Misrepresentation and Exaggeration
Posted in Economy by Justin Paulette
FactCheck.org notes that "Obama misrepresented the House Republicans' budget plan at times and exaggerated its impact on U.S. residents during an April 13 speech on deficit reduction." Highlights include:
- 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.
10:44 PM / April 15, 2011
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
Does this really surprise anyone. Please name one time that Obama has told the truth. We heard adnauseum for 8 years that Bush Lied and People died. Funny, the left doesn't seem to care that the Messiah they put in the White House does not understand the concept of truth.
It's interesting how much FactCheck - that "left-leaning watchdog" that it supposedly is:
https://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/02/let-him-be-clear.php
keeps calling out Our Most Leftist President Ever. Strange notion of what it means to lean left.
But I guess if one's notion of objectivity is FoxNews, then the description makes some sort of "sense."
Try this for objective, Scanlon. We are trillions of dollars in debt, with no end in sight. We are taxing only about 50% of the people at the moment, and the very rich always have options (taxing them is shooting at a moving target, and you can hardly blame them!). Any rational person would be throttling back on the spending by now, but the Democrats simply pay lip-service to the idea.
Scanlon, try to remember that the private sector is the engine of this economy. Government consumes, and at its best can facilitate production, but parasitism is the name of the game for the most part. It has to end.
My question for the day is that if people--left or right, doesn't matter--think the current White House occupant is perhaps unresponsive to their concerns *now*, exactly what do they think will be his attitude towards those concerns after he no longer has to worry about election (should he win in 2012)? And is that something they are willing to accept?
This question is also applicable in regards to the "bait and switch" elements of the Republican party. In fact, based on track record, its always applicable. It's just that with things the way they are, that particular faction is less able to go off on and do things on its own without larger-scale tacit approval from the people, so the issue with them is not preventing them from doing something the people don't want***, but making them do something the people want but the establishment doesn't.
With the current Chief Executive, it's both problems. And hence the question: If you don't think he really gives a flip what you think now, how do you think he'll be a few years from now? And what would that mean, practically?
*** "people" in a majoritarian sense.
Good points all. Lame ducks are generally worrisome, particularly if they are ideological and stubborn.