Yet more ridiculous nonsense from Politifact

[dsc]

Hillary Clinton went on Charlie Rose and said that the economic numbers were 100 times better under Clinton than under Reagan. Now to be fair they weren't 100 times better but Politifact went further. They declared it to be a modest difference. So what was the difference.

The biggest gap comes from the percentage decrease in impoverished Americans. The decline in raw numbers under Clinton was 17 times greater than under Reagan. But the other metrics are closer. The poverty rate fell close to three times faster under Clinton; the unemployment rate fell 50 percent faster under Clinton; and the number of employed Americans rose 17 percent faster under Clinton.

We did not hear back from Clinton’s camp. However, we would be skeptical of the argument that her claim was simply a harmless exaggeration for rhetorical effect. She posits a massive difference in economic improvement under Clinton as opposed to Reagan. In reality, both saw notable improvements, even though Clinton’s were stronger across the board.

We also reviewed the video of the interview and didn’t detect any obvious sign that Clinton said it facetiously.

Our ruling

Clinton said the number of jobs created and people lifted out of poverty during Bill Clinton’s presidency was "a hundred times" what it was under President Ronald Reagan.

Clinton’s record does outpace Reagan’s on the four statistical measures we looked at. But the differences are not like night and day, as her phrasing claims. Both presidents saw improvements, with Clinton’s being incrementally better -- not 100 times better. We rate the claim False.

end of quote

more at politifact

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/21/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-economic-stats-were-100-times/

Now I don't know about you but I consider a 17 times difference in the raw number of impoverished Americans, a 3 times difference in the drop of the percentage of impoverished Americans, a 50 percent difference in the drop in the unemployment rate, and a 17 percent difference in the number of Americans who got jobs is not incremental. It is not 100 times better but it surely isn't incremental. If you are going to call a politician on a false statement that was clearly a hyperbolic exaggeration and not meant to be taken at face value, it might be nice to be truthful yourself.

[JaneyVee]

1. Jeez. that was obviously rhetorical.

Such an even number. Though, if she is serious about running, she should give up rhetoric.

[dsc]

2. I would have accepted a half true

or even the ruling they had had they admitted the numbers for Clinton were immensely better.

[herding cats]

3. That's actually funny that they'd judge that as being a literal statement

I don't know if they're biased or full of crap, but to take that statement literally rather than figuratively is too funny! It's obvious harmless hyperbole.

Will their heads explode if some says "a million years ago when I was a child?"

[JEFF9K]

4. I've complained to the local newspaper several times about Politifact.

Among other things, I told them they should do a fact check on the "take away" of a statement rather than considering it literally.

Now our paper has switched to voting by the readers on the truthfulness of statements, with predictable results.