So, there are some who are confused about whether PolitFact is biased against Mitt Romney or not... Let this PolitFact article put that to rest...

PolitiFact Florida | Romney says debt plus unfunded liabilities equals $520,000 per household

This brings up a Romney claim that the debt and the unfunded liabilities add up to $520,000 per household.

They asked the Romney campaign about it, and they cited an article in the USA Today in 2011 that said that exact thing.

They then went around trying to debunk the article... but at best they found is economists who said it's unfair to use unfunded liabilities as a measure against current households... But the facts are still true... and the point is still true that if we do not revise the entitlement programs that we are going to owe that amount...

They even agreed with Romney... but rate his statement as "Half True"

"Our ruling

Romney said that the debt and unfunded liabilities of the federal government adds up to $520,000 per household. Romney relied on a 2011 article in USA Today that added up the debt at that time and the amount owed for entitlements -- the largest one was the amount owed for Medicare.

Most economists we spoke with disagree with calling the amount we will owe in the future for entitlements "unfunded liabilities," because the government has the power to change the programs, either by reducing spending or increasing taxes. Those obligations are different than our current debt.

But Romney’s underlying point is true: Without significant changes, we are on track to owe a mind-boggling sum if we spend large sums without sufficient revenues. We rate this claim Half True"


How is an accurate statement, backed by an independently produced article, that accurately reflects the numbers only Half True?

This is the lens Romney is being viewed through by the media... even when he tells the truth they still arent satisfied and call it "Half True"...


Romney is running on the fact that we need to change and revise the entitlement programs or we will be bankrupting ourselves and leaving our grandchildren with an unpayable debt... He cited an article which shows just that... yet PolitFact says it's Half True... how can you consider them a reliable fact check site after that? If the fact check sites are biased and inaccurate, what reliable source of the media can be relied upon?

This does not bode well for an accurate election...

Way to cut and paste certain information that you want to see. From the article:

Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist Brookings Institution, also pointed out that future benefits for entitlements are not "owed" to seniors in the same way that the public debt is owed to the people and institutions who purchased U.S. government debt.

"Congress can and almost certainly will reduce the future benefits promised to people who will receive Medicare and Social Security in the future," Burtless said via email. "Moreover, even if Congress does NOT act before the Trust Funds are depleted, under current law Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries would receive less than the amount of benefits provided to current beneficiaries.

"Why? Because the Secretary of the Treasury can only pay for those benefits out of the Trust Funds, and if the Trust Funds are depleted of cash, the rate of spending out of it will be limited to rate at which the Trust Funds are replenished with tax revenues flowing in under the current tax schedule."

So his point only makes sense if you count no changes to SS or Medicare. They also said that taking the deficit and dividing it by the population doesn't really accurately reflect the situation, unless somebody came along and demanded that we pay off the whole debt now in equal shares.

If you take his promises to change the programs at face value, his numbers are off. So either his numbers are right and he's lying, or he will do what he says he'll do and his numbers are wrong.

"More or less true depending on how you look at it" might be more accurate, but it's not one of their categories.
 
How sad for Romney supporters that the best they can do is try to undermine the factcheckers who call him out on his numerous lies.

You didnt build that...
 
Way to cut and paste certain information that you want to see. From the article:

So his point only makes sense if you count no changes to SS or Medicare. They also said that taking the deficit and dividing it by the population doesn't really accurately reflect the situation, unless somebody came along and demanded that we pay off the whole debt now in equal shares.

If you take his promises to change the programs at face value, his numbers are off. So either his numbers are right and he's lying, or he will do what he says he'll do and his numbers are wrong.

"More or less true depending on how you look at it" might be more accurate, but it's not one of their categories.

I'm not taking certain points out... They are...

Romney's whole point is that unless something is done to revise the way we spend and the entitlement programs we are going to be leaving this country bankrupt for our grandkids...

His very point is that if we do not change them, this is what we are going to have to pay... Because while some on the left may not appreciate the concept of unfunded liabilities... that's what they are... IOUs... promises we can't keep, unless we change the way we are doing things...

Romney was right in the fact that unless something is done, the current debt and the current unfunded liabilites will add up to $520,000 per person...

Romney's statement is entirely true... If you want to add some brief context to it, to make sure people understand the nuances to the issue you don't call it half true, you call it mostly true...

However, when you add that context, you have to give it to Romney's full context that he points that out... and he's the candidate who is running to be the person who changes that... whereas Obama has added to the entitlement programs and discretionary spending...
 
How sad for Romney supporters that the best they can do is try to undermine the factcheckers who call him out on his numerous lies.

What's the lie in this article? Come on, name it... Even their article says he was right... but doesn't want to actually give him credit for being right... (I suspect they are not alone in this regard, especially among liberal DP posters)


It must be tough to call Romney MOSTLY TRUE on this issue, since it both calls into question Obama's fiscal policy failures and at the same time creates the pretext for why Mitt Romney is the right candidate for the job...

In essense, unless we elect Romney we will be paying $520,000 per person... so Mitt Romney isn't right for saying it, because he could get elected to change it? Or was their defense the slim potential does exist that liberals will wake up to the grave nature of revising the entitlement programs and suddenly decide to do so, after advocating expanding them for decades now...?
 
Back
Top Bottom