Thursday, September 15, 2011 Dispels Lies or Perpetuates Them?

A good friend of mine posted a link to Attack Watch on her Facebook today.  I thought it was satire (I'd been out of the news loop for the last day).  It's real, it's run by Obama's campaign manager.  Not only is it butt ugly (all that money and you can't spring for more than black and white?) but it's part opinion, part lie.

Obama's campaign is to have us all tattle on each other.  Seriously.  You can go to the site, put in an "attack" from a drop down menu and even attach files to support the attack you want to report.

Feel free to go to the report section and put in silly attacks like "Obama refuses to wear underwear" and flood the report system so someone has to weed out the dumb ones from people genuinely tattling on people they don't like.  This wouldn't fly with me regardless of who it is.  Obama has successfully turned the country to racist, classist, elitest, religious groups all hating each other.  Now, you too can tattle on that "other race", that person that has more than you, that person who has a job or that damned Catholic down the street!

I'll tackle the first "attacks" here.

Claim #1:
-Immigration Reform Inaccuracies-

The Obama administration has strengthened our borders while making our immigration system smart and fair.

They don't put up a specific attack per se.  They just make a statement, find some comments that somewhat may or may not go along with the statement and shout "SEE SEE SEE!!!??? Obama rules!!!" or something to that effect.

This is a two pronged lie since Obama flip flops all the time.  They link to a report showing DHS (under a director he appointed) showing record numbers of deportations.  Well, he campaigned on immigration reform and not kicking people out.  So... he didn't fulfill his campaign promise then?  The second side is that after Obama's aunt was about to be deported and his drunk driving uncle was about to be, Obama halted all deportations of non-violent criminals and illegal immigrants.  

So which is it, does he want to be known for kicking out illegals or for keeping them here?
Ironically - the DHS page they link to has to take a jab still, at the "previous administration" doing more than they.  What they fail to tell you is that it was under the Bush administration that many of the deportation processes started with the new laws allowing the government to also go after businesses who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Another important notation here from the DHS link:
In fiscal year 2010, ICE set a record for overall removals of illegal aliens, with more than 392,000 removals nationwide. Half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals. The fiscal year 2010 statistics represent increases of more than 23,000 removals overall and 81,000 criminal removals compared to fiscal year 2008—a more than 70 percent increase in removal of criminal aliens from the previous administration.
Well, since in 2010 Obama used the inherited line about dealing with the things Bush left behind around a bajillion times - this means these statistics belong to former President Bush right?

Claim #2:
-President Obama is a friend to Israel, despite unfounded claims to the contrary.-
This is opinion.  This depends on first, if you know anything about our relationship with Israel and then whether you believe he's actually done anything to improve relations.  He posted a couple of lovely little snippets from some speeches.  We know how his speeches go.  Nowhere in this "refute" does he list any actual actions he's taken to do anything with or for Israel.  Part of his speech states that we're cooperating with their military more than ever.  Not really.  We've always been in close contact with them for military strategy.  Their Air Force is superb.  They share extreme amounts of research and development with us and have for a very long time.  We have always done this - through administrations both Republican and Democrat.  There should be a section that stands out though:
It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.
Uhm... he didn't single out Israel so we are funding it to more countries than just Israel.  He's constantly lambasted President Bush on funding of two wars so he combats this with... record levels of military spending... on other countries?  How does this make sense?

Claim #3:
President Obama believes in common sense gun control laws compatible with Second Amendment rights. 
Another opinion here.  The link to FactChecks article on his "record" of gun control laws really boils down to just one section on the International Gun Ban.  The Supreme Court made a ruling under BUSH.  Was Obama on the Supreme Court somehow?  In fact, later on in his own quoted article it states:
What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.
That mostly deals with international arms anyway and we have the option to control guns how we want within our country.  In fact, Obama has missed some gun control law votes by voting "present" taking no stance so how are we to know what he believes?   What also should be pointed out under his very own link?

In 2009, a fully Democratic controlled Congress passed the credit card legislation.  
In May, the president signed credit card legislation that included a provision allowing loaded and concealed weapons in national parks.
 I don't know about anyone else, but this just points out to me that his campaign sloganizing (new word alert!) of cutting pork just proves he and his administration have been doing it all along.  Why should credit card legislation have anything about gun control?  Maybe it has something to do with gun manufacturer's in some *cough* high powered Democrat jurisdictions... *cough cough*.  Who knows?  In any event, after the link to the treaty for his "record" the second supporting fact is... the treaty?  Not very convincing you need to repeat yourself.

Claim #4:
Fact check: TARP was signed into law by President Bush, and the overall cost to taxpayers has been significantly reduced under President Obama. 
Yes and no.  Once of the sources of this one is Michelle Bachmann who is a moron in her own right (can we please please come up with a better candidate?!?!),  TARP was signed into law by President Bush.  However, the fine print is that Obama added onto this.  Conveniently left out is that Obama also allowed Chrysler to pay us back years early at a net loss, instead of gaining interest on what we loaned them or even recovering the full amount.  Ironically, the link to the "attack" is not even a link to the attack.  It's a link to another refute, which again - points out the wrong information on  Why do they keep putting up links that somewhat support their statement, but have glaring lies in contrast to his own page?

Inside the Attack comments we see this:
Since April 2009, the Congressional Budget Office says TARP’s price tag has dropped from $356 billion to $19 billion. The legislation helped stabilize the economy during the height of the financial crisis, and used only $475 billion of the $700 billion initially authorized by President Bush.
Make some notes here.  The price tag has dropped, true, based on Obama's administration.  However, we lost  $2.1 billion to the aforementioned Chrysler fiasco alone.  Further cited is staving off financial collapse.  So wait... the TARP price tag came down during the same time you claimed everything was Bush's fault (so this must be too) AND it was really Bush who saved Detroit?  Nope - you see, even though the money was lent under Bush and signed into law by Bush - Obama expanded it even further (before asking for more money for the stimulus).  It also falsely claims Obama's expansion saved or created a million jobs.  Even still, under Obama's watch he claims 400 small banks were helped, yet more than that have been shut down.

Claim #5 is Obama being born here.  Now, the birthers are a ridiculously small minority, though his administration would like you to believe it's all the GOP acting lunacy.  What they fail to remember is both Hilary Clinton and Obama's camp raised the issue with McCain (who was born to an active duty deployed soldier with an American wife).  I personally don't care in general because it's over and done with.  Do I find fishy things?  Yes.  However - he's went through denial and 2 years later, long form birth certs (that he claims he couldn't get any other time).  Why does he really need to add this to his site when it's plastered all over the internet?  Because there are so few attacks that are able to twist for them they need to fluff it out more?

Claim #6:
By providing assistance to auto companies, President Obama saved more than a million jobs and prevented the American auto industry from collapsing.
Does that sound redundant?  It is.  It's the same "fact" he used in the TARP argument.  Now, the million jobs claim - completely a guess, twist of accounting and there's no way to measure jobs saved.  Why?  Because they avoided bankruptcy?  That wouldn't have been a shut down of the plants so... what jobs were saved?  You see, even in bankruptcy, unions override any cost cutting measures by a company so not only would these workers be still getting paychecks but would have qualified for (expanded by Obama) four YEARS of unemployment, with the possibility of yet another year added on with his new stimul... err, jobs bill.

CBS News notes exactly two years ago:
President Barack Obama has promised that his $787 billion stimulus plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year....

The report is certain to draw criticism because the U.S. economy has actually lost about 2.5 million jobs since the stimulus was signed in February. Because the White House number is based on economic models, it's impossible to say for certain what that number would have been without the stimulus.
What we know now, is unemployment is even higher since then.  Chrysler still filed bankruptcy and while the President knocked Kia and Hyundai - Kia has cars built here and Hyundai has several cars built here with plants and even has a billion dollar R&D center here that they pay taxes on.  Why single them out?  Is it because they aren't unionized?  Because no part of any "American" automaker is explicitly from the US.  Most have majority parts from other countries and even still, not even assembled here (like one of the top selling SUV's the Chevy Equinox).  In fact, those "American" automakers have more international plants (namely Canada and Mexico) than any other car makers percentage wise.  Many of their R&D's for technology are in Japan.  Nice huh?  This page here has an excellent table showing all the jobs lost for 2009 - it only gets worse for 2010.

Interestingly on that page:
Using the Obama team methodology, without the stimulus bill employment would be expected to fall by around 1,613,000 jobs during the next two years so that without the stimulus bill we would expect employment to be 132,967,000 in January 2011.
We go to the current facts and figures.  We started with 134.5 million jobs before the stimulus.  August of 2011 has total non-farm employment at.... 131.1 million - WITH the stimulus.  Oops.  How did we do the stimulus save the million in auto industry and another 2.5 million, yet *lose* even more jobs than Obama's team projected during the stimulus conversations?  Beats me.  Seems to be to be a difference of 8.9 million (adding the original number plus his quotes on jobs saved or created versus actual current data) is quite different math!

Claim #7:
The Affordable Care Act promotes quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans, regardless of the industry they work in or their union status.
AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH! *snort* AHAHA... sorry.  You see, what people don't realize, especially those that haven't read the bill is that it's a forced fee to buy insurance.  You MUST have it, through them or through your own company.  If you don't, you get a fine.  This is the part being challenged in courts right now.  The government dictating you buy a service is unconstitutional.  You *may* get a shot at subsidies.  Part of your tax you'd get back depending.  However, there are no plans to fund this properly at this time.  If you are low enough income, you qualify for Medicaid/Medicare anyway.  When you start to get to the income limit there, is about the time the phase out of subsidies happens for you to buy insurance.

Quality is a whole other issue.  There's barely quality now.  There's so much government tape and problems with Medicaid/Medicare that doctors are increasingly losing money.  Some complain they make too much money, but these guys play God, go to school for a decade and THEN some and walk away with thousands of dollars in student debt.  It takes them years of thousands of dollars of monthly payments.  Putting many more people into a government system will make doctors continue to leave general practice.  We already face a shortage as it is.  Taking even more money (some localities, doctors take home 30-40k a year) away from them for the hard work they do and the risk to their own lives of infections and illnesses.  Until there's a an accompanying boost or loan interest break to help those doctors, we're going to be rushed like cattle.

As for "everyone" - ask Pelosi.  Her district received the most waivers from corporations and businesses to opt out of having to abide by the new Affordable Care Act and not follow the new law.  I thought Obama wanted us all to be "equal" (no matter how hard we work or what work we do).  Why are so many big biz friends of his and other of his friends getting all these waivers?  Why were they even available?  Obama's camp tries to point out the "false waiver" claims - but heck, even MSNBC reported that Pelosi's district was granted ridiculous amounts of waivers.  While some restaurants with minimum wage employees should get these waivers (while they work on getting the law correct, since some have never even offered insurance before) we also find in Pelosi's district:

Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine rated the “best day spa in San Francisco,” received an Obamacare waiver as well.
Claim #8 :
President Obama is eliminating outdated regulations while strengthening commonsense standards to promote health and safety.
Really?  What directly has he done?  Most of the regulatory actions were on the table before his Presidency, some were even proposed and evaluated by Republicans.  Aside from that, the "proof" listed - is to an executive order for... reviews?  How does that equal eliminations?   While the projections are all pretty about money saved this and that, they work out to a few million a year.  Now, knowing government waste, such as his first stimulus costs to implement, how much is really saved?  It was estimated that the jobs Obama bragged about saving/created, which we covered that he didn't really - cost around $220,000 per job he quotes himself saving.  It will take thousands of hours of man hours to get the deregulations in place.

Another thought I can't help but have is that the deregulation of banking under Clinton's administration allowed the housing to collapse.  I'm all for government out of certain areas but that deregulation of lending cost our country and individually, how much?  We lost trillions in US economic value, the markets crashed (and are still repeatedly crashing), gas has tripled since Obama took over and he wants to deregulate things that have had no complaints on regulation, such as the railroad industry?  In fact, all the links provided in this section are to proposals, reviews - not action.

From a source in his page:
But despite repeated questioning, the administration offered no estimate on the costs or impact on jobs or auto sales. Previously, the administration said slightly more aggressive requirements could cost $2,100 or more per vehicle by 2025.
"We are confident that the automobile manufacturers will be able to absorb the additional costs and still sell cars for a profit," said Ron Bloom, a senior White House adviser who helped broker the deal. He added the deal would not "compromise in safety."
The American Road & Transportation Builders Association says the proposal will result in the loss of $65 billion in federal funding for state and local highway, bridge and transit improvements because of less gas tax revenue collected.
Wait - so we bailed them out (noted earlier) to tell them to take it up the rear and absorb costs?  What's going to happen then?  Will we need to bail them out again?  AND pay more per car?  Then, to add insult to injury, we'll lose funding for an infrastructure Obama has ripped on?  There are no provisions to make up this revenue.  I'm all for more efficient vehicles, but if there's no road to drive on, or the road is so bad I blow tires, does it save me money or do I have to pay more for more often repairs, realignments and so on?  So where will this money come from to make up the difference?  More taxes.  And since there's no provisions to add taxes to anyone else, the same half of the country won't be paying for it - the top half will.

In fact, overall - most of the links provided in all the claims lead to articles written in 2009 or 2010.  We're 3/4th of the way through 2011.  Is there nothing updated to support the "facts" Obama's camp is asserting?  The rest is links to his own statements, which, given that Guantanamo is still open, we got involved in a third war, troops are still in the Middle East, and there's new taxes (to name a few) - you can't really take the man at his words.

Aside from all that, as I've repeatedly noted, if we follow his theory - he still keeps blaming Bush over and over for more than 2.5 years.  So if all the negative things are still Bush's, then all these positive things are his too.  That means Bush should get credit for Bin Laden too (because we know Obama will campaign on that, forget it took years of hardworking soldiers intelligence gathering and Team 6 who got him).

No comments: