> It’s not true, for example, that the debt has increased only 16 percent since Obama took office. That erroneous calculation originally came from the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. And — despite being corrected later — it has continued to circulate via email. [...]
And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).
And on the deficit side (not the same as debt for those who mix them up):
[Romney Wrong on Deficits, Auto Bailout][2]:
> Mitt Romney wrongly claimed deficits “multiplied … by a factor of four or five” under President Barack Obama. He also incorrectly stated that auto companies have repaid only a "small" share of the government bailout money.
The deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, and it grew to more than $1.4 trillion during his administration — an increase of far less than 400 percent to 500 percent. As for the auto bailout money, nearly 50 percent of the roughly $80 billion has been paid back. By any reasonable measure, half is not "a small share." (Note: this one is from 2011, so the bailout factcheck isn't up to date)
Here's the alternative-universe response form Romney campaign last night:
> “President Clinton drew a stark contrast between himself and President Obama tonight. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans, balanced the budget, and after four years he could say you were better off. Barack Obama hasn’t worked across the aisle – he’s barely worked with other Democrats – and has the worst economic record of any president in modern history. President Clinton’s speech brought the disappointment and failure of President Obama’s time in office clearly into focus.”
That is simply a fairy tale. (A) Obama desperately tried to work across the aisle, and even adopted Republican ideas, and everyone knows it. Google these words "republicans vow block obama" and you get more than $3 million examples of why Obama couldn't get Republicans to work with him: They were determined to block his success without regard to the country's success.
And (B) Obama has the worst economic record? WTF? Look at BUSH's numbers, which you can glean from the stuff I'm about to post below:
While you're at Politifact, [see the list of recent facts of both parties][1]. They have a great graphical interface that tells you right away how false or true statements are. I love factchecking (as my staff well knows). ;-)
Here is [Factcheck.org's version][1] of Clinton's speech; says his "stats checked out."
Here's [Politifact][2] on Clinton's Republican v. Democrat job claims. And [Politifact says Clinton's statement about Obama's 95 percent tax cut][3] is "half-true"--that is, 95 percent of all working families got a tax cut from Obama. (Too big Clinton didn't say that more precisely; it's impressive still.)
I'm also not sure Democratic leaders should be talking about race. I think that's up to we-the-people. I always say we expect our leaders to do too much -- including stuff we should be doing. So I'm doing my part. ;-)
And you'll never get me to say that either party has actual moral backbone. That's why I don't identify as a party member, and choose based on candidate, facts and current platform. To be honest, though, I'm not sure the two-party system allows much moral backbone -- certainly not in a world where corporations are considered people with First Amendment rights. Not sure it's possible, but that's another conversation.
That said, it's taken some degree of moral backbone to do right, but politically risky things such as health-care reform and even supporting gay marriage. It might have been later than it should have been, but it happened.
I'm sure it is. I hate to have to sit through it, though, in order to write about it. Especially if it's a theater with birthers in it. Maybe I can get a review copy.
"Women should take a vocal and unapologetically moral position. 'I choose my choice' feminist has not gotten us anywhere good. We've allowed opponents to use the language of life, love, family and morality for too long. Supporting reproductive and health-care rights, economic equity, anti-violence campaigns—they're all deeply moral rights." ~ Rebecca Traister, author of "Big Girls Don't Cry"
BTW, Taibbi answered [questions about his Bain/Romney story on his blog.][1] It included this statement:
> [W]hat people need to understand about private equity firms like Bain is that they are not in the business of turning around companies and creating jobs. The unions and pension funds that invested in those deals did not do so to rescue companies. If you invest in a Bain or a Carlyle or a KKR takeover deal, you’re not betting on the future success of whatever company they took over. You're betting on the ability of those firms to make money on the deal, which may – or, just as importantly, may not – involve turning the target company around.
And while we're on the topic of shutting down businesses and plants while "running it like a business," here's is an [op-ed Romney wrote against the auto bailout][2]--which worked. The title: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
(And don't forget: Even Bush didn't want that to happen, and gets initial credit for the auto bailout.)
donnaladd says...
[Duling Deb Deceptions on Factcheck.org][1]:
> It’s not true, for example, that the debt has increased only 16 percent since Obama took office. That erroneous calculation originally came from the office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. And — despite being corrected later — it has continued to circulate via email. [...]
And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
The figures in that graphic are pure fabrications, as anyone can easily confirm by plugging Obama’s inauguration date — Jan. 20, 2009 — in the Treasury Department’s handy “debt to the penny” website. That shows the nation’s total debt stood at $10.6 trillion on the day Obama took office (not $6.3 trillion), and it had increased to nearly $15.4 trillion by the end of January 2012 — a rise of more than $4.7 trillion in just over three years (not $6.5 trillion).
And on the deficit side (not the same as debt for those who mix them up):
[Romney Wrong on Deficits, Auto Bailout][2]:
> Mitt Romney wrongly claimed deficits “multiplied … by a factor of four or five” under President Barack Obama. He also incorrectly stated that auto companies have repaid only a "small" share of the government bailout money.
The deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, and it grew to more than $1.4 trillion during his administration — an increase of far less than 400 percent to 500 percent. As for the auto bailout money, nearly 50 percent of the roughly $80 billion has been paid back. By any reasonable measure, half is not "a small share." (Note: this one is from 2011, so the bailout factcheck isn't up to date)
[1]: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/duelin…
[2]: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/romney…
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 12:12 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Here's the alternative-universe response form Romney campaign last night:
> “President Clinton drew a stark contrast between himself and President Obama tonight. Bill Clinton worked with Republicans, balanced the budget, and after four years he could say you were better off. Barack Obama hasn’t worked across the aisle – he’s barely worked with other Democrats – and has the worst economic record of any president in modern history. President Clinton’s speech brought the disappointment and failure of President Obama’s time in office clearly into focus.”
That is simply a fairy tale. (A) Obama desperately tried to work across the aisle, and even adopted Republican ideas, and everyone knows it. Google these words "republicans vow block obama" and you get more than $3 million examples of why Obama couldn't get Republicans to work with him: They were determined to block his success without regard to the country's success.
And (B) Obama has the worst economic record? WTF? Look at BUSH's numbers, which you can glean from the stuff I'm about to post below:
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 12:08 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
While you're at Politifact, [see the list of recent facts of both parties][1]. They have a great graphical interface that tells you right away how false or true statements are. I love factchecking (as my staff well knows). ;-)
[1]: http://www.politifact.com/
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 10:20 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Here is [Factcheck.org's version][1] of Clinton's speech; says his "stats checked out."
Here's [Politifact][2] on Clinton's Republican v. Democrat job claims. And [Politifact says Clinton's statement about Obama's 95 percent tax cut][3] is "half-true"--that is, 95 percent of all working families got a tax cut from Obama. (Too big Clinton didn't say that more precisely; it's impressive still.)
[1]: http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinto…
[2]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter…
[3]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter…
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 10:16 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I'm also not sure Democratic leaders should be talking about race. I think that's up to we-the-people. I always say we expect our leaders to do too much -- including stuff we should be doing. So I'm doing my part. ;-)
And you'll never get me to say that either party has actual moral backbone. That's why I don't identify as a party member, and choose based on candidate, facts and current platform. To be honest, though, I'm not sure the two-party system allows much moral backbone -- certainly not in a world where corporations are considered people with First Amendment rights. Not sure it's possible, but that's another conversation.
That said, it's taken some degree of moral backbone to do right, but politically risky things such as health-care reform and even supporting gay marriage. It might have been later than it should have been, but it happened.
On Flipping the 'Race Card'
Posted 3 September 2012, 6:22 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
I'm sure it is. I hate to have to sit through it, though, in order to write about it. Especially if it's a theater with birthers in it. Maybe I can get a review copy.
On Flipping the 'Race Card'
Posted 3 September 2012, 6:19 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
(Sorry for typos in first version. Posted too quickly.)
On Most Women's Job Losses Are Government Jobs
Posted 2 September 2012, 3:13 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Great quote from the Elle feature:
"Women should take a vocal and unapologetically moral position. 'I choose my choice' feminist has not gotten us anywhere good. We've allowed opponents to use the language of life, love, family and morality for too long. Supporting reproductive and health-care rights, economic equity, anti-violence campaigns—they're all deeply moral rights." ~ Rebecca Traister, author of "Big Girls Don't Cry"
She's @rtraister on Twitter.
On Most Women's Job Losses Are Government Jobs
Posted 2 September 2012, 2:58 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
BTW, Taibbi answered [questions about his Bain/Romney story on his blog.][1] It included this statement:
> [W]hat people need to understand about private equity firms like Bain is that they are not in the business of turning around companies and creating jobs. The unions and pension funds that invested in those deals did not do so to rescue companies.
If you invest in a Bain or a Carlyle or a KKR takeover deal, you’re not betting on the future success of whatever company they took over. You're betting on the ability of those firms to make money on the deal, which may – or, just as importantly, may not – involve turning the target company around.
And while we're on the topic of shutting down businesses and plants while "running it like a business," here's is an [op-ed Romney wrote against the auto bailout][2]--which worked. The title: "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
(And don't forget: Even Bush didn't want that to happen, and gets initial credit for the auto bailout.)
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-tai…
[1]: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl…
[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opini…
On Just Out: New York Attorney General Subpoenas Bain Documents
Posted 1 September 2012, 10:28 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
In case you missed the hundreds of pages of leaked Bain documents, [click here to view][1].
[1]: http://gawker.com/5936394
On Just Out: New York Attorney General Subpoenas Bain Documents
Posted 1 September 2012, 9:42 p.m. Suggest removal