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

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

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.

And, phrase-brevity and word-simplicity in political discourse is a valid creative choice, and something George Orwell highly recommended.

[TriPolar]

@Simplicio

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:

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.

I’m not saying the statement is right or wrong. It could be interpreted to be misleading because their was no direct government assistance for Ford, or interpreted as accurate because someone believes Ford benefited indirectly from the assistance to other automakers. Neither way is there anything provable as fact.

[Marley23]

@TriPolar

I’m not saying the statement is right or wrong. It could be interpreted to be misleading because their was no direct government assistance for Ford, or interpreted as accurate because someone believes Ford benefited indirectly from the assistance to other automakers. Neither way is there anything provable as fact.

Which makes the context valuable. Now that we’re on the subject, I believe potential job losses at suppliers were cited as one of the reasons the bailout was necessary: a lot of companies beyond the two bailed-out automakers would have suffered.

[BrainGlutton]

@IntelliQ

I dont want to see Obama get unfairly picked on.

Yes, you do.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@TriPolar

I’m not saying the statement is right or wrong. It could be interpreted to be misleading because their was no direct government assistance for Ford, or interpreted as accurate because someone believes Ford benefited indirectly from the assistance to other automakers. Neither way is there anything provable as fact.

I would think most things economic are difficult to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, due to the complexity of the free market. Does it make sense to hold anyone to such a standard and when they fail to meet it completely claim that they are “misleading” us? Naturally the President is going to put things in the best light for him politically, hopefully with plausible evidence existing to back up his claims. Whether he did that here is obviously for each of us to decide.

On another note, I see that Ford did in fact get assistance from the Obama administration, in a $250 million dollar loan through the Export Import Bank of the United States in August of 2010. Another piece of evidence, along with Simplicio’s link, to give Obama reason to tout his administrations efforts to help Ford, along with GM and Chrysler.

[Jas09]

@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

This is another example of the problems of “fact checking” articles. They often don’t check facts. Almost every one of these is along the lines of “the facts are true, but the statement is misleading”. That is not fact-checking, that is argument.

Fact-checking should be reserved for factual statements and argument should be saved for the editorial pages.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Another problem with the Washington Post fact-check is that that with live events, they “do not award Pinocchio rankings.” Now I ask you, what good is a fact-check article without Pinocchio rankings?!?

[IntelliQ]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Another problem with the Washington Post fact-check is that that with live events, they “do not award Pinocchio rankings.” Now I ask you, what good is a fact-check article without Pinocchio rankings?!?

I think a decent overall opinion of the SOTU can be formed by reading each portion they dissected. I like pinocchios too (just for the laugh factor really. one or four doesnt matter, they make me giggle).

Overall, the SOTU speech was a sales job and little substance.

(btw, I’m watching Reagan SOTU speeches on youtube as I type. Huge difference in tone, fluidity, sincerity, responsibility, and SUBSTANCE.)

[Marley23]

@IntelliQ

Overall, the SOTU speech was a sales job and little substance.

(btw, I’m watching Reagan SOTU speeches on youtube as I type. Huge difference in tone, fluidity, sincerity, responsibility, and SUBSTANCE.)

Again, the topic of this thread is fact-checking the speech and the GOP response, not the intelligence, “sales job” and comparisons to previous SOTU addresses.

[Shodan]

This one is a pretty straightforward lie -

@Obama

Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

You can’t pay down debt with borrowed money. Either Obama knows that, and is lying, or doesn’t know it, and is an idiot.

I suspect he doesn’t know it - he appears to think borrowed money can fix every other problem.

He also appears to believe the invasion of Iraq made the US safer and more respected, or at least is trying to imply that. Don’t know whether to rate that as a lie or not - I don’t think he really believes it, but he is trying to have it both ways.

This is sort of the opposite - it is a clearly false statement, and he should know better, but maybe he is just being dumb and not deceptive -

You can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

I don’t call it common sense, I call it ridiculously stupid. Buffett pays hugely more taxes than his secretary. If he meant tax rates, he should have said tax rates - this is a prepared speech, with a Teleprompter and everything.

Regards,
Shodan