Is there a fact checker for the State of the Union and GOP response?

[John_Mace]

@IntelliQ

I think what they’re saying is that he couldnt get many things through the congress when he had a super-majority, so making the same ole promises now with a divided house is logically unsound. Instinct tells me he’s just setting up republicans to take more blame when he doesnt achieve the same goals he failed on before. That’s just my opinion not a fact. Time will tell.

You’re right, of course, about what Obama can and cannot do, but that’s not fact checking. Fact checking means looking at things he claims to have done or that happened on his watch and seeing if the claims ring true.

[BobLibDem]

@IntelliQ

You still havent supplied contradictory information debunking their list of claims.

If I stop giving you money, does that mean I am taking money from you? If I discontinue a subsidy, is that a tax increase? The oil companies testified in congress years ago that they didn’t need their subsidies, now if they get cut off it’s a “tax increase”.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@John_Mace

Obama is talking about Ford. It was in your quote.

Come on. You don’t think it’s sloppy, at best, to include Ford in a statement about the Auto Bailout program since Ford received no bailout monies? Anyone reading that, who did not know otherwise, would think Ford was doing well because of the Bailout.

Um, yeah, how did I miss that? :smack:

Perhaps Obama was alluding to the idea that the bailout also saved Ford. Yeah, that’s it. Well, it could be it.

[Lightnin]

@IntelliQ

Not only are Obama’s promises rehashed from the last speech and written at an 8th grade level (for the 3rd consecutive time, ranking at the very bottom of the past 70 years of SOTU speeches), but his rhetoric in no way matches reality.

Yes, I saw that observation making the rounds of the right-wing fora yesterday, as well. A few were honest enough to admit that it is actually advised that public speeches be aimed at the 8th-grade level… and that if the speech had been ranked higher, he would’ve been labeled an “elitist”.

For the record, the average of every comment you’ve made in this thread, on the Flesch Kincaid Grade level, is 8.62.

[Simplicio]

@IntelliQ

I think what they’re saying is that he couldnt get many things through the congress when he had a super-majority, so making the same ole promises now with a divided house is logically unsound. Instinct tells me he’s just setting up republicans to take more blame when he doesnt achieve the same goals he failed on before. That’s just my opinion not a fact. Time will tell.

Thats my point, if time will tell, then its not really much of a “fact check” unless the writer lives in the future.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Lightnin

Yes, I saw that observation making the rounds of the right-wing fora yesterday, as well.

I saw on Facebook a few people mentioning that Obama’s speech exhibited reasoning at a kindergarten level. I wonder if this is where that idea came from.

[IntelliQ]

@Lightnin

For the record, the average of every comment you’ve made in this thread, on the Flesch Kincaid Grade level, is 8.62.

I am an accommodating person by nature. I can bring it down another notch or three if you’re still having trouble.

[Simplicio]

Honestly, I think the problem is despite public perception, politicians don’t really straight up lie that much. Especially in big speeches like the SOTU where they’ve had a lot of time to prep and are basically reading from a script. So a reporter has to sit down and write a “fact check” article, and then when all the facts check out, he has to struggle to find some interpretation that makes things into a “lie”. If they just reports “no lies here”, the public will think they’re covering for a favored pol, and their bosses aren’t going to be too happy about paying them for a three word article.

I think they should just write articles breaking down speeches like the SOTU, give background information (like the stuff about Obama’s past efforts to increase oil company taxes, which is interesting and relevant, just not particularly salient in the context of a fact-check), and if the politician does lie, they can point it out there.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

IntelliQ, that is not a fact check in my opinion, it is a criticism of policy.

OBAMA: “We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.”

THE FACTS: With this statement, Obama was renewing a call he made last year to require 80 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035, including nuclear, natural gas and so-called clean coal. He did not put that percentage in his speech but White House background papers show that it remains his goal.

But this Congress has yet to introduce a bill to make that goal a reality, and while legislation may be introduced this year, it is unlikely to become law with a Republican-controlled House that loathes mandates.

Yeah, they really pointed out Obama wrong when he said divisions are too deep in congress to do anything by pointing out that divisions in congress were too deep to do anything.

[Marley23]

@IntelliQ

I am an accommodating person by nature. I can bring it down another notch or three if you’re still having trouble.

IntelliQ, this is turning into a hijack and turning up the snark factor won’t help. Let’s stick to fact-checking the State of the Union address.

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH with the personal shots.

Everyone, stick to discussing the debate points of the thread and leave your personal cracks at other posters out of it.

[ /Moderating ]

[BobLibDem]

@Simplicio

I think they should just write articles breaking down speeches like the SOTU, give background information (like the stuff about Obama’s past efforts to increase oil company taxes, which is interesting and relevant, just not particularly salient in the context of a fact-check), and if the politician does lie, they can point it out there.

How is ending a subsidy a tax increase?

[Simplicio]

@BobLibDem

How is ending a subsidy a tax increase?

I think the subsidy being discussed is in the form of tax write-offs, so ending them would be a tax-increase. Could be wrong, but the article seems to use the two terms interchangeably, in any case.

[Aeris]

@IntelliQ

I think what they’re saying is that he couldnt get many things through the congress when he had a super-majority, so making the same ole promises now with a divided house is logically unsound. Instinct tells me he’s just setting up republicans to take more blame when he doesnt achieve the same goals he failed on before. That’s just my opinion not a fact. Time will tell.

I don’t understand how not getting things through Congress is a failure on Obama’s part. To me, that sounds like a failure on the part of Congress. If he sets up the ball and Congress fails to spike it, how is that Obama’s fault? That may have been one of the dumbest analogies I’ve ever made but I think it applies.

And why would you change your goal just because there are stubborn people in your way? That sounds like giving up to me.

“So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. Change will take time. There will be setbacks and false starts, and sometimes we’ll make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope, because there are people all across this great nation who are counting on us…”–Barack Obama, 2008

[David42]

The fact checkers missed one thing that I caught:

Obama’s claim that Dairy Farmers had been exempted from oil spill regulations. At best, this is only partially true

1. In the early 70’s, and in repsonse to oil spills at sea, regulations were passed about containment and cleanup when oil and associated substances, products and by-products of oil are spilled.
2. For forty-odd years, no-one thought to apply this to dairy.
3. in 2010 some joker noticed that milk could be included in the definition of oil because milk has fats in it, which are “oils.”
4. The dairy industry got wind of this and protested because they didn’t want to have to build berms, pay to have containment teams trained and on call, or have millions of dollars set aside for cleanup.
5. (here’s the real deception) The EPA, rather than say “this is an absurd interpretation of oil spill regulations” took this seriously as giving them jurisdiction and said they would CHANGE IT by exempting Dairy. (Note this method of “solving” the “problem” they created allows them to take jurisdiction over dairy when congress intended none.)
6. EPA exempts dairy farmers on the condition that they have certain dairy equipment in place. In cases where dairy farmers do not comply, the EPA HAS NOT exempted them and claims jurisdiction over dairy under oil spill regulations. An exemption in reality would say “the Dairy Industry is not subject to Oil Spill Regulations, regardless of the fact that milk contains fats.”

Obama claims to have exempted dairy from this absurdity, which is not true. EPA now monitors Dairy for compliance where they did not before.

So Obama makes it look like he is making things easier to do business for the little guy, but in fact he grew the reach of government, along with the EPA.

[theR]

Another fact-checking article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-2012-state-of-the-union-speech/2012/01/25/gIQAa5CTPQ_blog.html

[TriPolar]

@John_Mace

Obama is talking about Ford. It was in your quote.

Come on. You don’t think it’s sloppy, at best, to include Ford in a statement about the Auto Bailout program since Ford received no bailout monies? Anyone reading that, who did not know otherwise, would think Ford was doing well because of the Bailout.

It’s not sloppy. It was done intentionally to mislead. But the statement is literally accurate. That’s why it is pointless to fact check rhetoric. The statements as read can be true, while the entirety of the speech can produce a false context.

[magellan01]

@TriPolar

It’s not sloppy. It was done intentionally to mislead. But the statement is literally accurate. That’s why it is pointless to fact check rhetoric. The statements as read can be true, while the entirety of the speech can produce a false context.

That about sums it up.

[BrainGlutton]

@IntelliQ

Not only are Obama’s promises rehashed from the last speech and written at an 8th grade level (for the 3rd consecutive time, ranking at the very bottom of the past 70 years of SOTU speeches) . . .

Of course, if he had given his speech in five-dollar words (which he knows and can use), the RW would be bashing it as elitist.

[Simplicio]

@TriPolar

It’s not sloppy. It was done intentionally to mislead. But the statement is literally accurate. That’s why it is pointless to fact check rhetoric. The statements as read can be true, while the entirety of the speech can produce a false context.

I think it was defensible. In 2008, the CEO of Ford told the Senate that while Ford didn’t need funds, the company risked going bankrupt if its competitors didn’t receive gov’t funds, as the disruption to Fords suppliers if one of the big three went under could cause a liquidity crisis despite the companies existing lines of credit:

Despite the serious global economic downturn, Ford does not anticipate a liquidity crisis in 2009 – barring a bankruptcy by one of our domestic competitors or a more severe economic downturn that would further cripple automotive sales and create additional cash challenges.

In particular, the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises.

So assuming Ford’s CEO knew what he was talking about, Ford’s current success is at least partly attributable to the auto-maker bailout. Obama isn’t wrong to associate the two.