AP: FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger

[steve2470]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_state_of_union_fact_check

The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

Critique this, please.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Similar proposals "last year" that went nowhere

...are a hallmark of the average SOTU. It's a laundry list, more often than not delivered to a hostile congress.

My arguments against the speech have more to do with the myriad concessions made to GOP talking points/philosophies.

Presidents rarely bother to "balance the books" in SOTU speeches. That's not what it's for; that conversation happens in the budget meetings...maybe.

On edit: the article indicates the President would spend more than he would cut, something the AP writer seems to frown upon...except, if you ask Stiglitz, Krugman, or any reputable economist who is not a hack AP stringer taking potshots, you'd hear them say that spending more is vital. If the President spends more and cuts less in order to get the economy going - as recommended by a barrel of Nobel economists and correct analysts, I'll cut him some serious slack. I didn't hear it tonight, but hey, I'm not all that smart myself.

:)

[emulatorloo]

13. see TNR - "Snore or Snare? The State of the Union set a cunning trap for Obama’s enemies."

A little different perspective on the "GOP talking points/philosophies" issue. Worth taking a look at if you haven't seen it already.

Snore or Snare?
The State of the Union set a cunning trap for Obama’s enemies.
Ed Kilgore January 26, 2011 | 12:13 am
The New Republic

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/82175/sotu-obama-republicans-trap

The ideas and policy proposals in Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address were anything but fresh and original. Much of it could easily have been harvested from any number of interchangeable speeches given during the last 20 years—not just by presidents by members of Congress, governors, mayors, and CEOs—from both parties. Yet that may have been exactly the point. By staking his claim to decades of well-worn political detritus, I think Obama has set a cunning political trap for his enemies.

<SNIP>

-------------------------------------------------------

Pirate Smile's DU THREAD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x600317

[Skittles]

2. it's called giving a purty speech

[woo me with science]

9. yes INDEED. nt

[mzmolly]

3. Sure. Here's a bit of history on Calvin's fact checking abilities.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/30/calvin-woodwards-fractured-fact-check-strikes-again/

[emulatorloo]

5. Oh, yeah, I forgot that. Thanks for the link. n/t

[steve2470]

7. Informative article, thanks ! nt

[emulatorloo]

4. Read this section, what do you think.

He basically BASHES OBAMA for saying he wants to strengthen Social Security. Because he has rejected the dumb ass proposals of the debt commission.

Look at the language it is very negative

This is nothing but a HIT PIECE

OBAMA: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."

THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.

[hfojvt]

8. yeah, that one certainly is not a fact check

Obama is wrong because he didn't endorse a proposal I like.

Good call there :thumbsup:

[Luminous Animal]

10. And he tells a huge lie. Social Security will not run out of money in 2037.

[eridani]

11. Bipartisan solution = damaging Social Security

There is no such thing, by definition, as a "bipartisan" plan that will strenghten Social Security. Asking for "bipartisanship" = making major cuts.

[emulatorloo]

12. Take a clue from the HCR statement - If you have good ideas I will listen

if you have bad ideas/want to get rid of it, forget it.

(Besides that not all Republicans want to kill Social Security - my Senator (R) has a pretty good record on senior's issues)

[eridani]

15. Right. Just like Obama didn't want to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy n/t

[hfojvt]

6. yeah that was the first thing I read when I got online after work

seems like they went out of their way to be critical of Obama, but then at the end they only had one negative thing to say about Ryan.

They seem to have a point. Obama sort of lead with a spending freeze, but then talked about all the investments we need to make. So where does that money come from?

Will the Republican House really vote to end subsidies to oil companies? And how much are those subsidies? It seems to me that I HAVE heard that proposal before. So why didn't the Democratic House do it?

The $3.65 billion that they mention is chump change, but their link about "tax increases" does not seem to have specifics, it is just a google search page on the phrase "tax increases". Is it really fair to conflate the ending of a subsidy with a tax increase? Perhaps. I don't know the details of these subsidies. You might look at the personal exemption as a subsidy to the individual tax payer, but you'd be political toast if you tried to eliminate it.

[grahamhgreen]

14. He mentioned eliminating the tax breaks on the rich, but really, their taxes need to be doubled

This is especially true of corporations - if the companies saw that their taxes would be doubled unless they built factories in America, they'd start investing their trillions real quick.