I don’t care who you vote for in the next election. I do, however, care if you base your vote on inaccurate statements.
1. Obama claims that Romney must raise taxes on the middle class to make tax his plan revenue-neutral. The attached assessment of this plan by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center concludes that all taxpayers would pay less. That is decidedly not deficit neutral.
Romney countered with a study prepared by the decidedly partisan The American Enterprise Institute that concluded Obama would “raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.”
After saying that, however, he did acknowledge that his tax cuts “would require the tax base to broaden” to avoid worsening the deficit, and once again he managed to avoid specifics. What does “broadening the tax base” mean? It means lowering tax rates, but removing deductions and credits to make up for it.
No specifics. And without specifics, you are far safer in relying on information from the non-partisan assessment that a middle class family’s taxes will increase by $3,000 to $4,000.
2. Romney accused Obama of doubling the deficit when he was in office.
In fact, as the president when the president took office in 2009, the budget deficit stood at roughly $1.2 trillion, and the current budget deficit is approximately the same.
3. Romney promised to restore $716 billion in cuts to Medicare providers under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, and for the first time, promised he would not cut education spending.
Yet, at a private fund raiser in April, Romney stated, “The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely.”
4. Romney accused Obama of putting “$90 billion into green jobs. “Look, I’m all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have hired 2 million teachers.”
$29 billion of that amount includes includes funding for energy efficient buildings, some of which was requested by GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.
5. Obama asserted that it would require $5 trillion to pay for Romney’s tax cut proposal.
That estimate comes from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and assumes extending the Bush tax cuts over ten years. That is inconsistent with the Romney Plan.
As always, I welcome your comments.
To all those Vibrant Women who have, like me, left abusive relationships - whether verbal, emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, financial, social...or all of the above! - I say congratulations to us!
When I read this post, I think to mys
HI, Annamarie,
Thanks for joining in. Whether co-renting or co-owning, getting a compatible mix of people, and ensuring financial and personal security, are certainly number one.
There are so many intentional community and shared housing models o
Rhetoric, partial truths, and “mis-speaks” abound in any campaign. Numbers can be manipulated to prove anything you want. The only way to judge a candidate is to look at his character and his record. Do the research yourself so you avoid spin.
Hi sailspinner and thank you for your comments. Indeed doing one’s own research is tantamount and character in any national leader is critical. I appreciate you raising these vital points.
Please Kitty, you care very much about who I vote for. Well just so you know I’ll be voting for Romney. And I didn’t need your input at all. Believe it or not I’m bright enough to do my own research . Now I realize maybe you don’t think women are smart enough to make their own decisions and that may be true for some, but not me. You might want to improve your “civility” language, somehow calling someone a “liar” to begin your personal political argument. It’s condescending and a “turn off”. DB
Hi, DBuswell, and thank you for your comments. It sounds as though you believe that I will vote differently from you, when actually that may not be true. I keep politically neutral in my economics writing and academics, but spent 30 years in the decidedly conservative business of managing money. My writing is based solely on verifiable, independent research, most of which I do myself. With respect to “Lies and Damned Lies,” that is a reference to a Mark Twain quote in which he says “”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” Both candidates, as referenced in the article, said things that were not factual. Thank you again for your comment.
Amen DBuswell!
There are going to be DBuswells who just don’t get it no matter how you just want to be neutral in comments.. But trying to raise consciousness …Women do have a unique awareness to try to help everyone get along ..call it our instincts, genetic make-up what ever… You did a fine job beaming a light on “doing your research when reading statistics” Where not a generation anymore to just except your word for it.. With just a whoosh of a finger we are in the presents of facts found, research studied in seconds … But I will add this a very important women’s election … It may not affect you but it well affect generations of children, and young women, and that includes your grandmothers.. Listen to all opinions… resist to put down others for theirs. I think the world looks to women to “keep the calm”.
Hi, Julieart, and thank you for your comments. As a mathematician, I tend to approach problems by going where data lead. It does seem to complicate things when the data affect politics, but thank you for acknowledging that I do mean what I say. I am politically neutral, and provide facts for people to consider and draw any conclusion they like. I also appreciate your call for civility, although, again, in a political discussion, that does present difficulties. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Thank you for your article. I know many otherwise-intelligent people who believe all sorts of “lies and damned lies” these days…mostly things they read online with no means of verification. I’m referring to the type of smear emails that are forwarded to me by friends who should know better. Too many only believe what they want to believe and prefer not to be confused by the facts.
I find this situation scary at best.
Hi makinalist, and thank you for your comment. Facts are indeed handy for making decisions, and I appreciate your furthering critical thinking in all areas. In an very evenly split two party country, I find myself being called a “capitalist pig” and “bleeding heart liberal” about 50/50. I interpret that to mean I’m doing my job as a financial writer. Thanks again for your insight.
I check the accuracy of candidate statements regardless of the contested office. It is sad commentary that I am totally disillusioned and despair of ever finding that elusive honest man or woman in politics. Not to paint them with too broad a brush, I sometimes think that under their exteriors they are much the same.
Like Listy I get many of those silly inflammatory emails that I frequently reply to by pointing out that they are false. I will probably stop being very popular soon. Between the exaggerations, prefabrication, and scare tactics of the candidates and the sensationalism of the media a person must sift everything with a fine screen.
Example are the assertions that the Conservatives are waging a war against women, that Obama is a Socialistic Muslim that wasn’t even born here, that seniors will lose their SS and the Mediscare practiced by both parties.
For me the important issues are the economy and foreign policy. Our President whoever he may be has influence and can set monitory policy but does not have overwhelming power. It is the House, Senate and the Supreme Court that have the most impact and we would do well to consider that.
Hi Hawk Lady, and thank you for your comments. I thought it interesting that pointing out financially based factual errors in a debate was interpreted as partisan. Finance is one of those places where statements “add up” or they don’t. To point this out, in my view is the opposite of partisan. It is holding each candidate to a standard of truth. And, as you point out, the president, whomever he is, has limited power. Thank you for your promotion of critical thinking. It does us all well.
Numbers don’t lie but the presentation can be misleading. It often happens that some programs are not included in the budget or particular factors that skew a report are left out. Financial reports may or may not be as “truthful” as it would appear at first glance.
Nicely said… Lady… Ah that sounded like a trucker at traffic hour… I mean nicely said Hawk Lady ;- )
Hawk Lady and I have had the pleasure of chatting before, and I agree, Julieart. She states her positions clearly and rationally.
Please forgive me as I don’t share the mathematical intellect as some of you, and I appreciate your breakdown Kitty of where our potential leaders stand, in as far as we can observe, concerning taxes. One thing I do feel however, I will probably place my vote for Obama due to the fact that I don’t feel we need someone else coming into office with the sole purpose the first two years of dismantling everything being tried right now to get the economy back on its feet. We can certainly argue that Romney will stop the spending and create more jobs, but there hasn’t been a president yet who has not found a way to raise taxes in one form or another. So, despite the criticism I may receive, I vote to let Obama proceed with his implementation of plans to move us forward. I agree totally with this topic ‘lies and damn lies’ – It’s six in one hand and half a dozen in the other. The economy is in a real pickle and Romney will face the same challenges, and no doubt, be labeled a disappointment by some should he get elected and spend next two years muddling through the same economic mess.
Thanks for your comment, dgicpce. We all vote for whom we vote for our own reasons, and yours are certainly as valid as any. I appreciate your candor, and thank you for your insight.
From a global perspective, it is safe to say that so many of your sisters in other countries (I am Canadian) are concerned that under a Republican presidency history will repeat itself. Obama is trying to move your domestic economy away from the militarism that has fed it for generations.
I agree with the views of so many of you that it is safer to remain with a president who is respected globally for his positions.
Best of luck with your elections.
This comment is for sailspinner who brought up the point that financial statements can be misleading. As a former Security Analysis teacher, I second that motion. The Balance Sheets of Enron, Worldcom and others provide ample example.
I would, however, prefer to rely on available information rather than summarily dismiss it. While I realize that is not what you advocate, I do see a tendency for some people to attack information with which they do not agree.
Thanks for raising this vital point about financial statements. While ours are nowhere near perfect, they are the cleanest in the world.
What I meant is that statistics a candidate presents should be taken with a grain of salt. Personal investigation is required to get a more complete picture. If that’s possible . . .
Indeed, sailspinner. Candidates and others who have a stake in the outcome do “spin” data to support their point of view. Thank heavens for Quantitative Analysis, where many learn not only how to do just that, but also to see when it’s being done. “Spin” is at the heart of my financial writing. That is, I try not to do it.
And I thank you, not only for your comments, but to point it out if I am ever less than factual. Always a pleasure chatting with you.
Wow, I am saddened that at Vibrant Nation we feel we must get into political rhetoric. Of course we all have our choices and feeling about this very important topic and hopefully we will all vote. But honestly, I am a bit uncomfortable with the veiled subtle political wrangling and winking.
Hi Alayaheart, and thank you for your comment. Just to clarify what you’re saying, are you uncomfortable with political discussion? I’m unsure as to what you mean by “rhetoric.”
Also, can you point out an example of what you mean by political wrangling/winking?
To be clear, my intent with this article was to point out inaccurate statements in the last presidential debate.
Thanks again for participating, and I look forward to your response.
Hi, thank you for your response. When reading yours and some other responses I felt a “political undertow” from Republican supporters. I like a candid and spirited discussion as much as the next person. I dont enjoy what felt like a thinnly veiled slam on our current president, a wink and nod kind of feeling between Republican supporters. When this occurs, it can quickly create an exclusive club feeling alienating others who may feel differently. I understand the temptation to stump for a candidate at this crucial time. I was hoping our community could and would put our sisterhood ahead of our individual political beliefs. It seems only then can we be there for each other at critical times regardless of our political preferences. United we can stand, divided we will fall.
Hi Alayaheart, and thank you for your response. For the record, I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat either. I am an Independent who chooses not to discuss my personal political opinions, but if I had to characterize my point of view, it’s a bleeding heart capitalist. I support well founded opinions on both sides of the table, and encourage any who choose to voice their views to do so without regard to whether I (or anyone else) agrees. It is only in this way that we can stop the partisan gridlock that stymies compromise and respect in our representative government.
Thank you for clarifying your point of view, and I hope I reciprocated by doing the same.
Thank you for clarifying. Isnt it interesting how politics make wild the hearts of all.
Fact-checking, especially after a debate, is an important part of understanding any election campaign. It is our task as citizens/voters to wade through the rhetoric and flashy smiles to find what truth is there. Thank you for helping us do that!
Having just watched the VP debate, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: whoever the winning presidential candidate is, I wish him the best of health.
Funny. Thanks.
As a Canadian by-stander, it seems the Republicans have developed their own research. There is not a shred of evidence that supports the notion of a healthy society when the rich get richer and the poor… well get screwed. The spread of income from rich to poor is greater than ever and society is more dysfunctional than ever. We, here in Alberta, are being brainwashed into sacrificing all for the god of oil and gas. We are in fact governed by BO (big oil) and it is not serving anyone below the $500,000 a year income well. The rich, or more accurately the rich-wannabe’s, throw anyone/everyone else under the bus. The first to be sacrificed are women. Economics for women is still under-managed and until there is a solution for that there is “no where to go and nothing to get”. The majority of the world population is poor and female and uneducated. Where or where is there a solution?? Women will have to find it because men (for the most part) seem consumed with solution-by-guns/religion. Women are smarter than that. We are just too busy staying off the curb and watching out for buses/children/family/friends and community.
Hi, Darcy, and thanks for your comment. I was in Ireland when President George W. Bush’s election was contested, heard the point of view from across the Atlantic, and was, in a word, humbled. Your neighbors thank you for taking the time to let us know how you feel. It’s always interesting to hear how we’re perceived from outside the din of our own elections that seem to last forever.
I can’t bring myself to vote for anyone but Obama. I’m a middle class woman. I’ve watched and listened to Romney. He is not looking out the my best interests. And if people really listened to his speeches and public statements, they would be able to see that he is dishonest. Frankly I don’t see how any woman could vote for Romney/Ryan. Not only are they against choice, they are against birth control. What kind of people are against a woman deciding whether she wants to prevent a pregnancy by using birth control? I can’t wrap my mind around this notion. And men need to step out of the conversation when it comes to deciding whether a woman should be a mother. First a woman should decide if that’s what she wants to do with her life and THEN she should find a man that fits in with her decision.
If the issues you mention were the only issues at stake, I would agree with you. National security and economics also are important and, in my opinion, more pressing right now. No one candidate can meet all my criteria on every issue so I must carefully choose issues most important to me at the time.
Sound bites can skew explanations and reporters editorialize (often unintenrionally) with word choice. Unless you hear or read the candidate personally fully outline his intent you can’t be sure what is true. For example, I watched on CSpan the full Congressional hearing about the Lybian consulate but news programs give an incomplete picture of what was said.
Dishonest? I’ve heard things from both sides that could be construed as dishonest. I’m a politicall junkie and I do listen very carefully but I recognize that thoughtful people often reach different conclusions using the same information and they also weight information differently. Please don’t disparage my conclusion because it differs from your own.
Thanks for your thoughts, AprilC. As a financial writer, I steer clear of social issues, but they are important considerations, and I appreciate you sharing yours.
April c you make an excellent point. As a female reported (SatNL?) when men can get pregnant:
Morning after pills will come in different flavours
Birth Control will be dispensed straight from a shelf
Abortion counselliing services will be as prevalent as liquor stores.
That is “when men can get pregnant”. Sort of sums up the uphill battle of women.
Hi Darcy09, I thought you might enjoy reading about Gloria Steinem’s recent visit to my neighborhood. http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-19745-the_power_and_the_gloria.html
She covers many of the subjects you raise. Cheers!
Dear Sailspinner and everyone,
I have given some thought to your posting saying you can not base your vote on one issue when deciding on a Presidential candidate. If the issues were different, I would agree with you. But I think that my personal freedom as a woman, and the personal freedom of younger women, is the most important issue in this campaign.
The reason I feel this way is because of the history of women’s rights. I am a 54 year old woman. I have always had and enjoyed access to birth control and abortion. Women now have choices to be whatever they wanted to be, do whatever they want to do, have children, stay single or get married, change their name when they marry . . . you get my drift. And women presently have laws (not perfect but some) to protect them against sexism and discrimination. Romney and Ryan want to take away my freedom – my LIFE. And I NEED TO LIVE!!!
I don’t know how old all of you are. Some of you are younger – some older. Don’t you remember what it was like when your world was restricted. Don’t you remember when you were told that you did not need as much money as a man? That you needed to be married? That you had to have children? That you could not get birth control? What kind of life was that? If I had to live that way, I would want to commit suicide!
Have you ever met older, bitter women? Why do you think they are bitter and jealous of younger women? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE THEIR FREEDOM AND COULD NOT MAKE CHOICES!!! My mother was one of those women. I would never want to have a life where you move between “can’t do to can’t don’t”!
I hate men who want to control women. My destiny should not be in the hands of human beings that want the world for themselves. And that is what Romney and Ryan want. If they succeed in accomplishing their goals, we will truly be second class citizens. Women will have very few choices. They will either be on their backs, using their “presidential knee pads”, cooking, cleaning and having children. They are trying to take women back to the good old days where we knew our place and stayed in it!
Don’t you remember how it was for rape victims before the 1970′s? How the police would question you about your rape and decide whether or not you “asked” for it?
Yes there are many important issues. But there is no issue more important than my personal freedom. If I am free, I can fix the economy and do whatever else I need to do. I do not want to live in a nice tidy world where everything else works but I live in a personal societal cage. Hell should only be a place that some unfortunate dead people live.
Hi, AprilC, and thank you for your thoughtful comment. As I limit my writing to financial issues, I will respond to your comment by quoting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
She lit into the Supreme Court’s majority’s decision in 2009 for its open “hostility” toward Roe. She also faulted the argument that a health exception is unnecessary as it would apply to a small percentage of women, writing with vivid italics that “the very purpose of a health exception is to protect women in exceptional cases.” In summarizing her dissent, Ginsburg blasted the paternalistic assumption that the Court shields women by denying them the option to have abortions they might “regret.”
She said, “This way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women’s place in society and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.” In short, Ginsburg concluded, the idea that the decision “furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.”
Justice Ginsberg’s point of view has financial repercussions, as the rate of poverty for single mothers is far greater than the population in general.
Thank you for your thoughts.
April, I have children older than you are and, yes, I do remember the way it used to be. My growing up probably was more constrained than yours even. Your argument is considered and persuasive. My point is that the country is in dire economic straits and if we don’t correct the fundamentals, all other issues are moot.
I think the issues are interwoven. Women who work are in low paying jobs more often than not. Good jobs have been “out sourced” in the interest of ??? .. well I am unable to think of winners except the company owners. Of course “they” want some sort of pipeline. Raping oil and gas for “manly man” jobs is an easy answer. Never mind it also rapes the environment. Foreign ownership is another issue, it feeds the foreign economy before it feeds anyone else. War — well, of course, otherwise the soldier would need … well … jobs. They all come home and then what, there are 70,000 approximately in Afganistan. When they are home domestic abuse rises.. not enough programs or safe houses to handle that. There is the issue of work. We can send the women to work to support their families, it is just the wages are too low to maintain a household. There is a major societal issue when the ideal is everyone for himself — so far that has not worked well. The rich get richer and .. invest overseas and …. there is a local economic mess. Who will have the kahunas to turn the Titanic around and improve life for the bottom 2/3 thru programs, decent wages and health care. Either they need money for nutritious food or health care.
Hi Darcy. Women are also very highly represented in the teaching profession, which has been cut back severely due to cuts in Federal and State spending.
Well, Kitty, sounds like ‘what we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat’. Education is the key solution to poverty and that is/was the “sort of” focus in East Asia, someone seems to have forgotten/or has remembered that credo. I am loathe to consider this oversight intentional, either way ONCE AGAIN women will be hurt, and their children, and their children. The more successful women in EA are the enterpreneurs who run with an idea and employ their sisters in poverty. North America, at times, seems to function in a bubble immune to activities in the rest of the world. How unfortunate.
Ladies I definitely have considered all of the points you have made. And I agree with some of them more than others. But I simply can not vote for anyone who will take my personal freedom away. I can not vote for anyone who would even CONSIDER taking my personal freedom away. And, as time passes, they will take more and more and even more of my freedoms away. If you study oppressive societies, they take a little, then a little more, and then even more until you are in chains. I can never go back to the days where women were seen and not heard. Women need to stick together and fight for themselves AND this country. Once you open the door to trouble, it will be a major fight to close that door again!
I’ve read all your comments, dear sisters, and it reminded me of a discussion that a coworker and I had the other night while working on a hospice in-patient unit. We are RN’s– she’s a mother of 4, working 2 jobs while her husband cares for the kids, and me, a 66 yr old grandmother who can’t afford to retire. I was shocked to hear she is voting for Romney! A great example of people voting against their best interests. Romney supports all the Republican actions that have made a shambles of our economy, our civil rights for BOTH men and women (and yes, especially women), and a MAN who will most likely lead us into more wars and mayhim in the world. Romney and his party are afraid of socialism (the word my coworker used again and again) while their fascist tactics are replacing our democracy. Yes, we must do the homework in order to find the truth, but we don’t have to dig too deep….the actions taken by the Republican “fathers” in the past 12 years is enough for me to know that if Romney is elected this country will no longer be called a democracy.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Pamela.
Point of order. We never were and never will be (I hope) a democracy. We are a republic.
The country is in shambles but both parties put her there. Romney has experience to rectify economic problems. Republicans, with some exceptions, are not opposed to most social programs but they are opposed to federal funding of them. I’m old enough to remember how things were during the Great Depression and WWII when churches and civic organizations took care of people in their communities. City people have different recollections but in the small towns of the heartland we helped each other, no one starved or was homeless. There are other ways of doing things and individual responsibility goes a long way in that direction.
Perhaps you younger people haven’t experienced the generosity of spirit when people are all in it together. Times can be hard but they need not be devisive.
Sailspinner- Then if you lived through the depression you will remember Herbert Hoover a Republican was President when the depression started.. And the two previous Presidents were Republicans… But that’s beside your point … He said “we have passed the worst” and it just began.
The Government at that time weren’t to keen and publicizing deaths caused by the depression and yes people starved … But thousands more died during that time but they weren’t listed as “starvation” … Thousands died of “malnutrition “…Children and the elderly fell ill to diseases, infections without the prober foods they were lacking the nutrients to fight off many illnesses … The rate of suicides were extremely high feeling ashamed unable to find jobs or feed their family’s …. Then hundreds died because of crimes… And these crimes were… being shoot from stealing from farmers.. from home owners who had gardens…stealing food from stores… all under the law for protecting their homes and business … Those people died from the depression.. they didn’t die from starvation but died to prevent their family’s from starving and themselves… Don’t brush those precious lives under your Republican rugs.