Honesty Ratings Obama vs. Romney

reply to post by Indigo5


Let's use the closest real numbers we have, shall we? I apologize for stating earlier that the information could be found on TreasuryDirect.com, when the website name is actually TreasuryDirect.gov.

I'll even back up the numbers prior to Bush's presidency, since the data isn't available again until Sept. 2001.

Let's start on September 29, 2000:

Public Debt: 3,405,303,490,221.20

And let's just go further and see what the public debt was on the day Obama took office on January 21, 2009:

Public Debt: 6,307,084,792,840.85

So, now we have an increase of $2,901,781,302,619.65 for all 8 years of Bush and then some.

Obama is sworn into office for the 2nd time on January 21, 2009, so let's start there again for Obama.

Public Debt: 6,307,084,792,840.85

Now just to state we're working with actual numbers, let's just go ahead and cut off Obama's presidency on the last record of data which was on April 11, 2012.

Public Debt: 10,886,106,101,181.97

So, now we have a public debt increase under Obama (to date) of $4,579,021,308,341.05 in less than 3-1/2 years.

Let's look at that again:

Increase in public debt after 8+ years of Bush: $2,901,781,302,619.65
Increase in public debt after 3+ years of Obama: $4,579,021,308,341.05

Originally posted by Alxandro
its really difiicult to take this "poll" seriously when Obama comes in at 95% on the truth side.
Where have these people been in the last 3 years?
Are they not listening to what Obama says one day, while watching him do the complete opposite the next?
Serious KoolAid drinkers if you ask me.

You can view all of the statements that PolitiFacts chose to use in order to base their survey in the original link.

Coincidentally, I saw almost two identical statements made by Obama that were counted twice within the first 3 pages.

Originally posted by Alxandro
its really difiicult to take this "poll" seriously when Obama comes in at 95% on the truth side.

It's not a poll.

They analyze campaign statements.

If you go to the site, you'll even see their records on Ron Paul. They listen to the debates, wait till a candidate says something about numbers and statistics ("87% of all Americans are on welfare!") and then they use many sources to see if this is true.

So, for example, Polifact looked up Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto..

First, they checked to see "Did Romney say this?" Answer, yes. They found the place where he said it.
Next, they checked to see "What were Romney's REAL words"? Well, if you read the article, they came from a Romney ad in a Miami paper.
THEN they checked to see "Did Newt say this?" yes, he did.
Then they checked to see WHEN he said it. Answer: March 31, 2007, to the National Federation of Republican Women

No polling involved. So yes, that was 100% true on Romney's part and counts for a true Romney statement.

Check out the Polifact site -- it's pretty darn interesting!

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Well Romney has a problem, namely that he is trying to appeal to
a crowd that would like Hitlers policies better than his own personal
views.

I don't think there's even reason to believe he has his own views.

reply to post by Byrd


I have to say that it suprises me the number of folks that seem to think that Politifact is simply a "poll" of peoples opinions.

I have taken it for granted that people understood the nature of fact-checking.

To some degree I think the confusion is an outgrowth of the general view that facts and opinion are interchangable.

Forgot who said it...

"We are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not however entitled to our own set of facts"

reply to post by Deetermined


First off...while we disagree...I appreciate you looking to back up your claims..

What you are measuring via TreasuryDirect.gov is the amount of US Treasury Bonds that the public holds, less intragovernmental holdings etc.

What doesn't seem to be accounted for is the huge, near unprecidented demand for US Treasury Bonds spiked during the economic downturn, and interest rates dropped to historic lows.

Also Public Debt in raw numbers does not account for Debt relative to GDP.

Excluding Intragovernmental holdings can also skew the numbers..

An often-ignored aspect of federal debt is that the FED acquires large chunks of national debt when it buys bonds during expansionary open-market operations. Other government agencies also buy bonds when they run surpluses. Accountants count these agencies' bondholdings as national debt, but this is a lot like saying that your right pocket owes your left pocket if you shift spare change from one pocket to another.

www.unc.edu...

I am not a fan of our current levels of debt, but at the same time your numbers seem the most convenient to make your argument and not the best measures of public debt.

This without going through TreasuryDirect to see why the numbers you sourced are different than the several sources I provided. I did find December 2000? Either way...I don't have the bandwidth to have an extended debate on the figures arcoss varying sources.

Originally posted by Byrd

If you go to the site, you'll even see their records on Ron Paul. They listen to the debates, wait till a candidate says something about numbers and statistics ("87% of all Americans are on welfare!") and then they use many sources to see if this is true.

So, for example, Polifact looked up Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto..

That's funny, are you telling me that Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto is a numbers and statistics statement? That sounds more like a "race card" tactic from the Obama administration to me.

Originally posted by Alxandro
its really difiicult to take this "poll" seriously when Obama comes in at 95% on the truth side.
Where have these people been in the last 3 years?
Are they not listening to what Obama says one day, while watching him do the complete opposite the next?
Serious KoolAid drinkers if you ask me.

When all facts and numbers are telling you that you are wrong...why even be more wrong by claiming the numbers are wrong

I know it's hard to admit...but sometimes maybe you are the one drinking the kool-aid.

So when Obama says all women deserve equal pay he gets a Truth mark. Then when he does the opposite and pays the women in his administration 18% percent less he gets what? Oh right, nothing. This poll is so useless.

Women Paid Significantly less in Obama White House

Or when he decries high gas prices in 2008 and cites people he knows he can't even job search because the price of gas is over $3.... then in 2012 when asked about high gas prices he tells people to go buy a better car.

Ooops! It looks like some of these statistics are already outdated.

Here's an Obama statement that was ranked a "Half Truth" back in December 2011...

"We don't take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will."

www.politifact.com...

But, now....

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the president’s re-election, will report $2 million in February donations, group officials said, including $1 million from the television host Bill Maher. Those amounts are substantial for Priorities USA and a related group, which together raised about $6.1 million through the end of 2011.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by Byrd

If you go to the site, you'll even see their records on Ron Paul. They listen to the debates, wait till a candidate says something about numbers and statistics ("87% of all Americans are on welfare!") and then they use many sources to see if this is true.

So, for example, Polifact looked up Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto..

That's funny, are you telling me that Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto is a numbers and statistics statement? That sounds more like a "race card" tactic from the Obama administration to me.

Numbers and statistics? He is saying it is factually true. I am starting to wonder if some folks don't understand what a fact is.

Newt Gingrich literally said "Spanish is the language of the ghetto"...Poltifcat confirmed this through actually reviewing video/audio and associated news text.

So they declared the claim by Mitt Romney that Newt Gingrich said "Spanish is the language of the ghetto" as true.

What are you missing?

reply to post by Indigo5


What part of Byrd's first sentence did you miss?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
So when Obama says all women deserve equal pay he gets a Truth mark. Then when he does the opposite and pays the women in his administration 18% percent less he gets what? Oh right, nothing. This poll is so useless.

Women Paid Significantly less in Obama White House

Or when he decries high gas prices in 2008 and cites people he knows he can't even job search because the price of gas is over $3.... then in 2012 when asked about high gas prices he tells people to go buy a better car.

Jesus...what is wrong with you?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
So when Obama says all women deserve equal pay he gets a Truth mark.

Provide a link or take the BS somewhere else.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Then when he does the opposite and pays the women in his administration 18% percent less he gets what?

That thread and claim was shown to be BUNK on page one and you are citing it to back up your claims on a thread about honesty????

Originally posted by jjkenobi
This poll is so useless.

IT'S NOT A POLL...which you would know if you had actually went to POLITIFACT...OR READ ANY OF THE PRECEEDING POSTS ON THIS THREAD.

Just amazing that you would pop in on a thread about facts and honesty, not read it, but still deride it and do so with a litany of debunked BS and falsely claim it is a "Poll".

Damn the irony or ignorance.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

What part of Byrd's first sentence did you miss?

What about this confuses you?

So, for example, Polifact looked up Romney's claim that Newt Gingrich said Spanish is the language of the ghetto..

First, they checked to see "Did Romney say this?" Answer, yes. They found the place where he said it.
Next, they checked to see "What were Romney's REAL words"? Well, if you read the article, they came from a Romney ad in a Miami paper.
THEN they checked to see "Did Newt say this?" yes, he did.
Then they checked to see WHEN he said it. Answer: March 31, 2007, to the National Federation of Republican Women

No polling involved. So yes, that was 100% true on Romney's part and counts for a true Romney statement.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
How does campaign rhetoric become mostly true? Why is Obama's Campaign rhetoric 95% True? I would really love to see who they asked, where, and what questions....

Politifact is left-leaning as well. Of course they would buy Obama's rhetoric.

Politifact sources the claims they make, you can read up every single statement they list. And it's a FACT that Romney lies significantly more than Obama

And as Byrd and others have stated already, Politifact isn't an opinion polls, they are checking political statements versus the facts.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Deetermined
Ooops! It looks like some of these statistics are already outdated.

Here's an Obama statement that was ranked a "Half Truth" back in December 2011...

"We don't take a dime from D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- never have and never will."

www.politifact.com...

But, now....

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the president’s re-election, will report $2 million in February donations, group officials said, including $1 million from the television host Bill Maher. Those amounts are substantial for Priorities USA and a related group, which together raised about $6.1 million through the end of 2011.

www.nytimes.com...

And the OBAMA CAMPAIGN Still does not accept money from PACS. These PACS independantly are supporting the President

Pull up Opensecrets.org to see the PACS that directly give money to the campaigns of GOP Congressman, Senators and Presidential Nominees.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

What part of Byrd's first sentence did you miss?

He didn't miss anything of importance. I'm not exactly sure how fact checking a statement Romney made about Newt has anything to do with Obama. Facts don't lie. You might not like how they portrait "your" candidate, but that's not the problem of facts

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

[rude remark deleted by moderator].

I "CHOSE" to include the RELEVANT part of Byrds post that you CHOSE to exclude in your post when you tried to falsley claim that Byrd was supporting the Romney Claim as opposed to the RP claim with statistics.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE CONFUSED...but thank you for clarifying that your aim was dishonesty.

reply to post by Indigo5


What's this? Obama's CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS will be going to Priority USA fundraisers, but won't be soliciting contributions?

And you believe that?

The effort will include appearances at fundraisers by White House officials and members of the Cabinet, although Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will not attend them, Messina said. He also said in his email that while campaign officials will attend the fundraisers, they will not be "soliciting contributions" for Priorities USA Action, the super PAC.

Read the whole memo...

www.prioritiesusaaction.org...

The man clearly states that they won't be "playing by two sets of rules".

So, yes, they will be playing the exact same game. The only difference was that Obama said he wasn't going to play their game. He thinks he's being honest by not soliciting contributions himself, but his campaign officials are clearly going to do if for him, with his blessing.