Comments on: McCain literally lies about Obama’s literal tenure http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/ Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:49:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: eric http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-124 eric Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:18:56 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-124 You're right, John. It is foolish to be comparing tit for tat who spends more on earmarks, because earmarks aren't inherently bad; we should be judging the merit of the earmark itself. We shouldn't demonize appropriating money for hospitals, schools, and technology just because you want to coin 'earmark' a political dirty word. Wether federal funds should be appropriated by elected officials or civil servants is a legitimate debate, which we can't have if you keep distorting the realities of how budgets and appropriations work. A $200 billion Infrastructure bill still costs the taxpayers $200 billion wether it has one earmark or one million. You’re right, John. It is foolish to be comparing tit for tat who spends more on earmarks, because earmarks aren’t inherently bad; we should be judging the merit of the earmark itself. We shouldn’t demonize appropriating money for hospitals, schools, and technology just because you want to coin ‘earmark’ a political dirty word.

Wether federal funds should be appropriated by elected officials or civil servants is a legitimate debate, which we can’t have if you keep distorting the realities of how budgets and appropriations work. A $200 billion Infrastructure bill still costs the taxpayers $200 billion wether it has one earmark or one million.

]]> By: John McCain http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-123 John McCain Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:33:36 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-123 Does anyone else think this is foolish? I'm mean I was pretty darn close. The fact of the matter is it's more than a million a day. If you are more worried about me using the word "literally" than where your tax dollars will be going then that will be good to know for future reference. Like when I'm running the country. Does anyone else think this is foolish? I’m mean I was pretty darn close. The fact of the matter is it’s more than a million a day. If you are more worried about me using the word “literally” than where your tax dollars will be going then that will be good to know for future reference. Like when I’m running the country.

]]> By: Nathan Clark http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-122 Nathan Clark Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:04:19 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-122 We agree with McCain's previous and related statement, linked above - that Obama, "has consciously attempted to manipulate the system by requesting nearly $1 million every working day he has been in the Senate." But literally $1m a day would either mean $1352m, $892m or $624m in requested earmarks, depending on your take (and again, the most accurate definition would be the 1352 days in office). Though the $932m isn't that far off, it's literally untrue unless he's means literally in a figurative sense (as mattyc noted above). But in the best case this is a definite white lie, missing the mark on the "literally" by 40 days or $40m. In the worse sense - one we are not attempting to prove, though are further researching - McCain's off by $360m. In either case, it's just not literally true. We agree with McCain’s previous and related statement, linked above - that Obama, “has consciously attempted to manipulate the system by requesting nearly $1 million every working day he has been in the Senate.”
But literally $1m a day would either mean $1352m, $892m or $624m in requested earmarks, depending on your take (and again, the most accurate definition would be the 1352 days in office). Though the $932m isn’t that far off, it’s literally untrue unless he’s means literally in a figurative sense (as mattyc noted above). But in the best case this is a definite white lie, missing the mark on the “literally” by 40 days or $40m. In the worse sense - one we are not attempting to prove, though are further researching - McCain’s off by $360m. In either case, it’s just not literally true.

]]> By: Michael http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-120 Michael Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:43:09 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-120 Pinnix has a point. If he's requested $932 million and been active for 892 days, that's roughly $1m a day. Pinnix has a point. If he’s requested $932 million and been active for 892 days, that’s roughly $1m a day.

]]> By: mattyc http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-119 mattyc Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:16:40 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-119 Maybe he meant literal figuratively. Maybe he meant literal figuratively.

]]> By: Renaud http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-116 Renaud Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:35:54 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-116 Again, it's this stupid sound byte election. No one discusses what the earmarks are for? Some of Obama's earmark requests are for General Dynamics to fund high explosive technology, others for a hospital, another for a science center... My point is earmarks for worthwhile things shouldn't be an issue. It's the earmarks for bridges to nowhere that should be an issue. It's like lobbyists. I have no problem with lobbyists who fight for social justice or causes or even industries, but do them legally and fairly. It's the lobbyists for big oil like Charlie Black that are the issue. Again, it’s this stupid sound byte election. No one discusses what the earmarks are for? Some of Obama’s earmark requests are for General Dynamics to fund high explosive technology, others for a hospital, another for a science center…

My point is earmarks for worthwhile things shouldn’t be an issue. It’s the earmarks for bridges to nowhere that should be an issue. It’s like lobbyists. I have no problem with lobbyists who fight for social justice or causes or even industries, but do them legally and fairly. It’s the lobbyists for big oil like Charlie Black that are the issue.

]]> By: Jeremy Pinnix http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-115 Jeremy Pinnix Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:28:22 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-115 $932 million / 892 days is literally $1.044843049327354 million/day. $932 million / 892 days is literally $1.044843049327354 million/day.

]]> By: Peter Centofante http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-114 Peter Centofante Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:02:00 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-114 I just wish McCain didn't use the word literally. He didn't have to, but he chose to. It's hard for us to determine exactly why and the depth of impact of seemingly small lies like these...but regardless, he didn't have to make such a pointed emphasis. If he insists on it, we're going to call him out. We don't really have a choice. I just wish McCain didn’t use the word literally. He didn’t have to, but he chose to. It’s hard for us to determine exactly why and the depth of impact of seemingly small lies like these…but regardless, he didn’t have to make such a pointed emphasis. If he insists on it, we’re going to call him out. We don’t really have a choice.

]]> By: Nathan Clark http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-113 Nathan Clark Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:32:00 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-113 The $932m is generally accepted (though some claim it's $931m), but McCain's use of literally is the problem in this instance because literally offers little room for estimation. In the fullest sense, Obama has been in office 1352 days, which works out to $689k/day in requested earmarks. If we use the narrower counts, either of which is a favorable interpretation of "in office" - the total number of work days (892) make McCain's statement almost true. In that instance, there's only a $40m / 40 day discrepancy, which we would not flag in a general statement <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/palin.earmarks/" rel="nofollow"> like the one he made September 10</a>. But in this instance the math simply does not support his assertion that Senator Obama has requested "literally $1m for every day that he's been in office". The $932m is generally accepted (though some claim it’s $931m), but McCain’s use of literally is the problem in this instance because literally offers little room for estimation. In the fullest sense, Obama has been in office 1352 days, which works out to $689k/day in requested earmarks. If we use the narrower counts, either of which is a favorable interpretation of “in office” - the total number of work days (892) make McCain’s statement almost true. In that instance, there’s only a $40m / 40 day discrepancy, which we would not flag in a general statement like the one he made September 10. But in this instance the math simply does not support his assertion that Senator Obama has requested “literally $1m for every day that he’s been in office”.

]]> By: dan http://liecount.com/2008/09/17/mccain-literally-lies-about-obamas-literal-tenure/#comment-112 dan Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:06:55 +0000 http://liecount.com/?p=224#comment-112 is that a lie? did obama really request $932? if so, then it seems that he requested more than $1/day. perhaps mccain under-estimated in this case... does that count as a 'lie'? is that a lie? did obama really request $932? if so, then it seems that he requested more than $1/day. perhaps mccain under-estimated in this case… does that count as a ‘lie’?

]]>