Fact Check: Obama 30 minute ad

You aren’t a successful troll if people can tell you are a troll.

Me, I’m a successful troll.

Psst. I think they might be on to you…

I wish Obama would do more, and I wish he would be as determined as Clinton was to balance the budget. I’m not disappointed, because those are just wishes.

Also, I don’t think Dirt is even implying he won’t vote for Obama. It’s okay to be less than enchanted with a candidate’s proposals and still vote for him.

So our more financially conservative-leaning posters aren’t feeling the whole “deficit spending to somewhat mitigate the recession” approach?

Because fucked if I can tell how you’re going to cut taxes any further (that being the other end of trying to use gov’t policy to shore up a shitty economy).

Tax more, spend less.

I disagree. The test of a truly brilliant troll is being able to troll people even after you’ve been fully outed. Dirt is widely recognized as a troll, yet he pulls it off multiple times every single day. That’s talent.

Right now, as our financial markets are very slowly trying to maybe edge toward unfucking themselves? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems like a great way to deepen the recession and make everything worse than it already is.

I’m all for balanced budgets and all, but right now it seems to be the like 10th thing down the list for the federal gov’t to worry about.

Yes, I know that’s OK. That’s why I’m voting for Obama despite disagreeing with him on a number of issues. I was just asking why Dirt was bringing this up.

That’s a pretty poorly written article. It has some good points but a lot of it is just counter-spin. Basically there are 4 “fact checks”.

#1 – Obama’s claimed reduction in premiums isn’t a hard number but just an estimate which is contentious. Ok, good point.

#2 – Obama claims that he wants everyone to get affordable health care, not universal care. Not sure why anyone would have thought otherwise, universal healthcare is still a ways out unfortunately. This isn’t a fact check.

#3 – Quibbles a bit. Matching spending with cuts, doesn’t mean that the debt won’t continue to increase given that we’re already running a deficit. Other than, it’s a fair point.

#4 – Obama talks about cutting taxes for the middle class and increasing them at the high end. The article ignores this and continues harping on the deficit. Not a fact check.

Basically while I think there are some fair points there: fixing our healthcare system will probably take more than either Obama or McCain are proposing and neither has a tax/spending plan which will start to eat at our national debt. However the article is itself guilty of a lot of spin and frequently fails to offer the “fact checks” it purports to be about.

We should team up. Become a trolling superteam

What’s amusing about Dirt is that he harps on everyone else for thinking Obama is perfect, but he seems to be the most severely disappointed person on the board when he discovers any perceived flaw.

Oh, I’ve been TRYING to put my finger on it! This is exactly it! Thank you!

The disappointment comes from the pass that most everyone gives Obama. It hearkens to first term Dubya after 9/11. Many people on all sides of the political spectrum could see Bush do no wrong. Whatever decision Bush made was the right one. There was only a small, vocal, obstructionist, unpatriotic minority that was bashed into silence. That kind of blind faith led us into Iraq. That scares me.

It depends on who you raise the taxes on.

The section on income inequality is poignant and also very reminiscent of what’s happening today. I’m no economist but it seems like another great compression might help things. Raising the top-bracket tax rate to pay for some massive government spending (on infrastructure and education preferably) seems like a plausible way of narrowing the income gap and putting more wealth into the hands of middle-class consumers who are more likely to spend it.

This is essentially how we got out of the great depression, raising top-bracket tax rates well over 80% and initiating massive government spending on the second world war.

Normally I’d say such a thing seems a bit unfair, but depending on how deep this rabbit hole goes that may be where we end up going.

You’ll be happy to know that I didn’t trust Bush on 9-12-2001.

Honestly, it’s not that hard to judge effective people: Choose your goals before you’re in the situation, remain flexible within the situation, judge your results by an external metric.

It’s the ideological “make the results match the question” bullshit that steers us wrong every time. Ultimately the ideology is less important if you’re willing to change your methodology to achieve the results.

If you want we can have a “What do we specifically want from an Obama presidency?” topic after he wins.

Yes, many people on Qt3 were the same.

Being effective doesn’t mean that a person will do the right thing.

I’d rather a President adheres to and achieves goals they state they will strive to obtain. To do what they say they will do. Changing the methodology to achieve the results is exactly what the Bush Administration did after 9/11. They used and changed their methodology until they got Congress to vote for the War in Iraq.

That’s a question that should be seriously asked before he get’s elected.

That’s an interesting viewpoint - 80% tax brackets got us out of the Depression?

Could you expand a bit on this and perhaps cite some economists who agree with that position?

Yeah I don’t know why they call it a fact check. Probably because it seems to be the popular type of article these days. They could call it “skeptical focus” but no one would click.

I think it’s a regrettable necessity at this point given that the alternative is probably a depression.

Actually I said reducing income inequality did it. High top-bracket taxes and massive government spending was the method.

If you’d click the link I provided you’d see that Marriner S. Eccles argued that income inequality was a driving cause of the Great Depression. My use of the term “Great Compression” should have sent you looking in the direction of Claudia Goldin, Lawrence Katz and Robert Margo, who wrote about what lead to the massive decrease in income inequality in the United States in the 1940’s, and how it helped us out of the depression.

I’m not an expert and I’ve only ever read summaries of these arguments. Feel free to educate me, I like learning new things.