Obama's 'Life of Julia' White House virtual campaign woman has sparked controversy across the country as the Commander-in-Chief attempts to give Americans an online tool that takes the guesswork out of his program initiatives versus Mitt Romney's. But his detractors say that the president is attempting to hoodwink his potential voting audience and lull them into robotic thinking that's not even accurate.
Let's give voters the facts and see what conclusions are drawn, as it looks like it is important to use verifiable sources outside of White House website tools or both parties' ads in order to remain informed on the good, the bad and the ugly of each.
The Washington Post sought to be that source and report the facts on one aspect of Julia on Monday, presenting the differences between what the president says would happen to Julia regarding Social Security issues, and compared to what Romney says would happen.
The verdict: Obama's "Life of Julia" is given the thumbs down for not portraying an accurate representation of what would happen to the retiring virtual woman.
Is anyone really surprised? Campaign rhetoric from both sides can be misleading, and it never pays to follow blindly along with what anyone says that is running for office--and the most powerful position in the land, right?
"This frame of the 'Life of Julia' series is fairly misleading," the Post reported about Obama's Social Security projections. The president is attempting to portray that Julia will "retire comfortably" under his plan; with the impression no cuts will be forthcoming to the program under his reign.
But the esteemed newspaper agency says that this isn't accurate, and that there will have to be cuts to Social Security, even if Obama were to address the fact that the program is going to be bankrupt by 2033.
So Julia is doomed to Social Security cuts regardless of who gets into office, eh? That's interesting to know, as it looked like Obama was saying she would have easy street instead with him.
The "Life of Julia" online tool also steers away from reality when the allegation is made that voting for Romney will result in a 40 percent cut to Julia's benefits under Social Security.
This is because Mitt Romney hasn't released any specifics about what his plans are for Social Security, in detail. That means he might make only a 10 percent cut where the president might make a 25 percent cut. In fact, for all Obama knows Romney's plan for Social Security could benefit Julia far more than his, according to the Post.
Why do politicians have to lie to the voters like this? What happened to no more "business as usual"? Did Obama's Washington years turn him into just another greedy politician bent on staying at the trough like the rest of the career politicians? It appears so with his 'Life of Julia' tool.
So there's the facts: Julia could possibly have less cuts to her SS check if Romney were in office, but she definitely will need to expect cuts to her Social Security check even if Obama gets re-elected. So Julia, start tightening that virtual belt, honey, as you are going to have cuts to your Social Security no matter who you vote for in November.