Factcheck.org is full of shit, claims Obama's ad about "cutting benefits in half" is false

[ProSense]

Scaring Seniors

September 19, 2008
Updated: September 20, 2008
An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

Summary

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."

<...>

The Obama-Biden campaign attempts to document their "cutting benefits in half" claim by citing a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities written by Jason Furman, who is currently one of Obama's top economic advisers. This won't do. What Furman's study actually says is quite different from what the ad claims.

Furman's report says that the "progressive price indexing" plan Bush supported would result in benefits for the average worker who retires in 2075 that are 28 percent lower than under the current formula. Obviously 28 percent is not "half."

more

There have already been numerous reports citing scenarios in which future benefits would be cut more than 45%.

What I want to know is why does factcheck believe it's not scary that Social Security would be cut by 28%?

Here is Factcheck.org covering for Bush in 2004:

• Kerry: New Kerry Ad Exposes Bush’s January Surprise
  
  
• Factcheck: Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits

Luckily, at the start of Bush's second term, Democrats were ready and successfully beat back Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security.

Sure Factcheck.org get some things right, but it appears it's only to build enough credibility to get away with spin.

Factcheck.org and Jake Tapper jump on Obama's ad to cover for McCain

[ProSense]

1. What is up with

factcheck.org's constant Republican bias on Social Security and big oil?

[karynnj]

2. I remember the 2004 one - Kerry refered to

comments that Bush and his advisers had made - and when they backed away from them - the media said Kerry's claim was false. However, it then became the number one issue on Bush's agenda as soon as he was elected No one mentioned that he had denied it in Oct 2004.

[ProSense]

6. Instead of correcting the record, factcheck.org continued to prop up Bush

Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees: Democrats call it a "cut." Compared to what?

Compared to reality!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Their Social Security "whopper" on Obama is even worse.

They admit that Obama was right, except that it doesn't affect seniors *now*, but would affect seniors in the future. This is besides the point because Obama said "IF todays seniors were under McCain's plan now". They go on and on to cover for McCain. "McCain has voted for privatizing social security in the past, but since he hasn't talked about it in awhile I guess that means he's not for it anymore." Ugh.

[ProSense]

4. Factcheck charge being cited.

Politico updated it's post on the ad citing factcheck.org charge that he ad is false.

Firstread updated its post citing Politico.

[sandspur]

5. Factcheck often uses a very narrow scope when looking at issues

Palin gets a lot of passes because her handlers are good at telling half truths. What She says is "technically" true, but implys an untruth.. It is a shortcoming of factcheck.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Obama should pull the ad

There's tons of good stuff to go after McCain with. No need for anything the least bit shaky.

[ProSense]

8. BS, there is nothing shaky about the ad. n/t

[FVZA_Colonel]

16. Even the appearance of being shaky can be a problem.

I like the ad, and agree that it is not what FactCheck says it is, but the media is hardly fair to Obama (despite one or two people turning against McCain in recent weeks). Nonetheless, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what's right.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I thought the proposed cut was 28%.. so saying it was 50% is a mistake

[ProSense]

11. Well, that isn't correct

Bush's Benefit Cuts Would Affect 70 Percent of All Taxpayers. Benefits would be cut for everybody making more than $20,000 in 2005. For an average wage earner retiring in 2075, the cuts would equal 28 percent. For workers whose wages are 60 percent above the average - currently $59,000 - the cut would be 25 percent if they retired in 2045 and 42 percent if they retired in 2075.

link

The truth about social security

The idea that social security may soon fall into bankruptcy is just another Republican scare tactic. The programme is sound

Senator McCain can't remember how many homes he owns, but that shouldn't distract voters from the fact that he wants to take away their social security. It is striking to find an adult who has to get help in counting his homes, but that really is less important than the policies that McCain would try to implement if he were elected president.

McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatising social security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately 1% a year for many workers.

Workers who retire 10 years after the plan was put in place would have seen a 10% reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retire 20 years after the plan is implemented would see approximately a 20% cut in benefits, and workers who retire 40 years later would see their benefits cut by close to 40%.

more

Factcheck.org just can't declare the ad is false, and claim Obama is trying to scare seniors by saying: Oh, there's nothing to be afraid of. He's wrong. Your income will only drop by 28% not 50% (that is unless you're in the category where your income will drop by 29% or more).

They claim they have no evidence Bush supports a plan that would drop benefits by the more than 45%, but there are numerous analyses that show that.

Now, I'm quite sure Obama didn't pull this number out of the air.





edited for clarity

[Captiosus]

10. I gave up on Factcheck.org a while ago

They had one of their media people claiming that Palin's cut for special needs education was "pure internet rumor", even though they had the official documents we did that clearly showed she reduced spending from 8.5 million to 3.1 million. They went on to say that it wasn't a cut because it somehow (and I daresay magically) increased per student spending.

Sorry but subtracting 5.4 million is a cut, and if it REALLY increased spending per student then somewhere along the lines they made it significantly more difficult for special needs children to get assistance and those who qualified got a larger per student share.

[ProSense]

13. Factcheck is not

credible on this issue. After they charged that Kerry's ad was false, they still went on record defending Bush in 2005 by claiming the plan wasn't technically a cut in benefits.

So now they're claiming the cut is only 28%?


Edited typos, word.

[iceman66]

12. The way I understand it

McCain is attempting a 'divide and conquer' approach. He claims that he will not cut benefits for anyone currently receiving them; only future recipients' benefits will be privitized.

[Top Cat]

14. The are full of BS

[New Dawn]

15. Factcheck.org has a right-wing bias.

And must, undoubtedly, be owned by a right-winger.

[johnaries]

17. Are you sure that's not factcheck.com, Cheney's favorite site?

:evilgrin: