never let facts get in the way of a good speech

[Bubba1]

I'm sure the Democrats are going to do the same next week, but the RNC is currently in the spotlight. Mr. Ryan gave a rousing speech last evening, which I'm sure is going to inspire those already committed to his party. But as a swing voter, once you do some fact checking, it's easy to undertand why we don't commit to either party. They lie so easily.

The AP just published an article (penned by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Jack Gillum) a few hours ago that reviewed some of the convention speeches thus far.

some amusing article excerpts involving Mr. Ryan's speech last night:

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.

___

RYAN: "The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal."

THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies.

One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build "sustainable demand for green jobs." Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.

___

RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."

THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.

___

RYAN: Obama "created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing."

THE FACTS: It's true that Obama hasn't heeded his commission's recommendations, but Ryan's not the best one to complain. He was a member of the commission and voted against its final report.

___

I don't think Mr. Ryan is as wonderful as he is being marketed. FWIW, I'm expecting the same kinda lying from the Democrats next week, making this fall's choice more difficult.

thoughts?

[stebo0728]

RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."

THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.

http://twitchy.com/2012/08/30/obama-lie ... -not-ryan/

Sometimes you have to fact check the fact checkers

[WDRacing]

Omitting facts isn't lying it's politics. Not an excuse, just clarifying. If you're a politician you're a spinster. Been that way since the dawn of our Gov. Why do you think they never answer hard questions in a straight manner. Being shady manipulators is one of the only things that stretches across party lines.

[stebo0728]

http://florida.mediatrackers.org/2012/0 ... publicans/

Just curious, what fact checker did you use?

[Bubba1]

http://florida.mediatrackers.org/2012/0 ... publicans/

Just curious, what fact checker did you use?

Me? My only source was the Associated Press (AP). Doing a little more digging. It appears some internet fact checkers need fact checking themselves as they also took the following Obama quote out of context. “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.”


If you read Obama's entire quote, he was actually discussing GM building more fuel efficienct vehicles. And suggested if GM retooled the Janesville to build more fuel efficient vehicles (Janesville built mostly gas guzzling Suburbans/Tahoes), the "government" would be there to support them in the changeover, which could keep the plant open for another 100 yrs. Not exactly controversial..

FWIW GM was already in discussions to close the plant down before Obama made the speech. The plant shrank to just 1 shift, with extended shutdowns throughout 2008. Ryan was only technically right on a minor point that the plant stayed open in 2009 to complete a contract with Isuzu, but they had stopped GM SUV's in December 2008. So, it appears what the AP published in their story was correct, and Ryan was wrong.

Brian's 100% right. It's the nature of politics to distort things to fit a message. But to me, it seems to be getting worse for this election. And with such a fickle American population, It's disappointing that so many seem to accept what the candidates say as truth.

[stebo0728]

The plant was slated to kick back up within a year though, and it was not completely closed down, and Obama himself made a promise to keep that plant alive. So that gets a true in my book from Ryan's stand-point. Now I haven't explored the other points you shared yet, but I suspect they aren't as straight forward either. I wont claim Ryan was completely accurate either, but fact checking groups have become about equal to wiki, they require a new level of fact checking now. Hmm maybe that means they are creating more jobs LOL

[Bubba1]

The plant was slated to kick back up within a year though, and it was not completely closed down, and Obama himself made a promise to keep that plant alive. So that gets a true in my book from Ryan's stand-point. Now I haven't explored the other points you shared yet, but I suspect they aren't as straight forward either. I wont claim Ryan was completely accurate either, but fact checking groups have become about equal to wiki, they require a new level of fact checking now. Hmm maybe that means they are creating more jobs LOL

Stebo, I don't know where you got your information, but they stopped building Isuzu light trucks there in April 2009. The rumors about it reopening were simply rumors, as GM had already moved production elsewhere. And that was over 3 years ago. How much longer do you want to wait before accepting the plant officially closed?

BO did not promise to keep that plant alive. You did not read his entire quote. He offered assistance IF GM retooled the plant to build fuel efficient vehicles there so that they COULD stay open 100 years. GM decided against it, so Mr. Ryan was wrong. He was only correct on a minor point. But I think as far as fact checking goes, it appears the AP did a much better job for accuracy with this article than those fact checking websites.

the conventions kinda remind me of this.....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJG75FJkjr8[/youtube]

[stebo0728]

http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html

General Motors Co. has committed to reopen its idled plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., and keep its shuttered assembly plant in Janesville on standby status.

The commitment to the former Saturn plant in Tennessee was part of a contract settlement reached late last week between GM and the United Auto Workers union.

Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.

...

Auto industry observer David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Center for Automotive Research, said it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

"If we get back to any kind of a reasonable market, with 15- or 16 million sales, then I think that's going to require Janesville as well," he said.

...

The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-go ... enry-payne

(But) I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this (General Motors) plant will be here for another hundred years,” said Barack Obama in February, 2008, promising UAW workers at GM’s giant, troubled plant in Janesville, Wisc., that he would watch over them if elected president. “When I talk about real change that will make a real difference in the lives of working families, it’s not just the poll-tested rhetoric of a political campaign. It’s the cause of my life. And you can be sure that it will be the cause of my presidency from the very first day I take office.

But the Left misses the point. Under Obamanomics, the government picks winners and losers. Obama promised Janesville would be a winner even as his economic policies guaranteed it would always be a loser. Indeed, Obama’s whole 2008 Janesville speech is a sobering road map for the job-killing policies he has put in place as president.

Were Obama serious about American manufacturing, he would allow energy companies to explore (Gulf drilling moratorium), would facilitate bringing those resources to market (blocking the Keystone pipeline), allow companies to hire employees without massive medical costs (Obamacare), encourage flexible, non-union shops (demonizing Boeing, the UAW bailout), and stop forcing companies to make products consumers don’t want (electric cars, windmills, etc.).

Then Janesville might still have promise.

[Bubba1]

Okay, I will concede that despite not producing anything for 3+ years, and since GM still owns the factory, they can call it "idle" instead of "closed". I don't see them reopening such an old facility anytime soon.

You kinda went off on a tangent after your janesville paragrah. I'm not going there. I will agree there's plenty of stuff to criticize Obama, but that has nothing to do with my point of Mr. Ryan's taking Obama's quote out of context.
here's the quote.

"(But) I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this (General Motors) plant will be here for another hundred years,”

He did not simply promise to keep them open. He said if GM retools and transitions the plant to build fuel efficient vehicles (offering government assistance in the transition) the plant will survive. It's not Obama's fault that GM chose not to do that. Pause the Obama hate for a just a moment and reread what he said. Ryan got it wrong. If you can't see that, I give up.

[stebo0728]

But you miss part of the point of the article. Why only offer to save a plant if they produce a certain product, a product that the market has shown nearly ZERO interest in purchasing. Now, dont get me wrong, Obama really shouldn't have promised any government assistance at all to a private sector corporation, but he did, and he made the terms extremely limited, and GM made the right choice not to waste resources developing a DOA product.

[Bubba1]

But you miss part of the point of the article. Why only offer to save a plant if they produce a certain product, a product that the market has shown nearly ZERO interest in purchasing. Now, dont get me wrong, Obama really shouldn't have promised any government assistance at all to a private sector corporation, but he did, and he made the terms extremely limited, and GM made the right choice not to waste resources developing a DOA product.

I do get the point. Obama offered the assistance on the condition of GM building more fuel efficient vehicles there instead of the gas guzzlers that people already stopped buying in big numbers anyway. But if you think about it, It was a nice sounding but obviously hollow gesture on Obama's part as there was very little risk of spending that money because Rick Waggoner had already said publicly that GM was going to "idle" the plant rather than retool. Politically shrewd of Obama to make himself appear like a potential savior and at the same time, make Wagoner look like the uncaring corporate bad guy. It's clearly misleading, but then again that's what all politicians do.

[IBCoupe]

But you miss part of the point of the article. Why only offer to save a plant if they produce a certain product, a product that the market has shown nearly ZERO interest in purchasing. Now, dont get me wrong, Obama really shouldn't have promised any government assistance at all to a private sector corporation, but he did, and he made the terms extremely limited, and GM made the right choice not to waste resources developing a DOA product.

And Ryan lied about it.

[bigbadberry3]

It's bad when even Fox News facts checks you and says you've lied :

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/ ... z251rvLkSe

[WDRacing]

I can't wait till Romney ousts Obama and does some really good things for this country. You Liberals can pound salt.

[bigbadberry3]

I can't wait till Romney ousts Obama and does some really good things for this country. You Liberals can pound salt.

Neh, Romney will probably hide the salt off shore too.

[WDRacing]

Blah blah...it's Bush's fault...STFU already.

[bigbadberry3]

Blah blah...it's Bush's fault...STFU already.

12 years of his tax cuts did do wonders for creating jobs

[WDRacing]

Good thing he's not up for reelection then huh...

[themadscientist]

I can't wait till Romney ousts Obama and does some really good things for this country. You Liberals can pound salt.

Well if the dirty dealings during the primaries and at the convention are any indication real conservatives and liberty-loving people can too.

On November 4th I will provide him with a pile of salt he can pound.

[WDRacing]

Dude...you're just bitter because Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. Let it go man. He should have dropped out months ago, all he did was stand in the way of getting Obama out of office. You can't use one event to describe a man and his future presidency when he didn't even have anything to do with it, other then running against him.

[themadscientist]

The RNC shot themselves in the foot by poisoning the process. I don't think Paul would have won in a fair vote. How bitter is that?

Romney stands for very little I agree with. On the one hand he talks about fiscal responsibility unless you come anywhere near defense spending and he wants to continue our expensive and arguably self-defeating military adventures around the world. His math doesn't add up.

He dams Obamacare when his own health care plan in Massachusetts was the model it was shaped by to a large degree. He supports NDAA which is the height of unconstitutional and continues our march to a police state started by Bush and expanded by Obama.

I'm not Howie, that partisan sounding board stuff doesn't work with me.

Romney was a terrible candidate in 08'. How bad? He lost to John McCain! That's really weak. Much like poorly assembled hamburger helper pulled out of the fridge a week later, he didn't get any more nutritious in the interim. Romney better take a tip from Obama and run purely, PURELY, PURELY on the "I ain't the other guy" platform because he's got d!ck.

I'm not putting party loyalty before country. I'm not voting for the anti-Obama because the GOP thinks America will take any boiled spam they slap on the plate. Romney is going to lose. Obama is going to get 4 more years to turn the screws on us and it's not Obama's fault. It's not Ron Paul's fault. It's not Gary Johnson's fault. It's not my fault for voting for the candidate with the right answers. It's not even Romney's fault. It's the GOP's fault for doing what they have done. The voters that vote third party, hold their nose and vote Obama or choose to defrost their fridge on the 4th didn't walk away, they were driven away.

Thank you GOP.....

[WDRacing]

He's got d!ck unless you count all the great stuff he's done. I'm not going to list all of his success stories because they obviously don't matter to you. It's all good man, you're just one dude and one vote. Your views are your own as mine are mine. I like Romney, I'm a fan of defense and a fan of tax cuts and I'm definitely pro small business.

If Romney loses it's because America is stupid and left a fool in office.

[themadscientist]

Are you a fan of socialized medicine?
Are you a fan of rapacious deficit spending?
Are you a fan of "to big to fail" banks getting covered for their mistakes with our tax dollars?
Are you a fan of indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without due process?

From January. He's still the same loser he was then.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltaLMBDFDIU[/youtube]

[WDRacing]

I'm a fan of what the country needs most Mike, Jobs. Which he happens to be very good at creating. EVERYTHING else is minutia until we get people employed. If he's such a bad person, how'd he turn around Mass?

[Bubba1]

I'm a fan of what the country needs most Mike, Jobs. Which he happens to be very good at creating. EVERYTHING else is minutia until we get people employed. If he's such a bad person, how'd he turn around Mass?

Perhaps by winning the election just after a recession ended?
That's actually a good question. Perhaps you could tell us what Romney did as Governor to turn around Massachusetts. I don't know.

[WDRacing]

He cut taxes...

[stebo0728]

I dont think we need to cut personal taxes any further, unless the cuts affected 75k to 250k earners. Im not in favor of the "bush cuts" ending though. And I AM in favor of corporate taxes being lowered, or actually, they should be abolished completely, even if that means raising personal taxes to compensate. That way they aren't hidden taxes for individuals anymore.

[Bubba1]

He cut taxes...

Yes and no. Depended on your income. What Reagan ended up doing was redistribute who paid more/less in taxes. The wealthiest ended up paying less income taxes, capital gain tax rates were reduced, but payroll taxes went up and certain deductions were eliminated, which meant more tax burden on the non-wealthy.

< non-wealthy tax payer when Reagan took office.

The bigger issue with Reagan's success was not the taxes themselves, but that Reagan spent WAAAAY WAAAAY more federal money than the tax revenue coming in with no feasible plan to pay down that debt. Essentially doing it all on borrowed money and dumping the bill on the next generation. Yes, It quickly got us out of a recession, but the increased employment/business had no impact on the deficit. Look at the deficit now.

To bring this back to the current topic, I find it amusing that Obama takes a page out of Reagan's playbook and spends borrowed money to spark the country out of a recession, and gets attacked for it by the RNC. What's even funnier, is that Paul Ryan bashed OBama at the convention for cronyism with his stimulus package (which grew the debt), yet he asked and received a significant piece of it for his own district. Uh, okay, Paul.

I don't see either side improving our country's situation.

Aint politics fun?

[WDRacing]

What's even funnier, is that Paul Ryan bashed OBama at the convention for cronyism with his stimulus package (which grew the debt), yet he asked and received a significant piece of it for his own district. Uh, okay, Paul.

I don't see either side improving our country's situation.

Aint politics fun?

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but for now I have to reply to this tidbit. How is asking for stimulus money, that is being spent regardless, for your own AOR anything close to cronyism? His job AT THAT POINT, was to do the best he could for his region. Acquiring Federal funds that are being handed out isn't cronyism, it was his job. If you can point me to where he spent those funds on several businesses that went bankrupt right after receiving the money, I'll retract my statement.

[Bubba1]

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but for now I have to reply to this tidbit. How is asking for stimulus money, that is being spent regardless, for your own AOR anything close to cronyism? .

Please let me clarify. How can Ryan label Obama's stimulus package "cronyism" if Ryan himself had as much access to those funds as anyone else in Congress? Cronyism implies the money was earmarked for only Obama's buddies. That wasn't the case. And whether or not the companies that were given the money wasted it is not at issue here either (Though that's a very good topic by itself). What is at issue here, is that as a member of the other party, Ryan got the money by asking for it. That means what he said at the convention about it being cronyism was either a lie or he's one of Obama's cronies. Since he's running against OBama, I'd say he's not an Obama crony, just a liar. Make more sense?

Oh, and I'd still like to learn what Mr. Romney specifically did as governor to turn around Massachusetts.