Fact Check on State of the Union

[dellinger63]

Seems a few things Obama said last night don't add up suprise, suprise!

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.

THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."

Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but 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.

OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FACT-C....html?x=0&.v=2

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Seems a few things Obama said last night don't add up suprise, suprise!

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.

OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.

OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.

OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.

THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."

Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but 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.

OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FACT-C....html?x=0&.v=2

Your expecting Obama to be homest or have any common sense? LMAO so hard that im ready to fall out of my chair. Comes Nov 2012 the same people who don't deserve to vote will vote for him AGAIN.

[Heels1989]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Your expecting Obama to be homest or have any common sense? LMAO so hard that im ready to fall out of my chair. Comes Nov 2012 the same people who don't deserve to vote will vote for him AGAIN.

Please explain why these people do not deserve to vote? Because they did not vote for your candidate/party?

As for the facts not always adding up, I believe this has been a regular issue with State of the Unions regardless of who holds the office.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Heels1989

Please explain why these people do not deserve to vote? Because they did not vote for your candidate/party?

As for the facts not always adding up, I believe this has been a regular issue with State of the Unions regardless of who holds the office.

The reason im saying this is how could anyone vote for Obama? Loook at the limited experience in politics he had at that time. I am also not endorsing McCain either.

Obama's doing a fine job. Unemployment was 7.8 when he took over, now it is over 9.0.

[AeWingnut]

dems won congress in the '06 election

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

dems won congress in the '06 election

Thank you for your graph on unemployment.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

dems won congress in the '06 election

Why don't you post the chart of the actual numbers of jobs lost, year by year, from 2001 through 2011?

We'll wait. Let me get some popcorn.

[Riot]

Fact check on State of the Union, Paul Ryan, and Michelle Bachmann (LOL)

http://www.politifact.com See the bottom of the page, too.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you post the chart of the actual numbers of jobs lost, year by year, from 2001 through 2011?

We'll wait. Let me get some popcorn.

You having problems comprehending the graph? Just curious why are you wanting the year by year breakdown of jobs lost. You dont think the graphs tell a story?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

You having problems comprehending the graph? Just curious why are you wanting the year by year breakdown of jobs lost. You dont think the graphs tell a story?

Yes, but it is just a summary after the fact. It doesn't tell where the unemployment numbers came from - when those jobs were lost. How many jobs were lost in what years.

In fact, lets compare the numbers of jobs lost during 2001 to 2008, and the numbers of jobs lost from 2008 to present.

I'm sure Wing will post that. I'll wait

And are we supposed to believe CBO figures now? Because when I posted CBO figures about the deficit, people here said they could not be believed.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, but it is just a summary after the fact. It doesn't tell where the unemployment numbers came from - when those jobs were lost. How many jobs were lost in what years.

In fact, lets compare the numbers of jobs lost during 2001 to 2008, and the numbers of jobs lost from 2008 to present.

I'm sure Wing will post that. I'll wait

And are we supposed to believe CBO figures now? Because when I posted CBO figures about the deficit, people here said they could not be believed.

If those graphs were a lie wouldn't someone be sued for lieing?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

If those graphs were a lie wouldn't someone be sued for lieing?

Who said those graphs were a lie? I didn't.

I say they don't tell the whole story. The one just lists unemployment percentage (excluding those that have fallen off the grid due to extensive, long-term unemployment) in October of each year (not even for the whole year)

Let's look at actual job loss numbers, and when those happened. How many jobs were lost. Year by year. From 2001 to 2011.