Fact-Checking Is Dead, Killed by Snopes over Biden’s Promise of $2000 Checks | Hacker News Reader

Fact-Checking Is Dead, Killed by Snopes over Biden’s Promise of $2000 Checks

nakedcapitalism.com

11 pointsclarifier12312 comments

This is a really odd article. Snopes said "most false" and they seem to take issue with this. Snopes assessment seems right on and completely accurate with not much bias.

On the one hand, Snopes is correct that the $2,000 advocacy began in and continued from a $2,000 vs. $600 debate for the second stimulus checks, and that, viewed in that context, a third $1,400 check achieves what was originally being discussed.

OTOH, there is a legitimate point that the messaging was not updated after the $600 stimulus passed, and after that point one could (especially if they were not aware of the same actor’s advocacy prior) reasonably interpret it as a call for a third, $2,000, payment.

But most of the objections aren’t from people in that position, but from people people in the $600 camp or in the left-of-Biden monthly recurring payment camp.

I think “mostly false” is accurate, but I can also see why people might reasonably disagree as to where in the space [0] of neither-completely-true-nor-completely-false statements this falls; I don’t think “mostly true” would be reasonable, but I could definitely see “mixture” or, perhaps, if one reads “misled” as a fact claim of general effect on people recieving the claim, “unproven”.

[0] see ratings definitions here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/

The campaigning was based on the existing debate of whether the stimulus check should be $600 or $2000. Biden and the Democrats were pushing for $2000.

There was never a camp that was pushing for BOTH a $600 check and a $2000 check.

They did not secure power in the White House and Senate in time to change the $600 check to a $2000 check. So instead they sent an additional $1400 check.

Would it have been ideal from their perspective to have gotten things done in time so that people only got one check? Sure. Do I view their inability to do so, especially in light of them making good on the total amount, as an indication of lying and misleading people? No.

Situations change. They made good on the total amount. You can claim that they technically lied because it took two checks instead of one, but I'd say at that point you're more worried about scoring points on technicalities than caring about the actual end result.

Calling fact checking dead because they chose to look at the whole picture, while still taking the time to note the technicalities, is incredibly short sighted or incredibly partisan.

It's very hard to follow this article, but I'm mostly upset that it's apparently legal to directly promise voters money if they vote for you. Talk about moral hazard.

It's really no different than campaigning on tax breaks, industry subsidies, infrastructure plans, or a million other things. All of these ultimately boil down to "Elect me, and I'm putting more money in your pocket."

It IS slightly different. In those cases it's much less direct, and the candidates at least tend to pretend that it's for some greater good. Here Biden literally said "vote for him and he'll put the cheque in the mail."

All pretence is gone. Talk about "naked (crony) capitalism".

I'd argue that removing the facade that anything else was going on is a positive outcome rather than a negative.

I'd also argue that promising stimulus payments when the country is facing an unprecedented global pandemic and all the knock on economic impacts is pretty reasonable, but I expect we disagree there as well.

Do you think he's appealing to people's inner economist - "vote for me because helicopter money is good for the economy" or to their greed?

I think that a huge amount of people in this country were and still are suffering from the economic impact of this virus and the related lockdowns and that desiring financial aid from the government to help support them in their time of need is not a matter of greed.

Regardless, do people vote because THEY want a cheque or because they think it’s what the country needs?

Do you believe that the people worst off in a situation have a moral imperative to vote against their own interests? To a large extent even being able to worry about the best interests of the country implies a certain level of luxury - that you have few enough pressing needs around your own survival that you can take the time to expend energy thinking about the country.

No. Obviously my point is that a system where candidates running for office can openly BUY votes is problematic. The problem is not the voters, it's the candidates, and the system itself.

> being able to worry about the best interests of the country implies a certain level of luxury

In a situation like this, it's doubtful if parliamentary democracy makes sense at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com