PolitiFact: Only 22% of Obama's Listed Comments Rated as True

Thought in light of Reid's claim that ALL the horror stories being documented about Obamacare are untrue this was interesting. PolitiFact has 511 Obama statements listed and rated only 22% of them as True.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

What this demonstrates is we're being lied too, or at the least misled, 78% of the time by our president. A president who's distinguished himself by receiving the Lie of the Year Award and is portrayed by his adoring media as being beyond reproach. Now, couple that with Reid's outright lie about Romney's taxes, his blatant disregard for CBO numbers that don't promote his lies and what we can glean is the fact we're being force fed one line of BS after another by out current crop of leaders and the media arm of the DNC machine.

Sure, it's easy to say, "well, they all lie, so big deal", but we're not talking lies about some tripe issue, we're talking about a president who's 22% totally truthful and leads an administration who took over 1/6 of economy, has been caught spying on and intimidating journalists, who's used the power of the IRS to target it's opposition and is arguably clueless about international affairs.

I guess the question is, have we become so entrenched in bias, staunch political patronage, we're willing to accept such blatant disregard for honesty by leadership we deem to be "on our side" or are we just too lazily content to confront it?

 

I am the farthest you get from being an Obama apologist but I think it would be more accurate to include "mostly true" as well. You get a total of 46% which is much better albeit still means he lies most of the time.

Edit: Apparently G W Bush only made four statements.

 

Nothing new here. I'm only surprised to see The Lightworker's lies assigned a quantitative value.
He came to power by telling lies and holds onto it by telling still more lies. Now watch the apologists spin this the best they can.

 

Actually this is recent statements involving Obama, not just Obama saying stuff himself. The entire link is invalid.

 

And if you include Half True it jumps to around 60%. That isn't bad for a politican of any party.

 

and that is the fundamental problem America has today....

 

So wait... you only include the top most item as true? If that's the case then we can also say he's only lied 2% of the time.

 

No, It means he only tells the whole truth 22%, and 78% of the time hes telling some form of a lie.

 

Also how about we use the same metric on some of the republican heroes.

Scott Walker? 10%
Ted Cruz? 3%
Chris Christie? 22%
John Boehner? 27%
Mitch McConnell? 13%
Mitt Romney? 15%
Ron Paul? 18%

And almost all of those guys have higher pants on fire ratings.

- - - Updated - - -

So what's your excuse when not a single tea party politician that I can find has a better rating than him.

 

I suspect bias, by the ratings agency.

Nancy Pelosi tells the truth 8% of the time.... HAHAHAHAHAHA
Harry Reid... 11%

 

Of course you do.

 

your statement there is what's untrue

reid said the koch's ads are untrue and it has already been demonstrated in the other thread that he is correct

the koch's ads contain significant omissions, exaggerations and factual errors, like most political rhetoric does


[video=youtube;Kpjyr1x7mC0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpjyr1x7mC0#t=54[/video]


The Facts

First of all, many viewers might think Boonstra lost her doctor, as she mentions her “wonderful doctor” and then says her plan was canceled. But AFP confirms that she was able to find a plan, via Blue Cross Blue Shield, that had her doctor in its network.

Local news reports recount that Boonstra, like many Americans, initially had trouble getting a plan because of the botched launch of healthcare.gov. No doubt that was a difficult experience. She then was invited by her local member of Congress to attend the State of the Union address and participated in a Republican National Committee news conference that highlighted problems with Obamacare’s stumbling launch.

At that news conference, Boonstra said, “I’m paying a higher cost now as far as out of pocket costs and the coverage is just not the same.” But in the new ad she says “the out-of-pocket costs are so high, it’s unaffordable.”
The claim that the costs are now “unaffordable” appeared odd because, under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for covered expenses under an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits. The Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan that appear to match Boonstra’s plan, as described in local news reports, all have that limit.

Meanwhile, Boonstra told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month. Over the course of a year, the premium savings amounts to $6,348—just two dollars shy of the out-of-pocket maximum.

We were unable to reach Boonstra, but on the fact of it, the premium savings appear to match whatever out-of-pocket costs she now faces.

Levi Russell, a spokesman for AFP, said he “would assume there is an OOP max, but this is the story of Julie, a real person suffering from blood cancer, not some neat and tidy White House PowerPoint about how the ACA is helping everyone.” He said there is a possibility that her specific chemotherapy medication will not be covered.

“Julie’s concerns about her new plan are ongoing and very personal. Since her out of pocket costs are so much higher now, her costs have quickly become unpredictable,” he added. “Rather than knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses that vary with her health. She said she feels like a surprise is around every corner, since she keeps being hit with new out-of-pocket costs every time she needs treatment, or a test, or even an office visit.”

He concluded: “Now her expenses are unpredictable, and that means unaffordable. It could be $600 one month, and three times that the next month. The reality of what she’s dealing with is much more involved and can’t be swept aside by saying, ‘you have an OOP maximum so quit complaining about your cancer.’”

Update, Feb. 21: In an interview with the Dexter Leader responding to this column, Boonstra said: “People are asking me for the numbers and I don’t know those answers — that’s the heartbreak of all of this. It’s the uncertainty of not having those numbers that I have an issue with, because I always knew what I was paying and now I don’t, and I haven’t gone through the tests or seen my specialist yet.”

The Pinocchio Test

The Fact Checker surely does not want to play down the emotional anguish that any cancer patient may face, but a fuller accounting is necessary if AFP is going to air ads like this. In order to properly compare the old plan and the new plan, there needs to be fuller disclosure of the costs and out-of-pocket maximums before claims that the new plan is “unaffordable” can be accepted at face value. Too many anecdotal stories, on both sides, have fallen apart under close scrutiny.

[Update, Feb. 24: In response to a complaint to television stations from the Peters campaign, AFP supplied more documentation for the ad (embedded below). The documentation, however, sheds no light on how the new health plan has made out-of-pockets costs for Boonstra "unaffordable." Instead, it emphasizes that these costs may be unpredictable. This does not meet the disclosure test we requested.]

Russell passed along a quote from Boonstra: “My plan, the premiums are half, but the out‑of‑pocket costs are so high that for me, it’s unaffordable. My coverage is 80/20. Blood work, I’m paying 20 percent. If I needed a bone marrow transplant, I would only be covered 80 percent. Everything, everything I do now, I have to pay a percentage of.”
It is one thing to say there are higher out-of-pocket costs, as she did at the RNC news conference, but another to assume that those higher costs are not offset in some way by the significantly lower premium. (The $350,000 bone marrow transplant, for instance, would be capped at the out of pocket minimum.) The reality is that eventually Boonstra will hit the maximum and no longer pay anything. So over the course of the year, the difference in the costs could well even out.

We will initially set this rating at Two Pinocchios, and will update if we get more information.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/20/a-hard-hitting-anti-obamacare-ad-makes-a-claim-that-doesnt-add-up/

 

You can say whatever you want, believe whatever you want, makes absolutely no difference to me. Just wanted to point out how low the bar surrounding political discourse really is.

 

Here's my statement; Thought in light of Reid's claim that ALL the horror stories being documented about Obamacare are untrue.

He said ALL, not some, and that's clearly false. So no, my comment isn't untrue, it's spot on true. Dance around it all you want, but not at my expense.

 

as opposed to what? nixon and bush


"I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, read my lips: no new taxes."

[video=youtube;OuLWgVOLbG4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuLWgVOLbG4[/video]

 

There is no excuse, not as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise I would have rephrased this by changing "we" to "liberals".
"I guess the question is, have we become so entrenched in bias, staunch political patronage, we're willing to accept such blatant disregard for honesty by leadership we deem to be "on our side" or are we just too lazily content to confront it?"

 

honest people with some experience know you're doing the same things you're accusing obama of doing

show me president that hash't been accused of lying

 

Sorry you're having difficulty crawling out of your political trench long enough to grasp the topic. Lets try this, you ask "as opposed to what". My answer is opposed to raising the bar and demanding our leaders actually tell us the honest truth instead of lying.

 

your answer is so obviously just more political rhetoric

reid told the truth about the koch's ad, you didn't

 

sad state of affiars when your only defense is you guys do it too........ BTW looks like Obama may get liar of the year 2 years running with his claim that Obamacare will lower premiums

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/could-obamacare-win-lie-the-year-two-times-row-9981?page=1

 

It's a sad time we live in when the masses accept lying and do not insist that we should be told the truth. Why bother listening to any politician or media outlet that speak lie after lie to the public? Its a complete waste of anyone's time listening to their bs. Our country is falling apart and shows no sign that things will improve. It seems the masses prefer the lying so they don;'t have to deal with reality but how long can this bubble exist before it too bursts?

 

I don't think most of us like it, seems that it is just the partisan shills that are paid to apologize for the Democratic party do

 

Facts have a liberal bias, so it's no wonder that Boonstra is unavailable for comment. I'm glad that she's saving money under "Obamacare". It's a shame that she lied about it, though.

 

I didn't realize Obama was up to 22% for telling the truth, thought he was in the single digits. I know that every politician spins his version of the truth to make him/herself look good and the opposition look bad, but this guy has taken it to a new level. And I know that he doesn't get much cooperation from the repubs, but that's due to 2 reasons:

1. What he wants to do is diametrically opposed to what they want, and

2. When he and the democrats had their super majority in the Senate and control of the House, they totally shutout the GOP. Which is not conducive to fostering cooperation and compromise later on.