• 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!

AP FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission

Sir Loin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
3,249
Reaction score
1,055
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not surprisingly a look at some of Mr. Obama's claims as they compare to facts does not square up.;)

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission

Excerpt:

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] ---
OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS:
The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit - and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.
---
OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted - a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.
---
OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage - the majority of Americans under age 65 - in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee people won't see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

---
[/FONT]
 
Barry can't even spell truth.
 
Every time I listen to The State of the Union I always think hey that is not a bad idea, or that could work well if done properly. Then a few hours after the speech I remember it is all BS anyways.

As for President Obama's this year, yeah it was pretty meh, but as Sir Lion said they are all full of half truths. Just once I want a president to stand up there and say what they really want to say, not what their party wants them to say.
 
CALVIN WOODWARD?? We'll file that under WFD.

Sir L, I encourage you to stick to real fact checks and resist the temptation to only check those 'checks' that check the facts you like.

PolitiFact | Fact-checking Obama's State of the Union speech

Also, someone should tell Mr. Woodward that to 'spin' is not to 'check'.

Carry on.:2wave:
You managed to completely miss the second fact check link I posted and I note you addressed nothing, opting instead to attack the source/messenger rather than the actual fact checking. I posted the first "fact check" of the speech that was available online, not "chose" a particular one. Chuckle. Minutes later I got an email alert from Fact Check.org and posted it too. Now did you have some challenges to the "fact checking" from either source, an allegation that anything stated in either is false? Or was a trollish ad hom post your onlyreason for posting? Carry on indeed.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You managed to completely miss the second fact check link I posted and I note you addressed nothing, opting instead to attack the source/messenger rather than the actual fact checking. I posted the first "fact check" of the speech that was available online, not "chose" a particular one. Chuckle. Minutes later I got an email alert from Fact Check.org and posted it too. Now did you have some challenges to the "fact checking" from either source, an allegation that anything stated in either is false? Or was a trollish ad hom post your onlyreason for posting? Carry on indeed.:rolleyes:

It's hazlnut. Don't expect intellectual integrity. He will never support a Republican even if that Republican said that throwing babies in dumpsters is a bad idea. He'll find some way to spin it in a negative light.
 
It's hazlnut. Don't expect intellectual integrity. He will never support a Republican even if that Republican said that throwing babies in dumpsters is a bad idea. He'll find some way to spin it in a negative light.
Yes I know it is Hazelnut, see how he went for the shallow end of the pool?
 
It's hazlnut. Don't expect intellectual integrity. He will never support a Republican even if that Republican said that throwing babies in dumpsters is a bad idea. He'll find some way to spin it in a negative light.
Also you gotta love how Mr. Faux is also Mr. Associated Press. It is all about bias don't ya know, like in a three card Monty game.;)
 
You managed to completely miss the second fact check link I posted and I note you addressed nothing, opting instead to attack the source/messenger rather than the actual fact checking. I posted the first "fact check" of the speech that was available online, not "chose" a particular one. Chuckle. Minutes later I got an email alert from Fact Check.org and posted it too. Now did you have some challenges to the "fact checking" from either source, an allegation that anything stated in either is false? Or was a trollish ad hom post your onlyreason for posting? Carry on indeed.:rolleyes:
Maybe you need to add flashing lights around the link. Some people have a hard time finding the truth.
 
To be honest a fact check of any SOTU address always turns up half truths and stretches of credulity. The folks over at Fact Check just posted their report on both the speech and the Republican response.

Obama’s State of the Union Address | FactCheck.org

True. And this is a much better source. But it is important to note this is usually true of any such address. Doesn't excuse it, but it isn't new either.
 
Back
Top Bottom