US Politics: show us the money

[Shryke]

Only if they agree with ya, eh?? lol

Factcheck.org seems pretty fair. They have been accused of Liberal bias though. Perhaps their fact checks on Romney are less than stellar.

No, only if they are actually accurate.

Calling yourself a "factchecker" doesn't mean you are actually correct. And there's been more then enough bullshit already to not take any of the organizations at their word. Like any source, you have to check them over.

I'm sorry the idea of vetting a source sticks in your craw. :rolleyes:

[Fez]

What does the "Romney (Paid for)" mean?

What Shryke said basically. Romney's is very vague about his plan but does make a bunch of assumptions in it that only hold true if you raise taxes fairly dramatically on some people through eliminating lots of deductions. Its sort of like Ryan's budget plan last year where, okay if you accept a 15% annual growth rate for 10 straight years everything would be fine but in the real world the money has to come from somewhere.

[C S]

Only if they agree with ya, eh?? lol

Factcheck.org seems pretty fair. They have been accused of Liberal bias though. Perhaps their fact checks on Romney are less than stellar.

Regarding outsourcing and when Romney left Bain, his alibi is that he left in 1999 to run the Olympics. Even if we assume that is true, it is documented in SEC documents that he was CEO and full owner until 2002. Factcheck.org does not dispute this. They simply state that there is no evidence that he was actively running the organization after 1999. Whether he actively took part is irrelevant He was the owner and CEO so he is legally and morally responsible for any action they took because he had full legal authority to prevent it.

Regarding raising taxes, it is documented in multiple locations both conservative and liberal that it is impossible for him to implement the tax cuts he is promising and pay for it fully with deduction elimination as he also promises without increasing the tax burden on the middle class. The bottom line is that it is proven that he is lying somewhere because the math just doesn't work.

[Shryke]

Yeah, the tax thing seems like a perfect example of why you can't take "factchecks" at face value, baring even political gamesmanship on the part of the factchecker.

It is true that Romney has not explicitly said he'd raise taxes on the middle class. It's just that given everything else he's said he'd do, raising taxes on the middle class is inevitable unless he just wants to massively inflate the deficit.

So how do you score that? True? False? It depends. Which is why you are gonna need to check that over.

[Kalbear]

I think it's reasonable to call "lie" on something like Romney has said he will raise taxes on the middle class.

It's probably not to say something like Romney has a plan which will raise taxes on the middle class.

[Guest Raidne]

Regarding outsourcing and when Romney left Bain, his alibi is that he left in 1999 to run the Olympics. Even if we assume that is true, it is documented in SEC documents that he was CEO and full owner until 2002. Factcheck.org does not dispute this. They simply state that there is no evidence that he was actively running the organization after 1999. Whether he actively took part is irrelevant He was the owner and CEO so he is legally and morally responsible for any action they took because he had full legal authority to prevent it.

Perhaps if we are so unfortunate as to ever have a President Romney, we'll be told that he's not responsible for domestic events while he's traveling overseas. What? does my desk placard say I'm still President? Damn. Didn't work out that well the last two years he was governor in Massachusetts, but he's given that argument a shot.

[Guest Raidne]

It is true that Romney has not explicitly said he'd raise taxes on the middle class. It's just that given everything else he's said he'd do, raising taxes on the middle class is inevitable unless he just wants to massively inflate the deficit.

So how do you score that? True? False? It depends. Which is why you are gonna need to check that over.

Not really.

Fact:

Q: Did Romney say he would raise taxes on the middle class?

A: No.

Reasoned opinion:

Q: Will Romney's plan result in tax hikes on the middle class?

A: Opinions do differ, but the opinions of those with relevant expertise leans toward "yes."

Pure speculation:

Q: Is Romney aware of how full of shit he is?

A: As Governor of Massachusetts, he was against the very tax cuts passed in 2003 that he now pledges to continue (Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax Cut Plan; Governor Won’t Give His Endorsement,” Boston Globe, 4/11/03) and there is a whole Wikipedia page devoted to his shifting political opinions, so it seems likely, IMO, but that's pure speculation based on my personal notions of what a reasonable person's sense of self-awareness is like.

I mean, I can tell you why I agree with one opinion or another on the latter two issues, but they're not subject to a fact-check. A fact-check is where you can cite something that directly shows the proposition stated, without any reasoning, inference, etc. "Leading economists say Romney plan will lead to a $2000 tax increase on middle class families" can be fact-checked. "Romney plan will lead to a $2000 tax increase on middle class families" requires citations that say things like "see" and "contra" as well as original reasoned argument weighing the conflicting opinions against each other and discarding the bullshit. I have no idea where this all went wrong.

[DanteGabriel]

Romney's involvement with Bain from 1999 on has been an item of contention for a while this election. The Obama campaign posted a video where they had "people on the street" read Romney's statement explaining his three years of ownership-but-not-involvement with Bain:

"He says entity a lot."

[Shryke]

Not really.

Fact:

Q: Did Romney say he would raise taxes on the middle class?

A: No.

Reasoned opinion:

Q: Will Romney's plan result in tax hikes on the middle class?

A: Opinions do differ, but the opinions of those with relevant expertise leans toward "yes."

Pure speculation:

Q: Is Romney aware of how full of shit he is?

A: As Governor of Massachusetts, he was against the very tax cuts passed in 2003 that he now pledges to continue (Wayne Washington and Glen Johnson, “Romney Weighs In – Carefully – On Bush Tax Cut Plan; Governor Won’t Give His Endorsement,” Boston Globe, 4/11/03) and there is a whole Wikipedia page devoted to his shifting political opinions, so it seems likely, IMO, but that's pure speculation based on my personal notions of what a reasonable person's sense of self-awareness is like.

I mean, I can tell you why I agree with one opinion or another on the latter two issues, but they're not subject to a fact-check. A fact-check is where you can cite something that directly shows the proposition stated, without any reasoning, inference, etc. "Leading economists say Romney plan will lead to a $2000 tax increase on middle class families" can be fact-checked. "Romney plan will lead to a $2000 tax increase on middle class families" requires citations that say things like "see" and "contra" as well as original reasoned argument weighing the conflicting opinions against each other and discarding the bullshit. I have no idea where this all went wrong.

Because your headline is "Romney will raise taxes on the middle class: false" or "Romney will raise taxes on the middle class: true", both of which are deceiving.

Even your first question "Did Romney say he would raise taxes on the middle class? No." has implications just stated like that.

[Guest Raidne]

Because your headline is "Romney will raise taxes on the middle class: false" or "Romney will raise taxes on the middle class: true", both of which are deceiving.

You mean the headlines of fact check organizations? That's because the ones who put a claim up like that like it can be fact-checked like sourcing a journal article are full of shit.

Even your first question "Did Romney say he would raise taxes on the middle class? No." has implications just stated like that.

I don't think so. Either he said it or he didn't. Did Bill Clinton say that he had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky in his deposition testimony? No, he said that he did not.

Did he lie, since he later admitted she performed oral sex on him? Reasoned opinion - unlikely, since he did not by the definition offered by opposing counsel. Does that violate common sense? Yes, but all these people are lawyers. But neither of these statements can be "fact-checked."

Did Al Gore claim to have invented the internet? No. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" and that he "took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives." Can that be construed as him saying he "invented the internet"? No, but it means he made his support a necessary condition for the existence of the internet, and a good case can be made for that. Is he aware of how dumb it sounds to say you "took the initiative on the initiative? Half man, half bear, half pig.

This is not, IMO, ambiguous. I suppose the idea that something that requires reasoned argument cannot be fact-checked cannot itself be fact-checked, but I hope I've provided a reasoned argument.

[Shryke]

You mean the headlines of fact check organizations? That's because the ones who put a claim up like that like it can be fact-checked like sourcing a journal article are full of shit.

That's basically all of them.

They always hit broader issues because, I guess, that's what people really want to know. Not "Did X person says Y at time Z", but "Is X person really going to do Y?". They want someone to give them a general overview of an issue and tell them if it's bullshit or not.

I don't think so. Either he said it or he didn't. Did Bill Clinton say that he had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky in his deposition testimony? No, he said that he did not.

Did he lie, since he later admitted she performed oral sex on him? Reasoned opinion - unlikely, since he did not by the definition offered by opposing counsel. Does that violate common sense? Yes, but all these people are lawyers. But neither of these statements can be "fact-checked."

Did Al Gore claim to have invented the internet? No. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" and that he "took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives." Can that be construed as him saying he "invented the internet"? No, but it means he made his support a necessary condition for the existence of the internet, and a good case can be made for that. Is he aware of how dumb it sounds to say you "took the initiative on the initiative? Half man, half bear, half pig.

This is not, IMO, ambiguous. I suppose the idea that something that requires reasoned argument cannot be fact-checked cannot itself be fact-checked, but I hope I've provided a reasoned argument.

It is though. Or, rather, it's ambiguous how it will be interpreted by the reader. The statement has implications that will be read into it.

You are depending on everyone taking an extremely narrow and specific reading of the statement and language just doesn't work that way. Especially in reporting.

[TerraPrime]

All this dancing around Romney's tax plan as it concerns the middle class is sort of like Aes Sedai. It's the difference between "I am Mistress Alys" and "You may call me Mistress Alys" ins't it? Even the factcheck.org's explanation said that while there's disagreement, the consensus is that Romney's plan will result in higher tax for middle class people. Quibbling about his precise wording and phrasing is a bit silly after that point has been established, imo.

[dalThor]

It's really hard to say whether this is satire or not:

Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign, he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, “If Stench calls, take a message” and “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later.”

Politico

Could Ryan be throwing Romney under the bus or is this a load of crap?

[Guest Raidne]

All this dancing around Romney's tax plan as it concerns the middle class is sort of like Aes Sedai. It's the difference between "I am Mistress Alys" and "You may call me Mistress Alys" ins't it? Even the factcheck.org's explanation said that while there's disagreement, the consensus is that Romney's plan will result in higher tax for middle class people. Quibbling about his precise wording and phrasing is a bit silly after that point has been established, imo.

Is the consensus that Romney's tax plan will result in higher tax for middle class people? I don't think so. The consensus is that if Romney's tax plan is made revenue neutral it will have to result in higher taxes on the middle class.

Since I've never yet seen a revenue neutral Republican tax plan, I'd say that's a pretty problematic premise. Or, sure, silly even, whatever you want to call it.

[DanteGabriel]

Is the consensus that Romney's tax plan will result in higher tax for middle class people? I don't think so. The consensus is that if Romney's tax plan is made revenue neutral it will have to result in higher taxes on the middle class.

Since I've never yet seen a revenue neutral Republican tax plan, I'd say that's a pretty problematic premise. Or, sure, silly even, whatever you want to call it.

So the Romney plan will either result in higher taxes for the middle class or lead to bigger deficits. Remember when the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, me neither.

It's really hard to say whether this is satire or not:

Politico

Could Ryan be throwing Romney under the bus or is this a load of crap?

Saw that, and also had a hard time figuring it out. It has to be satire, or at least some pseudo-Hunter S. Thompson "augmented reality" riffing.

The quote from the former political director of the Iowa Republican Party, though, describing the "stench" of Mitt Romney, is awesome and real. From a New York Times article (which says conservatives want Ryan unchained):

If the Republican ticket loses in November, the rush by Mr. Ryan and other 2016 hopefuls to position themselves for the Iowa caucuses “is going to look like Best Buy the night after Thanksgiving,” said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa. “I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him.”

[Guest Raidne]

So the Romney plan will either result in higher taxes for the middle class or lead to bigger deficits. Remember when the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, me neither.

Right, so which do you really think it would be? Raising taxes in order to responsibly raise revenue to offset other cuts? Are you laughing yet?

[DanteGabriel]

Right, so which do you really think it would be? Raising taxes in order to responsibly raise revenue to offset other cuts? Are you laughing yet?

I'd say he'll raise taxes on the middle class and eliminate some deductions, but not nearly enough to cover the big breaks he's giving to plutocrats. All of the above then.

[K.C.]

If billionaires were allowed to influence the results on American Idol instead of American elections, there would be rioting in the streets.--Andy Borowitz

American Idol is about as democratic as the presidential election, but I don't say that in a good way...

[Crazydog7]

American Idol is about as democratic as the presidential election, but I don't say that in a good way...

Yeah sad commentary on Modern Life that your average man on the street probably knows more about American Idol then political issues you use to decide weather or not you want to vote for this or that candiate

Little questions like has the stock market gone up or down since Obama took office? Or for the vast majority of Americans have taxes gone up or down?

[K.C.]

Yeah sad commentary on Modern Life that your average man on the street probably knows more about American Idol then political issues you use to decide weather or not you want to vote for this or that candiate

I was referring more to the fact that super-rich people make the choices for you, the winner is beholden to said rich people, it's one big corporate money-making scheme, and candidates make the cut by appealing to the lowest common denominator.