Michaell Bachman (R) sets standard for lying

[RecycleMichael]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/21/bachmann-and-truth-o-meter-collected-works/

This is my favorite passage..."About a year ago, the New York Times published an article about our ratings on Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota who had never earned anything higher than a False.

Since then, many PolitiFact readers -- particularly in Minnesota -- have kept tabs on our Bachmann ratings. With the publication of our newest fact-check on Bachmann, we thought it would be a good time to update our report card.

Bachmann has scored five Pants on Fire ratings, plus six False ratings. After 11 encounters with the Truth-O-Meter, Bachmann continues to hold the rare distinction of an all-False/Pants on Fire record."

[swake]

She's special.

[Ed W]

Yeah, but if she truly believes what she says, is she really lying?  I'd think that telling a lie is a deliberate act, one that involves knowledge of some objective truth, and then deciding to disregard that truth for personal gain, profit, power, or a host of other reasons.  Bachman really seems to believe what she's saying, however, which would lead me to suspect she's not firmly connected to the real world.  She is neither reasonable nor rational.  That's not lying.  That's mental illness. 

[Conan71]

Why are you campaigning against a GOP Representative from Minnesota on TNF? 

Oh, and Politifart has been proven to have a liberal slant in the past.

[Townsend]

Why are you campaigning against a GOP Representative from Minnesota on TNF? 

Eh, Palin (Alaska) keeps farting in our dinner...

[swake]

Why are you campaigning against a GOP Representative from Minnesota on TNF? 

Oh, and Politifart has been proven to have a liberal slant in the past.

She is a congressional "leader" in the national tea party movement.

[azbadpuppy]

Oh, and Politifart has been proven to have a liberal slant in the past.

Where?

I think its more that many conservatives don't like being called out on lying, so they claim it has liberal bias. They call everyone out on lying. They can't help it if the lying scales tilt more towards the right these days.

[Conan71]

Interesting to note that under "pants on fire" and "false" very few statements from people identified as Democrats or liberal have been examined.

Koz gives a breakdown and even notes that the selection criteria is purely subjective:

"* The data is limited to the statements chosen out of the totality of American political discourse by PolitiFact for evaluation. Therefore, conclusions cannot extend to groups in their entirety; rather, all conclusions are based on the limited, subjective sample chosen by PolitiFact."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/16/793026/-Analysis-of-PolitiFact:-GOP-Conservatives-Significantly-Less-Honest

[nathanm]

A liberal bias may indeed pervade the selection of statements they choose to debunk. That doesn't change the facts, however much you would like it to do so. If they have a history of getting their facts wrong, that's an entirely different story and they should be called out on it.

[azbadpuppy]

A liberal bias may indeed pervade the selection of statements they choose to debunk. That doesn't change the facts, however much you would like it to do so. If they have a history of getting their facts wrong, that's an entirely different story and they should be called out on it.

Absolutely, and so far their facts have been indeed factual.

[guido911]

Why are you campaigning against a GOP Representative from Minnesota on TNF?  

Oh, and Politifart has been proven to have a liberal slant in the past.

Here's Politifact getting called out on its recent hit on Palin:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/05/palin-vs-politifact-on-tax-cut-expirations/

I think Palin was awarded "lie of the year" or something by this outfit last year over her "death panel" comments. I laughed hysterically at that given the U.S. spent nearly $1T on stimulus that was supposed to limit unemployment to under 8% the same year as Palin's comment. In my opinion, the administration's lie was far worse.

Still, it's fun to read supposed grown ups in the news business reduced to using schoolyard lingo (liar liar, pants on fire) to critique politicians. Perhaps the schoolyard is their target demo.

EDITED:  I am no Bachman fan by any means.

[nathanm]

spent nearly $1T on stimulus that was supposed to limit unemployment to under 8% the same year as Palin's comment.

$288 billion in tax cuts, and $330 billion in grants-in-aid to state and local governments and support for social programs to pay for the increased use, with most of the balance of the $787 billion in direct stimulus.

[guido911]

$288 billion in tax cuts, and $330 billion in grants-in-aid to state and local governments and support for social programs to pay for the increased use, with most of the balance of the $787 billion in direct stimulus.

Thank you for that. And....what about the unemployment assurance?

[nathanm]

Thank you for that. And....what about the unemployment assurance?

The extension to 12/31/09 was about $40 billion of the $330 billion.

Edited to add: Sorry, I misread your question earlier and presumed you meant "what part of that was for the unemployment extension."

In answer to the question you actually asked, the explanation I've seen is that the demand destruction in the month or two after the bill was mostly drafted and when it passed greatly exceeded pretty much everybody's expectations. Multiple studies have indicated that the stimulus produced about a 3% improvement in the UE numbers over what they would have been without it. In a demand-constrained environment, tax cuts don't do a lot of good, so it's reasonable to say that Obama's biggest mistake was doing the politically more popular thing and throwing in hundreds of billions in tax cuts instead of putting that money toward more direct forms of stimulating employment.

When people are scared sh**less of what the economy is going to do, they save money instead of spending it, which of course leads to further demand reductions and more bad economic news, eventually culminating in a deflationary spiral. Hence my contention that tax cuts weren't the right tool for the job at that particular moment in time.

[Red Arrow]

Thank you for that. And....what about the unemployment assurance?

That's where we are assured of continued unemployment.