Post 2: Due Friday, 9/28
We are at the point in campaign season where highly politicized statements get said & get attention but sometimes they are not true & not caught because there isn't much time to fact check. That is your job this week. :) Find a TV ad or a speech by a candidate or interest group or party & fact check it. Then discuss whether you think the ad or the speech is truthful enough and if it's untruthful if you think there are consequences to their lie.
For an example of what I'm talking about look at how National Public Radio fact checked President Obama and Rep. Ryan's speeches to the AARP last week. (But don't use that speech or article because that isn't showing your own work.)
A website that you might find helpful: http://www.factcheck.org/.
This is due by class time on Friday, 9/28. It should be proofread & spell checked. You need to include links to your evidence. One link should be to the speech or the ad you are critiquing. Youtube is a great place to start.
Please pick a relatively recent add (ie. the person should be still running for office - shoot for late summer or fall ad) but can be for any office (fed/state/local) or issue.
Good luck.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:21 AM
34 Comments:
Semi-recently, the Obama campaign has been running a particular series of ads against Mitt Romney that attempt to destroy his reputation and credibility. One of Romney’s primary focuses this election year is his ability to create jobs during a time of severe economic unemployment. In these commercials, the Obama campaign describes Romney as a “corporate raider” who has shipped jobs to China, Mexico, and India rather than created them on the home front (1). According to the ad, Romney continually outsourced jobs during his time as head of Bain Capital as well as his time as governor of Massachusetts (1). However, these claims appear to be half truths and contain several falsehoods. The two examples provided regarding Bain Capital both occurred after Romney had left the company (2). Additionally, the attack on the Republican candidate as a “corporate raider” appears untrue as well (2). Bain Capital did not participate in any hostile takeovers during Romney’s stint as CEO (2). As for his actions as governor, it was not the state that outsourced employment contracts to India (2). Romney merely vetoed a bill that would have cut ties with a state contractor that was outsourcing customer service calls to foreign nations (2). This being the case, I do not think it is wise to adhere to everything you see on television or hear on the radio. While researching for this post, I was stunned at the number of inaccuracies I stumbled across coming from all directions of the political spectrum.
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaw5cTjxmk
2)http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
Now that the season of campaign ads has come around, there are many truths and lies that are being thrown around. In the Obama campaign, they claim not only a few things to be true but they claim several dozen things are true regarding what Obama has done during his presidency. While watching this video, one of the “truths” that the Obama campaign talks about is how Obama brought home our troops from Iraq after their 9 years of service there (1). However, I found that that statement isn’t one hundred percent true. While there were 40,000 troops stationed over there, only 36,000 came home (2). The Stars and Stripes reported that the other 4,000 troops were shipped over to Kuwait to finish their brigade tour (2). Now, while Obama speaks the truth when he says he took our troops out of Iraq, he lies when he says that he brought all troops home (2).
Another fact that Obama seems to have twisted a little is about health care insurance. He claims that healthcare will be “affordable and available to every single American” (1). However, when I checked the facts on that statement, CBO stated that about 23 million Americans will still be without health insurance (2). The law extends Medicaid, helps some Americans afford insurance, and it also doesn’t allow insurance companies to deny people based on conditions that they already have (2). That may give more Americans health care insurance but it does not make it available to every single American. That is a twisted fact by the Obama administration. The article also shows that instead of decreasing the price for healthcare insurance that this health care reform has somewhat increased the price and has made it somewhat less affordable (2). This has been caused by health insurance premiums increasing in price by 1-3% since the law was passed (2). So, when Obama stated that he made health care affordable to every American, for the moment, he has done just the opposite. He can’t keep saying he has helped Americans in respect to healthcare because the facts aren’t necessarily on his side.
Overall, I think this ad by Obama is truthful enough but I think the truth is just twisted in little ways. Yes, Obama took our troops out of Iraq and brought them home but not all of them were returned home as promised. He also did make health care more affordable but not to “every single American” like he claimed he would. Yes, he did change aspects of health care that extend coverage to more people but it still isn’t going to be given or attained by every single person. I don’t think these small lies in president Obama’s campaign will hurt him because there are so many points that he makes that I think people won’t focus on the smaller details. I do, however, think that Obama needs to be more careful with his words because he is deceiving people, they just don’t notice. So, although there may be a few twists in his facts, Obama’s campaign seems truthful enough.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=relmfu “Forward”
2) http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/
With the campaign season heating up, ads become more and more prevalent and thus more and more annoying. The worst are the most negative ads. These are run by interest groups and super PACs, not run by candidates who still have faces and fates attached to their ads. Faceless groups have the low-road advantage because they don’t face repercussions for their negativity. However, what the ads end up claiming are often stretched-truths if not flat-out lies.
For example, the super PAC American Crossroads ran an ad in Florida attacking Sen. Bill Nelson’s stances on Medicare. The ad included claims that Medicare will be “rationed” for seniors or will not cover treatments (1). It claims that “unelected bureaucrats” will determine Medicare cuts without Congressional approval (1). The ad goes on to claim Nelson entered the deciding vote on the Affordable Care Act and that $700 billion was cut from Medicare (1). These are shaky claims filled with passionate rhetoric against an incumbent with a rather healthy 8.8% poll lead (2).
Let’s get down to business. Medicare cannot be rationed under the law, and certain treatments cannot be chosen over others; “rationing” overstates the possibility of spending changes (3). The “unelected bureaucrats” are indeed unelected but are chosen by the president with consent of the Senate (3). The “bureaucrats” only have the power to recommend these Medicare spending changes and cannot directly create premiums changes, taxes, or expenditures (3).Their recommendations can, in fact, be overruled by Congress, so Congress is nowhere near out of the picture in any case (3). The claim on Sen. Nelson himself is overstated; he indeed voted for the ACA but was not the deciding vote that flipped the balance of pass or fail (3). Last, the $700 billion “cut” from Medicare has become a false cliché of the national newsreel; $716 billion was saved in future cost growth and not in expenditures (3).
Be wary of the factoids presented to you by politicians, interest groups, and super PACs. As evident here, numbers, concepts, and simple verb usage can heighten facts to absurdities false, misleading, and blown out of proportion. The direr the situation, as in this case against Sen. Nelson, the more negative and misleading ads gets. Keep your facts straight and “enjoy” the election season!
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D_NkI6NVxw
2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/fl/florida_senate_mack_vs_nelson-1847.html
3. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/
The advertisement I chose to review is titled “Dangerous. (1) ” In it, the Super PAC attacks Rick Nolan, a Democrat challenging Republican Chip Cravaack, for his “radical” stances on healthcare. The advertisement begins by claiming that Rick Nolan, a Congressman in the 1970’s, planned to scrap Medicare and replace it with a European-style healthcare system. It cites a statement by Nolan, proclaiming himself as a sponsor of a “Kennedy-Corman Bill,” as evidence. In this instance, the advertisement is not lying. Rick Nolan did sponsor the Kennedy-Corman Bill, which would have replaced Medicare with a system like the ones in Europe and Canada (2). What the advertisement neglected to mention was, however, that the bill Nolan backed would have provided universal healthcare in a system more comprehensive than Medicare (2). The advertisement simply leaves this fact out, however, leaving the viewer to assume that Nolan would have done away with Medicare and replaced it with something worse. Furthermore, the use of the words “European style healthcare system,” backed by ominous music and a stark gray background, is an appeal to American fears of ideas from foreign countries.
The advertisement continues to declare that Rick Nolan supports a “$716 Billion Cut to Medicare. (1)” Again, it is not lying. Rick Nolan supports Obamacare, which includes a provision that would cut Medicare by the aforementioned amount. This plan, however, bolsters coverage in other areas (3), something the advertisement leaves out. Furthermore, the candidate that the SuperPAC airing the advertisement supports, Chip Cravaack, is in favor of similar cuts to Medicare located within the Paul Ryan created, GOP backed budget (4), a fact that, again, the advertisement decides not to mention. The advertisement concludes with the message “This advertisement was paid for by American Action Network.” American Action Network is a right-wing SuperPAC created by deposed Senator Norm Coleman and one of his Republican colleagues, dedicated to spending millions to further the candidacies of GOP candidates (5). This right-wing backing too is something the advertisement never states.
This advertisement is not untruthful. It avoids blatant lies and excessive personal attacks. Not lying, however, is not the same as telling the truth. This advertisement can in no way be called honest, largely because it twists the truth through omission of relevant facts. However, there will likely be no repercussions to this truth twisting for two reasons. One: as far as political advertisements go, this one is relatively tame. Perhaps that says more about the nature of politics in America than it does about the merits of the advertisement, but nevertheless, this advertisement is fairly clean when compared to other negative advertisements. Second: Americans, as a whole, do not particularly care about the factual accuracy of their political advertisements. The most effective ads are not the factually accurate ones, but rather the ones which most successfully appeal to the average voter’s fear. There is a far greater benefit to telling lies and half-truths than there is in being honest.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur22xf1RPrw
2. http://bridgeproject.com/?adcheck_detail&id=159
3. http://www.healthcareandyou.org/what-is/
4. http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
5. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/american-action-network/
It is that time of the election year when everyone wants to be anywhere else. The political ads are multiplying and becoming nastier. Every side and group feels the need to weigh in and ad their own views to the airwaves. This leads to a large number of untruths and truths that are stretched to the max. Romney recently came out with an ad attacking president Obama’s position on China. In the ad he claims, “China has cost the US 2 million jobs” (1). This is untrue in the direct sense. That number is based off of predictions of jobs that could have been created if China enforced US intellectual rights (2). Another point that the ad does not address is the fact that US exports to China has rose by 45% since Obama took office (2). The ad states that “Seven times Obama could have taken action. Seven times he has said no” (1). What the ad is actually referring to is the Treasury Department’s semi-annual Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies where Obama has not listed China as a currency manipulator on the treasury list (2). Romney wants to change the policy and label China a currency manipulator. Some of the US based businesses that operate in China think that it will do more harm than good. The ad brings up the fact that China has “stolen” US ideas, from computers to fighter jets (1). The Obama administration has taken action against the “stolen” ideas contrary to what the ad leads you to believe (2). Overall as the election season progresses we have to remember that not everything said on ads are true. Campaigns do not always have time to or want to fact check everything that is said in their ads. As educated voters we need to take everything said in ads with a grain of salt, and maybe do a little research of our own.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs&feature=player_embedded
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
It is that time of the election year when everyone wants to be anywhere else. The political ads are multiplying and becoming nastier. Every side and group feels the need to weigh in and ad their own views to the airwaves. This leads to a large number of untruths and truths that are stretched to the max. Romney recently came out with an ad attacking president Obama’s position on China. In the ad he claims, “China has cost the US 2 million jobs” (1). This is untrue in the direct sense. That number is based off of predictions of jobs that could have been created if China enforced US intellectual rights (2). Another point that the ad does not address is the fact that US exports to China has rose by 45% since Obama took office (2). The ad states that “Seven times Obama could have taken action. Seven times he has said no” (1). What the ad is actually referring to is the Treasury Department’s semi-annual Report to Congress on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policies where Obama has not listed China as a currency manipulator on the treasury list (2). Romney wants to change the policy and label China a currency manipulator. Some of the US based businesses that operate in China think that it will do more harm than good. The ad brings up the fact that China has “stolen” US ideas, from computers to fighter jets (1). The Obama administration has taken action against the “stolen” ideas contrary to what the ad leads you to believe (2). Overall as the election season progresses we have to remember that not everything said on ads are true. Campaigns do not always have time to or want to fact check everything that is said in their ads. As educated voters we need to take everything said in ads with a grain of salt, and maybe do a little research of our own.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs&feature=player_embedded
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
While browsing The Washington Post, I came across an article that gave the summary of Mitt Romney’s tax cut plan. I thought this would be an interesting article because in the first place, I didn’t know what exactly Mitt Romney’s tax plan was (2). A general Republican value is usually to cut taxes, so I knew that he wanted to cut taxes. But I genuinely wanted to know how he planned to do it, and if it would ever be possible.
I found this quote about Romney’s tax plan, “His tax cuts won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.” (2). He wants to permanently extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts and cut income tax rates by 20 percent (3). I headed over to the Tax Policy Center, an unbiased website that judges and gives analysis on the tax plans of both candidates, and many other politicians around the nation. They had several facts that could be checked or that I wanted to pursue the validity of. He wants to lower the top tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and lower the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 8 percent (3). Governor Romney has not made it clear how he would increase the tax base, so it is unclear about how his tax cut program would affect the federal tax revenue total. Instead, we can analyze his supposed cuts and see if they actually add up.
The Tax Policy Center and Factcheck.org came up with these findings. About 11 percent of taxpayers would see their 2015 taxes go up by about $900 while about 70 percent would have a tax cut averaging around $4,300 (3). This refutes Romney’s claim that he, “won’t raise taxes on the middle class.” Even though the majority would have tax cuts, 11 percent would have raised taxes. Back to The Washington Post, we get a quote from Romney on “Meet the Press” where he claims that five different economic studies show that taxes will go down across the board (2). The Harvard study that he cites says that if the people earning above $100,000 are going to have increased taxes, then everyone below that $100,000 would have less taxes (4). The problem with this is that the group of people in the $100,000 to $250,000 would have to pay the brunt of the tax burden. This means that Romney’s whole tax agenda rests on the assumption that the “middle class” are the people who earn below $100,000 per year. Quoted in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Romney says, “Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” (2).
So what have we discovered? Looking back on the original quote, we see that it is untrue that his tax cuts will cost nothing. They will cost 11 percent of people an average of $900 more dollars. He said he won’t raise taxes on the middle class. To analyze this, we look to the definition of middle class. In his own words, he describes them as between $200,000 and $250,000 or below, but in his tax plan, he identifies it as below $100,000. So they won’t have to pay more taxes, but people between $100,000 and $250,000 will have to pick up that slack. He also says he won’t cut taxes on the rich. This seems to work out, because he says in the Fact Check article that they will pay no more than they are already paying (1). His last statement also seems to have no false association with it because in all articles cited, he promises no tax breaks for savings and investment.
Overall I think Romney’s plan is successful on paper. If everything goes according to his plan, the numbers have the potential to be correct (2). However, with some uncertain small details, like a clear definition of the middle class revenue totals, his plan seems to have several holes that give it a general atmosphere of being unrealistic and just not possible.
1)http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/
2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/
3)http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
4)http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-reply-from-martin-feldstein.html
As elections approach us, I saw a recent Romney campaign attacking President Obama for not standing up to China. In it he stated that Obama was responsible for the loss of 2 million jobs which instead went to China. He also claimed that Obama failed to stand up to China seven times before. In it he claims that Obama has allowed China to take American ideas and produce them for themselves such as fighter jets and computers (1). However these quick assumptions are incorrect. Romney is clearly mangling the facts and distorting the truth about Obama’s plans with China. The ad claims that Obama was the cause of 5 million jobs heading to China. However, that statement is misleading. The figure of two million came from and ITC report which claimed that if the US could improve its intellectual property rights in China it would help create 2 million jobs(2). The fact the jobs hadn’t been created yet meant that they could not be lost. Romney’s ad made it seem like the jobs had been lost when they hadn’t existed. The ad also points out that Obama has failed seven times to stand up to China, Those seven times in which Romney claims that Obama did not stand up to China was during a semi-annual Treasury report about currencies. In the report(2). Obama “failed” to stand up to China because he did not list China as a currency manipulator. Romney also claims that Obama has done nothing to prevent American ideas and plans from being stolen as he points to fighter jet plans being stolen. The truth was that they were never stolen and no secret information was obtained by China. In fact President Obama helped create the U.S. Cyber Command which helps keep the Department of Defense from any online threat(2). It is clear that in this ad Romney does what every politician does which is twist the facts to suit him . Yet there is no doubt that neither candidate will stop doing so because it may mean a decrease in voter support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is unfortunate that the nature of politics succumbs to lies and deception in order to win the favor of Americans unenlightened about the hard facts and truths about governmental actions. In Romney’s attack ad against Obama called “Stand Up to China,” he claims that Obama’s refusal to call China a currency manipulator has cost America two million jobs (1). However, it is immediately clear that Romney has distorted the facts. According to the International Trade Commission, Obama has not lost two million jobs, but instead that many jobs could have been created if intellectual property rights were protected by China (2). To bolster Obama’s position, his administration has actually “won significant intellectual property rights enforcement initiatives from the Chinese,” it has increased import duties on Chinese goods, and U.S. exports to China have risen by 45% (2).
In “Stand Up to China,” the ad states that the Chinese are taking technology and ideas from America and Obama has refused to take actions seven times (1). This number seven however, comes from the Treasury’s report to Congress saying that Obama will not deem China to be a currency manipulator (2). Romney stated that Chinese have manipulated currency to prevent the creation of U.S. jobs and stated that, “he would direct Treasury to label China a currency manipulator and instruct the Commerce Department to impose countervailing duties on Chinese goods if China did not take immediate action,” if he took office (2). However, the U.S.-China Business Council stated that the multilateral and the bilateral relations that Obama is enacting between America and China is favorable and solves the exchange rate issues (2). The Romney administration refers to a report in the Wall Street Journal saying Lockheed Martin’s information on the Joint Strike Fighter project was hacked or intercepted which has been linked to the actions of the Chinese according to some U.S officials (2). Romney’s statement of Obama refusing to take actions on Chinese stealing of American technology, is refuted by the fact that Obama created the U.S Cyber Command to combat these internet and hacker threats, and has supported the extension of funds that would support new protection initiatives (2).
The lies that have been construed by the Romney Administration sheds light on the questionable actions Romney has partaken in. Romney’s statements of Obama not taking action on China’s unfair practices is simply hypocritical as Romney’s investments have gone to businesses that have engaged in unfair practices (3). For example, when Romney was running Bain Captial, it invested a vast amount of money to a company that uses cheaper labor in Dongguan, China to produce appliances (3). It is true that the untruthful ad put out by the Romney Administration may take heat for these hypocrisies, but the effect will essentially be meager. With millions financed to these negative ads on favoring Romney and aimed at the swing states, “at least 33 billionaires had each donated a quarter of a million dollars or more to groups aiming to defeat Obama (4).” So even though ads on both sides of the political spectrum are misleading, they will continue to receive support for various reasons whether it is money, convincing rhetoric, or certain perceptions of the American people.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
3. http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/romney-invested-in-chinese-companies-that-use-unfair-trade-practices
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/romneys-lying-machine_b_1827787.html
There has been an advertisement circulating around the intranets, mainly YouTube, that has caught my attention. The advertisement in question is called "Where is Washington Taking Us?" (1). The video is very simple in its approach to bring more awareness to what the government has done for the US since 2009. It poses the question "Where is Washington Taking Us?" and states some "facts" and then answers the question by telling the viewer to "Look at where they've gotten us." They first say that in nearly 3.5 years, 745,000 more people are unemployed. This fact I found to be true. As of July, 2012, about 8.3% of the country is unemployed and looking for work, which is roughly 12.8 million Americans (2). In January 2009 CNN reported that the unemployment rate proportional to the population then was 7.2% which equated to about 11.1 million jobless citizens (3). So this fact is not only true but also somewhat underestimated for in the past 3.5 years more than 1.7 million more American's are jobless and seeking work. They go on to state that 14.5 million more people are on food stamps today since 2009. This is a lie. In January 2009, when President Obama took office, about 32 million people were on food stamps (4). As of June 2012, approximately 46.4 million people were on food stamps (5). While the figure is still quite high (about 12.4 million more people) it is nowhere near the supposed 14.5 million claimed by the advertisement. Many Republicans refer to President Obama as the "Food Stamp" President, because more Americans resorted to food stamps under his presidency than any other president in history. While this is true the figure presented is a much higher statistic than the fact, this causes many to over react and think that President Obama wants people on food stamps, a completely untrue opinion. The third claim by this advertisement is that college tuition is up 25%. It does not state which colleges, what leagues, what rank, just colleges. So one can only assume it means colleges in general. According to National Center for Education statistics this is also a lie. The average tuition of ALL colleges in the United States, both public and private, rose from $31,102 in December of 2008, to $31,395 in December of 2011, a mere .01% increase over the course of 3 years (6). This lie is meant to draw more students from the Democrats to the Republicans for it portrays President Obama and Democrats as not wanting to help students but actually work against them. But the fact and the matter is that tuition costs raised less under Obama than either the first OR second term of Bush (6).
The next fact given is that Gasoline prices are up 100%. Although it isn't quite 100%, for the most part it is true from January 2009, $1.84 a gallon to $3.87 (7). What the creators fail to mention how much Gasoline rose under the Bush Administration. In 2005, the second half of the Bush Administration, gasoline cost just about the same amount as it did in January 2009 (7). From 2005 to the end of 2008 Gasoline rose and peaked off at $4.12 a gallon (7). This is much higher than ANY price under the Obama Administration and is actually more than a 100% increase. This point brought up by the creators causes viewers to not realize and forget that prices of Gasoline fell dramatically between the Q4 of 2008, and Q1 of 2009 (7). If Gasoline had not fallen in price, under Obama's Administration gasoline would have fallen 6%. The final claim made by this advertisement is that in ten years, interest payments on the national debt are projected to more than double. This is true (8) but one can never know the outcome of the future. One can predict the future through extensive research and extrapolation, but one cannot expect it to mirror the results predicted. Overall, this advertisement is very effective but it tends to exaggerate a few of the facts to a certain extent that they are silly and just blatantly wrong.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FO4NlXllAg
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/03/economy-adds-163000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-rate-rises-to-83-percent/
3. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/news/economy/jobs_december/
4. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/29/national-republican-congressional-committee/nrcc-ad-blames-barack-obama-food-stamp-use-rising-/
5. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm
6. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
7. http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
And http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/average-gas-pricesjanuary-26-2009.html
8. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905
We are currently in the middle of an intense political battle as the November elections draw nearer. This means the campaign advertisements that are plastered on every television station are just beginning. With so many of them available, it is hard for viewers to know which claims are true and which are not. One ad that the Obama administration released a month ago attacked the Ryan plan for Medicare. The ad claimed that the plan would “Raise seniors’ costs by $6,400 a year” (1). This, however, is not the whole truth. Yes, this was the figure from the original plan that Ryan had, but to use it as fact is a fallacy because the plan has adapted and this figure is the old estimate (2). While it is most likely that the new plan would force senior citizens to pay more, there is no dollar amount or estimate yet (2). Furthermore, the ad claims that the Ryan plan would, “undermine the market for Medicare” (1). This is another statement that is untrue. In fact, it can be considered “blatantly false” to even consider that one plan would end Medicare altogether (2). There is no basis for either claim because the first one cannot be proven or disproven while the second one is altogether absurd because Ryan was not trying to end the program but rather decrease the federal deficit via cutting some of the federal government’s Medicare costs (2). Thus, I believe that this ad is not truthful enough to be used as a persuasive argument. It only expresses one biased viewpoint and does not even consider the facts. The consequences for taking such abrupt action are that it makes the president seem untrustworthy. It makes doubters debate if they can trust in the current president and his ability to lead the country in an honest manner. If he and his campaign cannot tell the truth in a short television ad, how can Americans trust him to lead honestly during the many critical situations that our commander-in-chief faces? Once viewers realize just how many lies are used in campaign advertisements, it brings into question the validity of politics itself because both sides of the political spectrum adhere to using attack ads that are not entirely truthful. One this doubt begins to fester, then some Americans will lose faith in the political process altogether.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJb6tA1cXT0
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/
In order to make their points heard and observed, falsehoods share close company actual facts in political ideas. In the middle of the mud flinging is an issue both near and dear to me. The ballot initiative to respect marriage to between a man and a woman in Minnesota looms like a dread Nazi Zeppelin, ever circling.
In watching a commercial, called 'Gathering Storm', by the National Organization for Marriage, I was presented with many errors (1).
The first was statement that supporters of gay marriage wish to bring the issue into the lives of heterosexuals(1). On the contrary, we could care less about their opinions. In the words of an anonymous protester, the so-called gay agenda is to "Spend time with my family, Be treated equally, and buy milk."
Secondly, it is asserted in the commercial that gay marriage will take the freedom to marry away from committed heterosexual couples (1). On the contrary, even a cursory glance at the Minnesota marriage amendment's wording proves that it neither grants nor restricts any rights, thus nullifying their argument(2). In fact, it can be argued that gay marriage grants rights, thus eliminating restriction.
A third argument I discovered to be unfounded was the belief that pro-marriage equality supporters forced heterosexuals to choose between 'faith and their job'(1). On the contrary, their is no Federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation (3). In other words, the national government has no power to force people to make the choice that is claimed in the ad (4).
A fourth and final assertion is that Schools are indoctrinating children with homosexual propaganda(1). The reality is quite the opposite. Public Schools are obligated to teach respect and responsibility and allow all beliefs to be equally respected(5). The preaching of any individual belief is in fact restricted due to the separation of church and state (5). It is sad that preaching tolerance in a public place is seen as indoctrination.
In summary there are many gross miscalculations made by the National Organization for Marriage. Only one of the four arguments can be interpreted as partially correct (State laws can protect discrimination based on sexual orientation)(4). But hey, .5 out of four is like, 12.5% right? For my part, I will strive for a more tolerant future as well as for the correcting of blatant falsities being projected across mainstream media.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI
2) http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment_(2012)
3) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx
4) http://www.irem.org/pdfs/publicpolicy/Anti-discrimination.pdf
5)http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/sexual.orientation.guidelines.pdf
Medicare, or Mediscare as many are calling it today, is a driving force in the upcoming election. With the baby boomers now becoming able to reap the benefits of Medicare, the way to maintain the ailing system is a highly contested issue. I focused on two ads dealing with Medicare, one from each campaign. The first of these was a Mitt Romney ad entitled “Paid in.” This ad does exactly what the campaign intended, it scares the people who are watching it. The ad makes it seem like Obama is cutting 716 billion from the current medicare budget and putting it into Obama Care [3] According to Fact Check. com this is entirely untrue. The Obama plan, intends to cut 716 billion in future spending, not taking it out of the current budget [1.] This can be considered a rather grievous error because it is an outright misstatement of facts. The other error in this Ad, is that it claims that the money people have put into medicare from their income every year, is the money that is being taken out in the Obama plan [3]. As stated earlier the money is not being removed from the trust that funds part A of medicare, the 716 billion dollars, is cuts in future spending. [1.] In my opinion this ad is completely incorrect. The misstatement of creatively fabricated data, makes the viewer learn entirely untrue information. The consequences of this ad are clearly seen in a rival Obama ad that, calls romney out on his actions [2.]
This ad however, is not without fault. There are some creative lies, in it as well. The title on youtube is “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Plan to end Medicare as we Know it.” Even in the title there is an hyperbole. Both campaigns are going to change medicare, because it can not function in the same manner much longer without increasing the federal deficit to astronomical levels [1.] Therefore to shift the focus entirely to the change Romney/Ryan will create is unfair. Obama’s ad, also makes it seem that the money that will come out of seniors pockets is going to be very soon. [2.] This is also an unfair statement, because for both campaigns, major changes will not occur until around 2020[1.] Also, at the end of the video it makes it seem like Romney and Ryan are going to end Medicare completely, another rumor that is blatant around the internet, that is very untrue.[2] But overall I think the lies in this ad are balanced by some truth, something completely missing in the previous ad, and the Obama team calls Romney out on that. Therefore I don’t think there will be much repercussions for the Obama administration when involving this ad.
[1] http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/
[2.]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5dEPbB5yQ
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4gPvToKTWU
It looks like Mitt Romney’s got some ‘splaining to do after this blatantly false attack ad was aired (1). The ad makes two main points:
1. President Obama ‘gutted’ the existing welfare system
2. President Obama’s plan will mean that individuals will not need to work to get welfare benefits
As usual, it seems that both of these accusations are wrong. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act created a new system of work requirements. Single people living without a dependent were required to engage in a “work related activity” in order to receive food stamp benefits. The law clearly lays out 12 specific activities that qualify as “work related,” including working or training for a job. Obama’s new plan has in fact changed these requirements, but not the way Romney’s ad would lead you to believe. According to Romney, Obama has made it possible for everyone who qualifies for welfare sit back, relax and get government benefits. This, however, is not at all true (2). While Obama’s plan does remove the work requirement, it replaces it with a series of new programs implemented on a state-by-state basis. Ironically, Obama’s move is actually in line with Republican ideals, since Republicans traditionally advocate the transition of power back to the states.
It’s pretty clear that this ad’s main claims are at least misleading, if not completely false (3). This is a classic case of stretching words to mislead. When the ad states that Obama “dropped the work requirement,” the words are true though the meaning is misleading. The last claims made in the ad (that you “wouldn’t have to work” and “they just send you your welfare check”) are complete lies (4). Each state will be required to replace the federal system with a similar one of their own, and the old standards will be enforced if the state fails to make improvement to their unemployment and welfare-seeking population counts.
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that the Romney campaign will suffer any consequences for their lies. The discrepancies between their statements and the facts require a fairly lengthy explanation and it will simply be too difficult to explain to the public at large what the truth really is. No counterargument can be made in the space of a thirty second soundbite, and therefore no campaign will be capable of refuting Romney’s claims.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j79YA1rRiWM
(2) http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/fact-check-welfare/index.html
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-weinstein/obama-welfare-to-work_b_1772739.html
No matter your political affiliation, it’s foolish to think that your candidate doesn’t lie on television ads. If we believed everything we heard on these ads, then we would have found pictures of Obama eating babies and medieval paintings of Romney starting the black plague. Unfortunately, this political tactic, akin to a flame wars, has become a standard in elections. Look at these two ads: “Dear Daughter”(1) and “Pay the Bills” (2). Both are trying to appeal to mothers, but seem to contradict each other. Obama’s ad says that Romney’s repeal of tax deductions would make it harder on the middle class mothers. Romney says that the debt and unemployment rate are high because of Obama. Let’s address Romney’s ad first. Romney claims that each person’s share of the debt is 50,000 per person. Which yes it is, but the debt has only risen 5.4 trillion since Obama’s inauguration (3). Obama certainly hasn’t done much to curb deficit spending, but he’s only contributed so much to it. Oh and my favorite is that while yes the unemployment rate for women is high, but it’s lower then the rate for men (4). But hey! Why let Romney have all the fun?! Obama’s claim that Romney wants to pull tax deductions for the middle class is merely his interpretation. While the non-specificity of Romney’s plan is an issue on its own, it doesn’t actually say that these deductions are part of it. According to the TPC (5), we won’t be able to pay for the tax rate cuts with the elimination of the tax breaks for the wealthy. Then again, non-specific plan so maybe he’s got something up his sleeve. Neither of these are of truthful as they should be. None of what I’ve said matters though to the average viewer, because they won’t do the research to find this out. They’ll just ignore it because it doesn’t favor their candidate or follow it blindly because they don’t know what else to do. In a weird mix of luck/misfortune these people don’t vote. Should we blame the politicians for their actions? Well yes, but it’s not totally their fault. They do this because we let them. They do it because we’re lazy and self-centered enough to not care about what goes on outside of our little bubbles. The only way to get through to us is through our god, television. There will never be consequences for these ads or any of the stunts pulled, because we’re to busy fighting with the guy on the other side of the “isle.” There will always be a difference of opinion in our nation, it’s what makes it so great, but we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves. Through combined efforts we can clean up these politicians act. Stop arguing with the guy next to you about taxes and fight with the guy at D.C. who’s pulling these stunts. Take a stand and we can make a difference. We used to be proud of our government, and yet it’s amazing when the approval rates go above 50%. You don’t approve? Fix it! But hey, what do I know?
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvN7GCcTVk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuSLoAD8BIw
3. http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
4. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
5. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/01-tax-reform-brown-gale-looney
6. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-obama-court-moms-distort-facts/
It’s hard to go a day without seeing a political ad on the TV, Mitt Romney recently released an ad called Stand Up To China. In the ad Romney says that Obama cost the United States 2 million jobs to China (1). However, the fact is inaccurate because it was taken out of context from the International Trade Commission, which originally said that China could gain 2 million jobs if China enforced U.S. intellectual property rights(2). A high priority of the Obama administration was intellectual property rights and in 2010 the U.S. won what is called “significant intellectual property rights enforcement initiatives” from the Chinese (2). In addition to the inaccurate statement by Romney, Obama has increased imports to China by 45% (2). Romney claims that Obama has said “no” to fixing the China situation seven times, but the seven times refers to a semi-annual report, not to China (1,2). Romney has a controversial plan for china, Romney believes that China undervalues its currency to keep their products cheap. He wants to “instruct the Commerce Department to impose countervailing duties on Chinese goods if China does not take immediate action,” (2). Overall, Romney’s ad is untruthful because the facts stated are taken out of context and don’t relate to Romney’s argument. With so many ads there will be little if any consequences to the inaccurate statements Romney made.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/video/847565/mitt-romney-stand-up-to-china
Attack ads are an unfortunate part of politics. Both sides are at fault and yet the majority of politicians keep doing them. Why? Some studies have shown that they work. (1)However, with the margin of undecided voters so small, and yet so vital, both candidates are pulling no punches in the latest set of ads. While both sides are at fault, I am focusing on the controversial issue of Governor Romney’s former company: Bain Capital. President Obama claims that Governor Romney had retained control of the company even after his leave of absence on February 11, 1999. If this were true, Governor Romney would be responsible for the jobs outsourced by Bain Capital. In Obama’s attack ad (3) several steel workers blame Bain Capital, and by extension Governor Romney, for the loss of their health insurance and their jobs at their GST steel plant. Governor Romney says that while he still retained his title as chief executive officer and sole shareholder, the company was managed by five directors in his absence. (2)Governor Romney was not a partner in the new private equity funds launched in 2000 and 2001, and therefore had no role in assessing new investments. In a news release, President Obama said that, “what hasn’t changed is [Romney's] unwillingness to take any responsibility for the American jobs that were outsourced and lost under his leadership, both before and after 1999.” However, several firms owned by Bain Capital, Corporate Software Inc. and Holson Burns, were actually adding jobs during the time that Governor Romney was directly managing his company. To summarize, I agree with the assessment made by www.factcheck.org. Governor Romney was not in direct control of his company when President Obama claims he was. Does this dissolve him of all blame for his companies’ actions? That is for the voters to decide in the 2012 elections. As a whole however, I think that most Americans would agree that “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/obama-and-romney-attack-ads-flood-airwaves/2012/08/10/745e52b4-e2e7-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_video.html
2)http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/bain-still-no-evidence/
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMndjLIQUFw
This political ad is an anti-Romney campaign ad and appears to be full of politics and rhetoric. Very little of the claims made by the ad appear to be true, if any. The ad is approved by President Obama, and it attacks Mitt Romney for his work at a company named Bain Capital. In the ad, many claims are made. Among them, that Mitt Romney’s companies shipped jobs to China and Mexico (1) .Also, it claims that while he was governor, he had jobs shipped off to India (1) . However, there are many problems with their statements. It would appear, first of all, that whoever researched this attack ad forgot to do their homework and compare the time that jobs in said companies were outsourced, and the time that Romney actually worked for Bain Capital. These jobs were shipped off AFTER Mitt Romney left the company, therefore he has nothing to do with these allegations (2) . The company referenced by the ad that relates to China is an electric manufacturing company, however, any outsourced jobs took place at least one year after Mitt Romney left the company (3) . When the political ad references jobs shipped to India while Mitt Romney was governor, it is also making a false claim. The state itself never outsourced so much as a single contract. The ad is referring to several sub-contractors, who were the ones who outsourced certain jobs, certainly not then Governor Romney’s fault (2) . Such negative attack ads against Romney also choose to ignore the good he did economically while at Bain Capital. For example, Bain Capital had control of a company named Stream International. During Romney’s time at this company, “By the time Romney left Bain, Stream’s call centers had grown from just a few hundred people in Massachusetts to approximately 5,000 employees across the United States.” (2). The former quote is by Scott Murray who was a president of Stream International. As usual, these negative attack ads against Mitt Romney concerning his time at Bain Capital never have much substance to them when examined closely. Such attack ads are misleading and should be kept off the television.
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk
2 http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
3 http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/
As the time gets closer to Election Day, the presidential candidates are making more "stump speeches" or short speeches that are meant to convey the reasons why one person should vote for a particular candidate. However, the problem with these speeches is that they often get very little attention and, as a result, the candidates tend to stretch the facts without many people noticing. This habit of politicians was perfectly exemplified Romney’s “stump speech” on September 7 in Nashua, New Hampshire. In this speech, Romney claimed that President Obama had told the country that he would have the unemployment rate below 5.4% in the third quarter of 2012. (2). Although, Romney did have his facts straight, he spun this study as a personal promise from President Obama even though President Obama did not make such a claim (1). In fact, in the study it says that there was “substantial uncertainty around all of our estimates (1).”
Another claim that Romney has made is that “the median income in America, instead of going up like the president said it would, has instead come down by $5,000 a family (2).” However, this is also dubious. This number, taken from a study conducted by Sentier Research Home, includes the drop in income resulting from former President Bush’s last year in office (3). When adjusted, the actual decline in income is about $3,290. And, although, this number was negatively spun by Romney, the improvement growth of income since September 2011 hints that the worst of the recession has passed and that the economy is in recovery (1).
If Romney’s speech was to be analyzed, one would find that in Romney used many facts erroneously which caused his speech to become untrustworthy. What is even worse, however, is the fact that this is not the first time that Romney is making these claims. In the RNC, Romney restated his overestimate on the fall of the median income, and even after the checks by the media, Romney continues to make the same claim (4). This fact leads me to believe that he will not be held accountable for this error. Another reason he will not be held accountable for these mistakes is because the purpose of the facts is still upheld. For example, in the median income fact, despite being off by $1,710, the fact that median income has declined stays the same. Similarly, with the statistic on the unemployment rate that Romney used to convey that the economy has not improved as expected, the fact of whether it was a promise or not does not disprove Romney’s point. In other words, these slip-ups by Romney are of no consequence because the main idea that he is trying to convey is still upheld.
1. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stIHGup2UTs
3. http://sentierresearch.com/reports/Sentier_Household_Income_Trends_Report_August2012_09_25_12.pdf
4. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-mitt-romney-speech-at-rnc/
Over the past few weeks there has been a third-party sponsored campaign ad slamming Rick Nolan for his views on Medicare. The ad is titled Dangerous, but is it really true? You can view the ad here. The ad begins by stating that "to us, Medicare is a sacred promise". Upon even an ounce of examination however (did you know that examination is measured in mass!?) you realize that "us" is not identified until the very end of the ad. In this way, the ad instantly gets the audience to identify with it without even creating a uniting issue (other than "Medicare is a sacred promise", which 99% of all American citizens would agree with). The ad then continues by stating that Nolan tried to replace Medicare in the 70's with the Kennedy-Corman Bill. First of all, you know you're probably in trouble when your attack ads have to look back to 1976 to find evidence damning the candidate. If the last thing they did wrong was over 35 years ago they should probably get re-elected anyways. Furthermore, the Kennedy-Corman Bill was a bill in the 1970's which would have created a universal health insurance system modeled after the Canadian system, making Medicare irrelevant (1). Yes, he would have replaced Medicare, but he would have replaced it with a more comprehensive system providing more benefits to more people—he was expanding it. Furthermore, the Kennedy-Corman Bill (which was co-sponsored by the late Ted Kennedy, a very popular Congressman) was only one of several competing Health Insurance reform bills at the time, including one endorsed by conservative President Nixon (CHIP) and the Long-Ribicoff Plan (1), all of which mandated health insurance. The ad continues on to connect Nolan’s past actions (which they believe were truly harmful for Americans) to his support of the Affordable Care Act. They claim that the Affordable Care Act has $716 billion in Medicare cuts, but as always, that’s not the whole story. The Affordable Care Act does not simply cut $716 billion in Medicare, it moves that money around to other health-related expenditures (2, 3) (additionally, they cite a CBO report which was alerting Republican leaders to the increase in the deficit that would result from repealing the ACA, and therefore recommending against repealing the act). They conclude their attack by stating that Rick Nolan is a “radical” and needs to be defeated. As far as I can discern, this is a totally baseless accusation with very little evidence (because none of the “evidence” in the ad stands up to the test). Overall, this conservative ad against liberal Rick Nolan tries to convince voters to vote for Chip Cravaack because Nolan is accused of taking a bunch of actions which are characteristically conservative (replacing or eliminating Medicare, cutting federal spending) which he didn’t. It gets a 5/5 for factual accuracy (they didn’t lie on anything which is an objective fact) but a 0/5 for depiction of the truth.
1. www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf50/conf50b.pdf
2. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
3. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/seniors.html
With the upcoming presidential elections, television ads are becoming more and more prevalent. Candidates from both parties are releasing ads to increase votes. Much of the information in these ads is stretched and disoriented to accommodate the candidate. To take a closer look I watched Obama’s campaign ad called “Romney is the Problem, Not the Solution (4)” In this video several claims are made about Romney. The first of which is that Romney’s firms shipped jobs to Mexico and China (4). Also, as governor Mitt Romney outsourced jobs to India (4). Finally, this ad states that Romney as millions in Swiss bank accounts and investments in tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands (4).
To address the first claim, Romney’s firm shipped jobs to Mexico and China (4), I found that the truth was stretched in Obama’s favor. Bain Capitol, a company founded by Romney, did in fact invest in some companies that outsourced and American jobs were lost (2). However, there is no evidence that under Romney jobs were shipped to China (2).
The second claim is true, but it is missing a substantial part of the information. The video states that as governor, Romney outsourced jobs to India (4). Romney vetoed a measure that would have prevented outsourcing to India (3). What is missing is that Democrats could have overridden the veto and did not (3). Another missing link is that the measure was supported as saving taxpayers (3).
Finally, this ad says that Romney has millions in Swiss bank accounts and investments in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda (4). I found that there was no specific evidence that any of there claims were true (1). On the other hand, I also found that Romney has only released tax forms from 2010 and a 2011 estimate (1). He is only planning on releasing the 2011 form and no more (1). This struck me as odd because, in more that three decades, no presidential candidate has released fewer that five years of tax forms (1).
It is important, when watching the numerous campaign ads, to double check facts. Both parties produce ads with missing, inferred, or misconstrued data.
1.http://www.factcheck.org/tag/john-mccain/feed/
2.http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/
3.http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM
Earlier this week, Romney's Youtube channel uploaded an Anti-Obama ad. The video states that if Obama took a stand against China, the unemployment rate in the U.S. would be lower. Because China is stealing American ideas and tech, we are losing 2 million jobs. Furthermore, Obama was given the opportunity to set China in its place, but refused! Seven times, in fact (1)! Now, should everything Romney says about China-Obama relations be taken to heart? Of course not, it's a political ad. The main point in the ad is that China is what's known as a currency manipulator ( they purposely undervalue their own money so that Chinese goods are cheaper than imports) and Obama refuses to blacklist them (2). It is true that the Department of Treasury has not put China on its semi-annual list for the last 4 years. Discussion about whether or not this is a good policy is a whole other monster.
Romney's ad implies correlation between China being a currency manipulator, technology theft, and the number of jobs in the U.S. (1). However, the jet fighter event referred to in the ad happened three months into Obama's term. A cyber attack was discovered that had originated in China and had already be in effect for many months. Within three months after the incident, Obama had expanded security (2). In short, Obama did fight idea theft.
Finally, neither Chinese currency or cyber attacks directly correlate to the unemployment rate in the U.S. or Obama's role in the problem. The ad cites the 2 million fact to belong to the International Trade Commission (1), but the ad bends the interpretation a little. The ITC originally stated that if intellectual property was better enforced, around 2 million jobs would be created (2). Obama did not cause the loss of those jobs that never existed. In fact, China agreed to several of the Obama administration's property rights commitments in 2010. The administration also had prevented China from levying a high tariff on U.S. tires (2). Additionally, during Obama's term, the U.S. has increased its exporting to China by 45% (2). This proves that America is not necessarily losing to China.
To sum up, Romney's ad against Obama does not lie completely, but it does bend the truth. In Romney's defense, this is expected of any ad. It is the responsibility of the voter to stay in the know and cross-check facts.
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs&feature=player_embedded
(2)http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
On the 24th of this month, the Romney camp released an ad claiming that the Obama Administration has failed to stand up to China in the realm of international trade (1). I will be writing about the claims made in this video in chronological order. First, the ad claims that there are fewer jobs now than when Obama took office. Though it is true that during the first year of Obama’s presidency the economy lost over 4 million jobs, over the past three years, jobs have been slowly trickling back (3). According to new data released by the Labor Department, we have added around 4.4 million jobs in the past years, which are enough to make up for the first year’s losses, and then some (3). The ad moves on to say that China is stealing American ideas. This refers to both China’s ignoring of copyright laws and a cyber attack starting in 2007 that allegedly stole information from the US and allegedly originated in China (2). In regards to copyright law, at a recent US-China conference, Obama and the Chinese actually agreed to “a series of intellectual property agreements that will protect American jobs” (2). As to the argument that Obama has not stood up against cyber-terrorism, the truth is that Obama actually created the US Cyber Command which is a branch of the Defense Department that deals with computer security threats. Next, the ad claims that Obama had seven chances to stand up to China, and each time he said no. This refers to the Administration’s decision to not label China a currency manipulator. Many conservative businessmen actually agree with Obama on this (2). Though there is a substantial trade deficit between the two nations, China does not meet the treasury’s definition of a currency manipulator (4) and labeling it as one could start one of the biggest trade disputes in history (2). The Romney camp needs to check its facts.
1. http://youtu.be/TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
3. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/news/economy/obama-job-creation/index.html
4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/05/25/china-currency-manipulator-no-more/
I watched an ad about Ron Paul running for president. It mostly attacked president Obama and his current policies. One such attack was that spending had increased 34 percent under Obama. This has some truth to it. The stimulus was a big part of that increase but that was meant to stimulate the economy and bring in more money for the national government. Also the Bush era tax cuts still reigned under Obama. This is not his fault, it didn't even happen under his presidency, but it did cut federal income. The second point was that Obamacare is unconstitutional, and that Ron is in favor of stricter interpretation. This is untrue. He voted against the Patriot Act which at the time it was passed it was perfectly constitutional. We were in a clear and present danger or so we thought at the time. Even Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during war time. The other falsity was that the beginning of the ad evoked images of the meltdown. This meltdown had nothing to do with Obama. He has actually fought the deregulation of the banking and funds industries that caused the crash in 2008. This ad was pretty inaccurate. According to The Economist, a reliable magazine Obama did pretty well his first term, which in this situation is better than most. The accusations were more associating Obama with bad things that have happened not things he has actually caused.
www.theeconomist.com
www.factcheck.org
www.youtube.com/watch_RonPaul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR92pd5rnlk
Romney claims that president Obama caused a doubling of able-bodied persons of food stamps by taking "work out of the food stamps requirement". Which of course is an exaggeration. The total number of people getting food stamps has increased 46 percent since Obama took office, a big jump but far short of a doubling. "is has been shown time and again that the president's effort to take work requrment out of welfare is a calculated move, the same thing he did with regards to food stamps." tHose recieving benifits from whats now called the SNA program totaled 46.7 million in jhune 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr6pBEzAO3A
In an ad that I watched, made by the Obama campaign railing against the Romney campaign, several claims were made. Among these are that Romney outsourced jobs to China and Mexico; that as governor, he shipped jobs to India; that he has millions in Swiss bank accounts, as well as in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands (1). Before I even checked them, I noticed how incredibly out of context these quotes are—for example, as of 2005, 43 states were contracting with companies on programs where “some of the work, primarily customer service and software development, was done overseas (2).” Clearly, Massachusetts is not the only state to have outsourced jobs overseas, as the ad would like to encourage us to believe. However, according to the same source 38 states have considered placing bans on that type of outsourcing, making the claim more dramatic, assuming that MA is not one of those state (2). Incidentally, MA was not in among those who banned the practice: Romney, in fact, vetoed the measure, saying the jobs may not have necessarily benefitted MA were they to return (2).
Furthermore, the ad attacked the fact that Romney had (past tense, mind you) a Swiss bank account (1). This is true enough; however, the account was closed by his lawyer in 2010 (3). Traditionally, especially after a scandal revealed in 2008 that a former USB banker had been helping Americans evade taxes, prompting the IRS to demand a list of names from the bank, which then led to a law stating that international banks must cooperate with the IRS…or else. So the connotation of Romney having been involved with the Swiss bank would have made some Americans leery; however, this source clearly points out that there are several other things that could have made it reasonable for him to invest in an account: the campaign itself has said that he had the account because e “was hedging against the dollar declining in value (3).” Seems reasonable enough; many nation’s currencies are depreciating. The other reason the article gives that it calls “not-so-legitimate” is for secrecy, as in hiding money from the IRS and tax evasion (3). This one, however, is un-provable, at least until Romney releases more information (3).
So: does the ad check out? Well, the claims are true…at least, factually, and at some point in time. However, out of context, they do a lot more for Obama’s campaign than they would if someone actually checked into Romney’s data and did a bit of research.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM&feature=relmfu
2. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/11/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-outsourced-massachusetts-jobs/
3. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/should-you-care-about-mitt-romneys-swiss-bank-account/259598/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Recently, the super PAC, American Crossroads, released an ad in Florida. It deals with Obamacare and senator Nelson. I think the ad is full of baloney. Almost everything they say is false. Things they say like "it'll be rationed" and senior citizens "denied treatment" are against the law(2). They are suggesting things that are illegal. I think there will be consequences along the line of a lot of criticism from the media. The only problem is how many people will actually fact check the ad to see if it is telling the truth. I think that most people will be like "Oh my gosh!" and believe them like that. The ad also falsely states that there is an unelected board that will make decisions like what kinds of treatments are covered(2), which again is against the law. The board, the Independant Payment Advisory Board, can't restrict benefits or eligibility, increase premiums or taxes, or ration health care, according to the Affordable Health Care Act, which pretty much states all that was stated above(2). I'm baffled that they would even release something that has some many false statements.
1.http://youtu.be/-D_NkI6NVxw
2.http://factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/
In the several short campaign ads I watched, there seemed to be a theme more of avoiding concrete information and providing unsupported broad claims than any outright lies or falsehoods. In one of the most prominent pro-Romney television ads, though, Romney attempts, along with perfect examples of the above, to provide a few hard facts that create an image of himself as the better candidate for the economy and the lower to middle classes. He starts off saying "Too many Americans are struggling to find work in today's economy. Too many of those who are working are living paycheck to paycheck" (1), which, while making the situation seem bleak indeed to those willing to take Mitt at face value, are both uncheckable statements due to their ambiguity. The first checkable facts in the advertisement are in Mitt's claims that "More Americans are living in poverty than when President Obama took office and 15 million more are on food stamps." (1) Poverty is indeed more rampant than it was in 2008, but the way it is said implies Obama has done nothing to slow it's spread; in fact, poverty levels rose from 2007 to 2010, and then leveled off, showing that they began to rise before Obama's presidency and that their expansion since has leveled off (2). The other half of the claim is true as well, with an increase of even more than Mitt's stated number of 15 million persons participating in the national food stamp program (3). Romney then goes on to make several unsupported yet unspecific claims about himself and Obama, and each other's respective economic plans. The climax of the ad is Mitt's final claim that his "plan will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years." (1) When the general job market is looked at now, many predictions estimate that, no matter who is president, 12 million new jobs will have been created as a natural result of the expanding economy, so while the number is correct, Mitt's claim that it is HIS plan that will do the job creating is a little deceiving (4). Overall, the ad, similar to what seems to be the general trend in political advertising, does not tell any outright lies but instead chooses to make sweeping, unprovable statements, omissions, and rely on rhetoric.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky45CrITPFc
(2) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2011/index.html
(3) http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/30/factchecker-romneys-12-million-job-promise/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home