Fact Checking the 2nd Presidential Debate/Ten Websites to Review...

After every Presidential debate, various fact-checkers get to work immediately to separate fact from fiction from both participants. Reasonable Conversation has compiled a list of ten different factchecks from around the internet to provide a convenient "one-stop" place for your perusal.

The good folks at Politfact.com were hot on the trail of truth after last night's second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney. They've posted updated evaluations of claims made by both men on several different topics: Jobs, Energy, Taxes/Spending, Healthcare, Immigration, Foreign Policy and Education. Its a mixed bag of results showing that both men took liberties with the truth as they saw fit.

Not to be outdone, Factcheck.org has also posted their version of fact checking last evening's debate, covering many of the same issues. Here's the overview from their piece posted earlier this morning:

The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.

• Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.
• Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
• Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”
• Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
• Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
• Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
• Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
• Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.

Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.

Click here to read FactCheck's full article...

Other publications providing factchecking of the debate include The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, Fox News offers a factcheck on President Obama's claim he called the events in Libya "terrorism" in the days following the death of four Americans. The Chicago Tribune, CBS News, Bloomberg and Politico also weigh in.

Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson took issue with some California Seniors who gave him a rough ride about Social Security via this letter. Simpson pulled no punches, to say the least.




The fear is, of course, that Social Security is destined to fail within the next few decades, when the reality is that the program added $95 Billion to its surplus which now totals a $2.7 Trillion dollar surplus.

Here's the coverage from Politico...

Sources:

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/05/04/social-security-is-not-going-broke/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76673.html

Coming Soon: Social Security Checks to Switch to Direct Deposit or Debit Cards...

Coming Soon: Social Security Checks to Switch to Direct Deposit or Debit Cards...


By March of  2013, almost all Social Security recipients will receive their monthly disbursements by either electronic deposit into a checking or savings account or a debit card. The switch began under a law signed in 2010 that aimed to reduce lost or stolen checks and reduce processing costs. According to the Treasury Department, 90% of those who receive Federal Benefits already have made the switch. The program is similar to the Food Stamp program which changed to debit cards back in 2004.

Those over 90 years of age will be exempt from the switch and other waivers may be granted in the cases where using a debit card would be a hardship, yet the Department describes those exceptions would only be granted in "extreme, rare circumstances."

The switch saves Social Security about 120 million dollars a year, with a savings of over a billion dollars projected over the following ten years. There's also potential for reducing lost or stolen checks, which numbered 540,000 benefit checks in 2010. 


The Treasury Department is trying to be especially helpful with its oldest recipients. "This will affect some very frail elderly people who are living by themselves, many of them, and doing well, but usually within the context of that old paper check that they deposit in the bank," said Web Phillips, a senior policy advisor for the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare. "The change has to be handled carefully and with a lot of sensitivity so that there aren't people who lose track of a payment or don't understand that they have a card that came in the mail that's the source of their payment," Phillips said. "That's our concern."


Another downside to this transition is the effect on the already struggling Post Office who has lost a substantial amount of its business to the use of email and electronic bill-paying.


There is a website that Treasury has developed to assist the public in making the change. Visit www.GoDirect.org or phone 1-800-333-1795 for more information. 


Source:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NO_MORE_CHECKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-15-08-00-32

www.GoDirect.org

Why doesn't the media call politicians on their bs?

Economist Dean Baker, co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote a terrific column last Spring that came to mind over the last few days. It discusses the lack of follow-through from most mainstream media sources when it comes to calling politicians on their hyperbole, their exaggerations and at times their plain old misinformation they resort to when answering questions. In this column, Baker discusses two different subjects. The meme that if we drilled, baby drilled, we could solve our problem at the pumps when it comes to the cost of a gallon of gasoline here in the USA. The second topic he comments is the state of our Social Security program.

Even though the column is almost a year old, I thinks its especially timely when it comes to our fuel prices. What Mr. Baker said back in March of 2011, holds true still today...

Its titled, "The Imaginary World in Which Washington Lives"


Dean Baker
Truthout, March 23, 2011

It is a beautiful spring day in Washington. This is a nice respite from the horrors taking place in Japan and the ever-growing nuttiness of D.C. politics. Enjoying the weather provides a nice alternative to listening to the news or reading the newspaper.

The flood of nonsense in the traditional news outlets just continues to grow. At the top of the list is the steady stream of senators or members of Congress whose response to higher gas prices is to insist on drilling in every square inch of environmentally sensitive territory in the country. This is supposed to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the price of gas. Both sides of this assertion are absurd.

According to the Energy Information Agency, the United States has proven reserves of 22.3 billion barrels of oil. Given our current rate of consumption of 6.9 billion barrels a year, U.S. reserves could meet our demand for oil for less than 3.5 years. That means if we could somehow drill here, now, and everywhere, we could be energy independent until the middle of 2014 and then we would be 100 percent dependent on imported oil.

Of course, we cannot suddenly suck all the oil out of the ground at once, it takes time to explore and drill wells and then the oil must be drilled out over time. If we decided that we want to destroy every last national park and coastal region, we may be able to increase production by 1.0-1.5 million barrels a day in 5-10 years. At the high end, this would be a bit less than 2 percent of world supply.

Click here to continue reading...


Source:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-imaginary-world-in-which-washington-lives

Social Security vs. Ponzi schemes in one Venn diagram - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Best use of a Venn diagram I've seen in a while...

Social Security vs. Ponzi schemes in one Venn diagram - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post:

I hear/read this a lot from Conservatives as well. Its a famous talking point that just won't go away. For decades now, every Social Security recipient has received every penny due them. As Klein says, its been around for more than seventy years with a rather impressive stretch of consistency.

YES, there are some adjustments that should be made to ensure its future consistency. Increase the personal contribution amount, raise the retirement age, etc. Any one of those or a combination of each would provide decades of additional security. Of the "big three" (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) Social Security is by far the least problematic.

So when a candidate chooses to rail against the evil that is this Country's longest entitlement program, realize it for it is. A political ploy to scare voters to vote a certain way. Its not an intellectual approach, its a visceral one.