Here’s a deeper look at suspect claims from the first presidential debate. We spent much of this week preparing for and following up on the first presidential debate (see our full round-up of 23 claims). After the debate, some claims called for a deeper look — and Pinocchios. Clinton and impact of Bush tax cuts Several readers asked us about Clinton's assertion that the George W. Bush tax cuts played a significant role in creating "a perfect storm" that led to the 2008 Great Recession. In the same comment, Clinton also cited a lack of regulation ("took their eyes off of Wall Street") and a failure to invest in the middle class. It's difficult to summarize vast economic changes in a single sentence — and economists will forever argue on root causes of the crash. But Clinton flubbed this talking point. No credible analyst would cite the Bush tax cuts as playing a key role in spurring the crash. If she had meant to pin the blame on rising income inequality, she should have said so clearly, without putting a political spin on the policies of a Republican president. (If she meant that the tax cuts made it more difficult to respond to the crisis, she certainly could have been clearer.) Her statement is mitigated, slightly, by the reference to lax oversight of Wall Street, a traditional liberal position. That keeps her, barely, out of the Four-Pinocchio range. The causes of the Great Recession are complex and debatable, but there's no debate that she is wrong to put the Bush tax cuts at the top of the list. We awarded Three Pinocchios. 
Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here for the weekly newsletter. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we’ll check it out. Trump and racial discrimination lawsuit Readers were also interested in Trump’s claim a 1973 racial discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department against his company. When Clinton raised this issue, Trump dismissed it as a run-of-the-mill action that also affected "many, many other companies throughout the country … We settled the suit with zero — with no admission of guilt. It was very easy thing to do." On several levels, Trump's debate answer was misleading. This was not a case brought against many real estate firms; it was brought against Trump and his father. Trump did not get a better deal; he got essentially the same deal, or possibly worse, than the deal he would have gotten if he had settled before spending legal fees for two years. He also failed to live up to the deal and found himself back in court. And while Trump touts there was no admission of guilt, that's rather typical in these sorts of settlements. The Justice Department simply wanted to get the Trumps to agree to rent to African American tenants — which they failed to do even after agreeing to settle the case. We awarded Four Pinocchios. 
| 
Twitter
Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment