« | »

NYT’s Fact-less Fact Check Of GOP Debate

From the fatuous New York Times:

Fact Checking the Republican Debate

June 13, 2011

As they debated the economic downturn and health care, the Republican candidates who faced off Monday night in New Hampshire sometimes let spin run ahead of the facts.

Something the New York Times would never do, of course.

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said that while President Obama didn’t start the recession, “he made it worse, and longer.” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, called the Obama administration “anti-jobs.”

While it is true that unemployment is far worse today than Mr. Obama’s advisers initially predicted, it would be even worse without the stimulus bill that many Republican candidates derided, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

Mr. Obama’s stimulus bill sucked nearly a trillion dollars out of the economy to preserve the jobs and pensions of his base, the public sector unions — and to hire even more government workers. That caused even more people to lose jobs in the private sector. Which is why the unemployment rate shot up after the stimulus, despite all the government jobs being ‘created or saved.’

So, yes, Mr. Obama’s policies made the recession deeper and longer than it needed to be. His policies not only gave us higher unemployment, but far more debt, far lower housing prices, far more foreclosures — and inflation.

Even the Democrats’ lickspittle minions at the CBO can’t disguise those facts.

Health care also drew misleading or incomplete answers, as the candidates sought to capitalize on the unpopularity of President Obama’s health care plan among Republicans.

Last we checked Obama’s healthcare plan was unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans. A detail that seems to have been born out in the 2010 midterm elections and by many opinion polls before and since.

Mr. Romney flatly declared that he would “repeal Obamacare,’’ although the president’s health care law has strong similarities to the law that Mr. Romney pushed through when he was governor

So? How is this a mistake of facts? Mr. Romney’s statement may indicate a change of mind, or even a touch of hypocrisy, but it is not an error of fact. And there really is a major difference between Romney-care and Obama-care, if only because the first is a state plan and the latter a federal plan.

At one point, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who announced her entry into the race at the debate, seemed to be debating herself when she was asked if she would seek to overturn the law in states that have legalized gay marriage

But then, after some other candidates said that they supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, she amended her answer.

“John, I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman,’’ she told the moderator, John King of CNN, “but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.”

Once again, where is the error here? What ‘fact’ has been ‘checked’ and found wanting?

Mr. Pawlenty stood by his recent economic proposal, which called for more tax cuts and seemed to rely on the American economy growing at 5 percent a year – a rate of growth that the country has rarely achieved except for brief periods, and that many economists have said was unrealistic

“This idea that we can’t have 5 percent growth in America is hogwash,” Mr. Pawlenty said.

The US had 5% growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009, under Mr. Obama. So it can’t be all that difficult. (Of course, Mr. Obama’s ‘growth’ was largely due to his run amuck government spending.)

But the country also had a better than 5% GDP in 2003 under President Bush that was not due to government spending. So, no, a 5% GDP is not such an impossible goal to achieve at all.

For the record, from 1947 until 2010, which includes numerous recessions, the United States’ quarterly GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent. It reached an historical high of 17.2 percent in March of 1950.

And, by comparison, China’s GDP in the first quarter of 2011 was 9.7 percent.

And Ms. Bachmann, may have given an overly broad picture of the Tea Party that helped propel her political career when she said that “the Tea Party is really made up of disaffected Democrats, Independents, people who’ve never been political a day in their life, people who are libertarians, Republicans.’’

Again, the New York Times is disputing this? Really?

Mr. Gingrich continued to send mixed signals about his support for a plan by House Republicans that would end the direct payments for medical care through Medicare, and overhaul the program to subsidize care

In Monday night’s debate, though, he said that he supported the House Republican budget “as a general proposal” before once again suggesting that “there are certain things” he would do differently on Medicare.

“If you can’t convince the American people it’s a good idea, maybe it’s not a good idea,’’ he said. “ So let me start there.”

What is the fact being checked here by the New York Times?

It really is to laugh.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, June 14th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “NYT’s Fact-less Fact Check Of GOP Debate”

  1. Liberals Demise says:

    Two GOOD uses for the NYT……
    1) wrapping dead fish
    2) picking up dog shiite out of the yard

  2. Petronius says:

    “This idea that we can’t have 5 percent growth in America is hogwash,” Mr. Pawlenty said.

    Just so.

    There have been many extended periods of 5% (or nearly 5%) yearly growth :

    1870-1890 (5.2% per year)
    1896-1907 (4.6% per year)
    1921-1929 (4.7% per year)
    1961-1968 (5.1% per year)
    We nearly reached 5% over a 7-year stretch during the 1980s-1990s.

    All of these bursts occurred following retreat of Federal government tax and monetary policies. Intervening periods of recession and slow-growth were periods that followed massive Federal intervention in the economy.

    The term “unemployment” did not even exist until 1900; the word originated when the US began importing millions of European immigrant workers.

    American economic growth did not really slow until the creation of the income tax and the Federal Reserve in 1913. The Fed promptly doubled the money supply. The income tax started at 7%, but within four years the rate had moved as high as 77%. As a result, the investor class retreated from entrepreneurship into tax shelters. Then, following WWI, the US experienced its worst depression to date, from 1919-1921. It was only during this period that the term “unemployment” came into common usage.

    For the full story, see the wonderful article by Brian Domitrovic, “Economic Policy and the Road to Serfdom: The Watershed of 1913” in the Intercollegiate Review (Spring 2011) :

    “American economic history since the Civil War reveals a remarkable truth: all periods of prosperity in the United States have coincided with decided efforts to keep collectivist inclinations at bay, and all periods of economic weakness have occurred in the context of dalliances with collectivism–that is, with efforts to impose governmental management on the economy.”

  3. Reality Bytes says:

    If it’s OK to call Pawlenty plain vanilla, then Obama is heretofor ROCKY ROAD!


    Sorry for the absence – it’s not because I’m lying down & rolling over. Besides, you’d be best advised to go around than try to run over me.

    All the Best to S&L’rs everywhere.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      RB……rolling over and lying down?
      I shudder the thought…….
      Welcome back, bro!

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

    Looking down the road & from what I see the democrats are on the right track. Course, there’s a train coming the other way & fast….an Amtrak train. Hey! I wonder if Joe Biden’s on it?!

  5. The Redneck says:

    The New York Times is the print version of Google Seppukku.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »