USA Politics (redux)

[SimonNZ]

Washington Post:

The false and misleading claims President Biden made during his first 100 days in office

"After four years of a presidency that swamped Americans with a gusher of false and misleading claims, the Joe Biden era has offered a return to a more typical pattern when it comes to a commander in chief and his relationship with the facts — one that features frequent spin and obfuscation or exaggeration, with the occasional canard.

Among the most notable falsehoods of President Biden's first 100 days in office was his claim — which he made three times — that Georgia's controversial Republican-backed election law had shortened voting hours.

The claim was one of two uttered by Biden to earn the Fact Checker's "Four Pinocchio" rating, reserved for whoppers — the other being his wildly off-base statement, borrowed from the campaign, that federal contracts "awarded directly to foreign companies" rose by 30 percent under President Donald Trump.

More typical for Biden, when he uttered a false statement, was some subtle truth-stretching.

He spun that if Congress passed his infrastructure plan, "the economy" would create 19 million additional jobs; only 2.7 million of those jobs could be attributed to the proposal itself. He asserted that as vice president he helped craft an $800 billion strategy to help Central America; it was $750 million.
Through April 29, his 100th day, Biden has made 78 false or misleading statements, according to a Washington Post Fact Checker analysis of every speech, interview, tweet or public statement made by the president. That compares to 511 such statements in Trump's first 100 days.

In compiling the database of Biden's claims in his first 100 days, The Fact Checker used the same methodology as the Trump database that counted more than 30,000 claims over the course of Trump's presidency. Any statement that would merit at least Two Pinocchios — essentially "half true" — was included. Any claim that was repeated was also included, though unlike Trump, Biden generally does not repeat his false claims if they have been fact-checked as false.

Biden's relatively limited number of falsehoods is a function, at least in part, of the fact that his public appearances consist mostly of prepared texts vetted by his staff. He devotes little time to social media, in contrast to his Twitter-obsessed predecessor, and rarely faces reporters or speaks off the cuff.
His press secretary, Jen Psaki, holds lengthy daily briefings with the media, and Cabinet secretaries also speak on Biden's behalf.

All told, through April 29, according to a count by Factba.se, Biden spoke about 30 percent fewer words than Trump and tweeted 65 percent fewer times. He gave only seven interviews, compared to 22 for Trump, and held only two news conferences, compared to nine for Trump.

Almost 100 of Trump's claims came from tweets; only one of Biden's tweets was deemed false or misleading. Trump made 56 suspect statements at campaign rallies; Biden held only one campaign rally — on his 100th day — where he made one suspect claim.

About one-eighth of Biden's false or misleading claims on the list relate to the Georgia voting law, which Democrats charge is part of a GOP effort to seize on Trump's bogus claims of election fraud to justify the disenfranchisement of minorities.

Biden's claim that the measure shortened voting hours drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who accused Democrats of lying about the bill. In reality, Election Day hours were not changed and the opportunities to cast a ballot in early voting were expanded.

Biden aides never provided an explanation for why Biden made this statement — or why it was even repeated in an official statement issued by the White House.

Biden has also made some other exaggerated claims about the Georgia law, such as calling it "Jim Crow on steroids." He was referring to a system that, before passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, systematically denied Black Americans their constitutional right to vote through "literacy tests," poll taxes and other measures. But the law does not put up roadblocks to Black Americans registering to vote.

While Biden exaggerated at times, he often recalibrated his wording in response to news coverage. For instance, he claimed that reporters had said he was "crazy" when he announced a goal of 100 million vaccine shots in 100 days. That was a stretch, as reporters instead had written it was ambitious and potentially difficult. After fact checks appeared, Biden switched to simply saying reporters said the goal was "ambitious."

He pitched his infrastructure plan with a finely tuned claim that "Independent analysis shows that if we pass this plan, the economy will create 19 million jobs." While the analysis, by Moody's Analytics, did make that prediction, it attributed only 2.7 million of those additional jobs to the plan itself; most of the other jobs would have been created anyway, with or without the plan. After a flurry of fact checks, the White House dropped the talking point and simply started saying the plan would create "millions" of jobs.

Biden has said he ignores Trump, but the former president seems to be ever-present at times in Biden's mind — and, on occasion, the current president will use exaggerated rhetoric to draw a contrast.

During a news conference, Biden claimed, without apparent evidence, that children "starved to death" in Mexico under Trump's 2019 policy allowing border officers to return non-Mexican asylum seekers to locations in Mexico as their claims are adjudicated in immigration courts.

When Biden addressed the pandemic, he also pushed the envelope sometimes to favorably contrast himself with Trump. He said, "When I took office three weeks ago, America didn't have a plan or enough supplies to vaccinate most of the country," and that Trump had failed to order enough vaccine doses. In reality, the Trump administration had options in place to buy more vaccines. The Biden team had to fill in the blanks of the plan and it sped up the tempo, but it was wrong to say there was no plan.

At another point, he said: "When I took office 50 days ago, only 8 percent of Americans after months, only 8 percent of those over the age of 65 had gotten their first vaccination. Today, that number is 65 percent." When Biden took office, vaccinations had only been given for about a month, not "months." Moreover, health-care workers, residents of long-term care facilities, front-line essential workers and people 75 and older were in line to be the first to be vaccinated, which is why a relatively small percentage of people over 65 had been vaccinated.
A number of Biden's statements were flubs. For instance, he said Hispanics were the fastest-growing immigrant population, when their rate of growth has been overtaken by that of Asian Americans in the past decade.

Five times, Biden oddly claimed that more Americans had died from the coronavirus than from all of World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined (sometimes he added in the Sept. 11 attacks as well). But the number of in-service deaths during World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined adds up to about 580,000 deaths, which was more than the covid-19 deaths at the time. The White House initially said the president intended to refer to combat deaths, but that made little sense because then he actually could have said more people have died of covid-19 than in combat during all of America's wars against foreign enemies.

Perhaps the strangest claim made by Biden — which he said twice as president — was that he had "traveled 17,000 miles with" Chinese President Xi Jinping when they were both vice presidents. Biden certainly met with him a lot — but the White House conceded that "traveled with" was not accurate. Moreover, no matter how generously the travel was measured, it never added up to 17,000 miles. How Biden made this calculation — which he also said at least once during the campaign — remains a mystery."


following this they then list all 67 "false or misleading" statements with analysis.

[Karl Henning]

On one hand, you're right: it scarcely compares to the disgraced former president. On t'other, the fact-checkers are just doing their job without favoritism.

[SimonNZ]

I'd like to see them put together a contrasting tally of "lies that undermine the institutions of democracy and stoke hatred and division and put a target on the backs of my enemies" to show the true picture.

Rather than the suggestion that Biden is 10% or 20% Trump. This attempted unbiased fairness in criticism is deeply misleading.

[Daverz]

On one hand, you're right: it scarcely compares to the disgraced former president. On t'other, the fact-checkers are just doing their job without favoritism.

"County officials can keep early voting locations open for longer, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m."   

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-claims-about-the-georgia-voting-law/

Emphasis mine.  Anyone want to take bets on how that plays out?

[Karl Henning]

Rather than the suggestion that Biden is 10% or 20% Trump. This attempted unbiased fairness in criticism is deeply misleading.

That's not what the text says.

[SimonNZ]

That's not what the text says.

I know, and I don't mean to sound snapish, I just think that's how it will be spun by Trump apologists who will read little beyond the headline. It will very much be "both sides do it".

[Karl Henning]

Whataboutery is all the Trumpkins have.

[drogulus]

     Why Biden's Plan to Raise Taxes for Rich Investors Isn't Hurting Stocks

In theory, higher taxes on investments like stocks should make them less appealing. But the outlook for economic growth and corporate profits is often a much bigger factor in the decision to buy, sell or hold on to a stock. And in a resilient market — when politicians typically propose them — higher taxes are even less of a deterrent.

     Is this still a theory people believe?

     Most tax increase comes from growth, not rates. My income goes up, my tax goes up. The economy as a whole pays more tax as it earns more money. If the government spends more on programs the income is taxed just like when it spends less.

     Let me do a "in theory". Say you want to expand the economy in the desired direction by solving problems. Problems are in fact the indicators of the direction, or we'd build bridges to nowhere on purpose, or at least not complain when it's done.

     Now, how would it be possible for Biden to spend a quintillion bucks building shit without the tax roaring back? I can't figure out how that could be.

     We should see the tax as a stabilizer that mostly does its thing without fiddling. Shrinksters disparage the idea that the fiscal flows control inflation as though it was a new and dangerous idea that somehow won't work, and not as the way it works now and always has.

     Libraservatives of all stripes are trying to figure out how much we need to tax the economy down before we spend it up. How about no!!! How about we only do rate adjustments if/when we need to, so's we don't prevent the expansion instead of moderating it?

[greg]

The perception of "whataboutery" and "pointing out double standards" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The truth of it is probably not truly knowable unless you are a mind reader.

Seems the difference may be that true "whataboutery" users think they have disproved the point that the other person is saying. But actually they are making a different point, which is the point of double standards.

The eye of beholder part comes into play when one person thinks they know the intentions of the other, thinking they know whether their focus is on a) thinking they disproved the other person by pointing out a double standard, or b) having nothing to say about that (thereby accepting the accusation), but moving on to an accusation of double standards.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]

[Fëanor]

     Why Biden's Plan to Raise Taxes for Rich Investors Isn't Hurting Stocks

In theory, higher taxes on investments like stocks should make them less appealing. But the outlook for economic growth and corporate profits is often a much bigger factor in the decision to buy, sell or hold on to a stock. And in a resilient market — when politicians typically propose them — higher taxes are even less of a deterrent.

     Is this still a theory people believe?

     Most tax increase comes from growth, not rates. My income goes up, my tax goes up. The economy as a whole pays more tax as it earns more money. If the government spends more on programs the income is taxed just like when it spends less.

     Let me do a "in theory". Say you want to expand the economy in the desired direction by solving problems. Problems are in fact the indicators of the direction, or we'd build bridges to nowhere on purpose, or at least not complain when it's done.

     Now, how would it be possible for Biden to spend a quintillion bucks building shit without the tax roaring back? I can't figure out how that could be.

     We should see the tax as a stabilizer that mostly does its thing without fiddling. Shrinksters disparage the idea that the fiscal flows control inflation as though it was a new and dangerous idea that somehow won't work, and not as the way it works now and always has.

     Libraservatives of all stripes are trying to figure out how much we need to tax the economy down before we spend it up. How about no!!! How about we only do rate adjustments if/when we need to, so's we don't prevent the expansion instead of moderating it?

... I'll worry about earning more money, from the stock market or wherever, when the tax rate exceeds 100%.

It seems government tax revenues are going up on account of the faster than expected recovery and capital gains from high stock prices.  In any case higher US taxes are long over duee and ought to fall on the top 10% of earners.  35+ years of trickle-down taxation policies combined with stagnating median incomes have proven that trickle down doesn't happen.

[Karl Henning]

     Why Biden's Plan to Raise Taxes for Rich Investors Isn't Hurting Stocks

In theory, higher taxes on investments like stocks should make them less appealing. But the outlook for economic growth and corporate profits is often a much bigger factor in the decision to buy, sell or hold on to a stock. And in a resilient market — when politicians typically propose them — higher taxes are even less of a deterrent.

     Is this still a theory people believe?

     Most tax increase comes from growth, not rates. My income goes up, my tax goes up. The economy as a whole pays more tax as it earns more money. If the government spends more on programs the income is taxed just like when it spends less.

     Let me do a "in theory". Say you want to expand the economy in the desired direction by solving problems. Problems are in fact the indicators of the direction, or we'd build bridges to nowhere on purpose, or at least not complain when it's done.

     Now, how would it be possible for Biden to spend a quintillion bucks building shit without the tax roaring back? I can't figure out how that could be.

     We should see the tax as a stabilizer that mostly does its thing without fiddling. Shrinksters disparage the idea that the fiscal flows control inflation as though it was a new and dangerous idea that somehow won't work, and not as the way it works now and always has.

     Libraservatives of all stripes are trying to figure out how much we need to tax the economy down before we spend it up. How about no!!! How about we only do rate adjustments if/when we need to, so's we don't prevent the expansion instead of moderating it?

Interesting, Ernie.

[Florestan]

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

I rhtink it depends on a case by case basis. Had Goering stood up during the Nuernberg trial and told the Soviet prosecutor Tu quoque, he'd have had an irrefutable case. (Actually, he may have just done that, I don't remember). Otoh, if a hardcore Trump supporter said "Biden lies too" he'd have a very weak case.

[Karl Henning]

... I'll worry about earning more money, from the stock market or wherever, when the tax rate exceeds 100%.

It seems government tax revenues are going up on account of the faster than expected recovery and capital gains from high stock prices.  In any case higher US taxes are long over duee and ought to fall on the top 10% of earners.  35+ years of trickle-down taxation policies combined with stagnating median incomes have proven that trickle down doesn't happen.

Waiting for the trickle isn't as satisfying as watching paint dry, because the paint will dry.

[Fëanor]

The perception of "whataboutery" and "pointing out double standards" seems to be in the eye of the beholder. The truth of it is probably not truly knowable unless you are a mind reader.

Seems the difference may be that true "whataboutery" users think they have disproved the point that the other person is saying. But actually they are making a different point, which is the point of double standards.

The eye of beholder part comes into play when one person thinks they know the intentions of the other, thinking they know whether their focus is on a) thinking they disproved the other person by pointing out a double standard, or b) having nothing to say about that (thereby accepting the accusation), but moving on to an accusation of double standards.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"Whataboutism" about pointing out double standards?  Bullhockey!!  It's about disingenuous deflection, hypocrisy, two harms not making a right, and as Wiki says, it's a logical fallacy

[Karl Henning]

Well, there was the Great Mind at "work," again....

[greg]

"Whataboutism" about pointing out double standards?  Bullhockey!!  It's about disingenuous deflection, hypocrisy, two harms not making a right, and as Wiki says, it's a logical fallacy

Yes, hypocrisy is a sort of double standard.

that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy

ex. "All Christians should behave a certain way, but I won't." That's being hypocritical, having a double standard for one's self vs. for others.

And in addition to that, accusing someone of whataboutism while not addressing their point is doing the same exact thing the person who is doing the whataboutism is doing- "whatabouting" with a separate point about a logical fallacy (which may be a good accusation), while ignoring their point. So person a is ignoring the point while moving on to accusations of double standards, and person b is igorning the accusation of double standards while accusing person a of whatabouting. So everything may even be correct on both sides, but it's just people moving around constantly without openly conceding/addressing any points.

[drogulus]

In any case higher US taxes are long over duee and ought to fall on the top 10% of earners.  35+ years of trickle-down taxation policies combined with stagnating median incomes have proven that trickle down doesn't happen.

      Why ?

      As Stephanie "The Great" Kelton says Money Doesn't Grow On Rich People.

      To clarify, rich people do have money. What they don't have is "the money". There is no such thing as that.

      Consequently, the best way to raise taxes on the rich is to cut taxes on everyone else. And the best way do that is by spending on all the improvements that raise incomes on the majority of people. The tax is a net phenomenon. If you cut net spending it acts as a tax increase on spenders.

     

[greg]

Well, there was the Great Mind at "work," again....

You can choose to make this thread a less toxic environment, or you can choose to continue to write sarcastic remarks, it's up to you. I just wrote one post and didn't even say anything personal about anyone. If we can keep our posts that way, it would probably be better.

[drogulus]

     Do You Live in a Political Bubble?

     Put your address in and find out. My neighborhood is 16% Repub.

[Daverz]

     Do You Live in a Political Bubble?

     Put your address in and find out. My neighborhood is 16% Repub.

According to this, my neighborhood is 59% Democrats, but is still not diverse enough for NYT.  At best, some of those Republicans have not gotten around to changing their registration, but the rest are certified assholes at this point.  I don't see the value of having more assholes in my neighborhood.