Paul Ryan

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Americans voted the president/party into power that ran on having a public option, or 'at least' a single payer system.

Pres. Obama didn't really run on health care reform at all. He ran on the economy with healthcare a minor part of their platform and virtually nonexistent in their campaign, and then once elected he basically ignored the economy and spent all their political capital on healthcare reform pretending it was an economic issue.

And just look at polls and you'll see that while people say they want free or single-payer healthcare, they don't want anything that comes with it when implemented. They want a free lunch, but once they find out they can't choose what they want to eat, they find it unpalatable. This isn't opinion, it's polled fact.

There really is no point in arguing about this because we have two very different recollections of what happened in the campaign and over his nearly 4 years as President. If you believe this administration has been conciliatory or compromising, there is literally nothing for us to debate.

[Vampyr]

So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?

Well, it depends on your version of the truth, I guess, and how you define spending, etc. Also, it depends on whether or not you consider exaggerations and spin to be the same as lies.

Example Claim - The ACA guts over $700 million from Medicare.

The "Lie" Version: The ACA does NOT cut the current level of Medicare spending at all.

The "Truth" Version: The ACA DOES cut the planned growth in Medicare spending by the amount claimed.

Politicians, including this Administration, have often spoken about current and future spending interchangeably, depending on what benefits them.

From FactCheck.org:

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

The Affordable Care Act calls for a $716 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, with most of that — about $415 billion — coming from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals through Medicare Part A. And Medicare Part A’s trust fund, as we’ve explained before, is in trouble financially. It’s set to be insolvent in 2024, even with these spending cuts. Without them, the trust fund wouldn’t be able to fully pay projected benefits in 2016, the Medicare trustees estimate.

Slightly off topic: Yes, the ACA plan to reduce costs in Medicare is to simply pay less for hospitals and doctors. I'm sure this will have no unintended consequences...

[Professor S]

Oh, and an example of people essentially "lying" about Ryan's "lies":

Claim: "Ryan's budget keeps the same cuts to Medicare Part A that Obamacare does, so Ryan is a hypocrite."

The first part of that statement is true...

BUT

... Ryan's plan puts the future funds directly into the Medicare trust fund to help shore it up (it is bleeding cash), as opposed to the Democrat plan that diverts the funds into the ACA. So if you're a senior, and Ryan states that the ACA "raids" funds from Medicare (healthcare for seniors) to fund the ACA (healthcare for all), it is technically true.

Claim: “That $716 billion is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings, to the dollar, that Congressman Ryan had in his own budget.”

True. Even Ryan has admitted that his House budget proposal kept the Medicare savings in Obama’s health care law. The difference, Ryan said at the time, was that he would have used the savings entirely to strengthen the Medicare trust fund — not to pay for the other new benefits in the health care law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz25hVVRLAJ

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

So is it true that Ryan spent this entire speech telling lies at the last convention?

Ryan was being extremely misleading, but I don't think he told any outright lies. That just seems to be his theme now.

http://ed.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/29...-plant-closing

[paraphrasing] Ryan says something like: "Obama said he wanted to keep the GM plan open, but look now it's closed and all these people are out of jobs."

He's obviously implying that Obama is the reason it closed, but it actually happened when Bush was in power. But if you break down his sentance, he's telling the truth... he's just leaving out information, and being misleading.

Reminds me of george bush and dick cheney talk on the war in Iraq. (When they weren't being idiots) they were saying how Saddam and Iraq is linked to terrorism, and would find a way to put 9-11 in the same sentance... but they avoided directly stating that Iraq caused 9-11. But there were strong implications.

[Professor S]

By the way, let's not think that Ryan was the only misleading speaker at a convention. Pres. Clinton was pretty good at that too...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...824_Page2.html

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

By the way, let's not think that Ryan was the only misleading speaker at a convention. Pres. Clinton was pretty good at that too...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...824_Page2.html

Do you really think that's just as bad as what Ryan did?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Do you really think that's just as bad as what Ryan did?

I suppose "bad" is a matter of opinion, and what you view as important/impactful. As I mentioned above, the omissions and misleading statements made by Clinton about Ryan were pretty "bad", IMO. He insinuated that Ryan's plan simply cuts funds from Medicare (because he is a cruel, heartless Republican), and never mentioned that the funds would actually be moved from Medicare Part A to the Medicare trust fund to help keep it solvent. The full truth actually supports the Ryan claim that their plan would help preserve Medicare, and "Obamacare" pulls future $ from Medicare to fund the ACA.

And for the record, the plant Ryan talked about was still technically open after Pres. Obama was elected, but it was on "stand-by". It was never put back in operation and remained on "stand-by" when Pres. Obama made these comments:

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

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz25nJD1aN6

The plant has not been re-opened, even after the GM bailout and debt restructuring. All the pundits and talking heads have claimed this does not constitute a "promise", but I'll leave it to your own judgements as to whether or not what Ryan claimed was an egregious lie.

In the end, it's politics. Both parties are going to spin facts to meet their goals and opinions. Saying one does so more than the other is splitting hairs.

[Vampyr]

In the end, it's politics. Both parties are going to spin facts to meet their goals and opinions. Saying one does so more than the other is splitting hairs.

It depends on how much more. If one person tells one lie and another person tells 100 lies, that's pretty significant.

Just compare the fact check articles on Ryan's speech vs. Clinton's speech. I mean, even Fox was calling Ryan out on what he said.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

It depends on how much more. If one person tells one lie and another person tells 100 lies, that's pretty significant.

Just compare the fact check articles on Ryan's speech vs. Clinton's speech. I mean, even Fox was calling Ryan out on what he said.

I'm not trying to say that Ryan didn't exaggerate or mislead, but I think people are exaggerating Ryan's exaggerations, and downplaying those from the Democrat convention, as I pointed out in my last post. Read the whole article on Clinton's speech. There is more than one exaggeration and half-truth and the ntire speech was based on them. Also, his speech was incredibly effective because of it.

As you say, compare the fact checking on all the speeches and make your own conclusions. I recommend FactCheck.org for a truly unbiased account. The Politico article on Clinton's speech I posted is pretty good as well.

To be honest, the "fact checking" that has been done by most news organizations has been awful on all sides and for both conventions. American news is dead. We're on our own.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm not trying to say that Ryan didn't exaggerate or mislead, but I think people are exaggerating Ryan's exaggerations, and downplaying those from the Democrat convention, as I pointed out in my last post. Read the whole article on Clinton's speech. There is more than one exaggeration and half-truth and the ntire speech was based on them. Also, his speech was incredibly effective because of it.

As you say, compare the fact checking on all the speeches and make your own conclusions. I recommend FactCheck.org for a truly unbiased account. The Politico article on Clinton's speech I posted is pretty good as well.

To be honest, the "fact checking" that has been done by most news organizations has been awful on all sides and for both conventions. American news is dead. We're on our own.

I actually am referring to factcheck.org articles on the two speeches, not other ones on different news sites. Ryan's is pretty insane.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I actually am referring to factcheck.org articles on the two speeches, not other ones on different news sites. Ryan's is pretty insane.

Well, if you think the scenario I described surrounding Ryan's comments about the GM plant in Wisconsin is an example of an "insane" lie, then I'm sure you would feel that way.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, if you think the scenario I described surrounding Ryan's comments about the GM plant in Wisconsin is an example of an "insane" lie, then I'm sure you would feel that way.

That's one thing, but I'm also talking about everything else in this article:

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

The one you listed. I mean you can't pick out one not-so-bad lie and make it sound like everything else was just a not-so-bad-lie. But when your ENTIRE speech is not-so-bad-lies (which it isn't, some of them are pretty bad)...wtf are you even talking for?

I understand his entire purpose was to get people motivated, but half the things he criticized Obama for were things that he also supported. I'm not even saying those things were bad things to support, but getting your party hyped up against something that you support is just silly.

What do Republicans even want or stand for at this point, I don't even know.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

That's one thing, but I'm also talking about everything else in this article:

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

The one you listed. I mean you can't pick out one not-so-bad lie and make it sound like everything else was just a not-so-bad-lie. But when your ENTIRE speech is not-so-bad-lies (which it isn't, some of them are pretty bad)...wtf are you even talking for?

I've read the entire article; parts of it numerous times. The reason I cherry-picked he GM plant and healthcare portions is because they are topics that critics are concentrating on as a particularly bold-faced lies, and I think they are actually his strongest points!

Here are my point by point opinions from the FactCheck.org article and my thoughts on them:

Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law “substantially improves” the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings.

I addressed this previously. Ryan embraced the savings, but put the savings back into Medicare, just not in Part A. Under the Democrat plan, the ACA takes the funds out of Medicare entirely.

As for the ACA improving Medicare's finances, that's only because it "improves costs" by paying hospitals and doctors less, an incredibly stupid idea that is rife with unintended consequences.

Accused Obama of doing “exactly nothing” about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle.

This is true, and I agree it was one of Ryan's weaker arguments, but it was Pres. Obama who called the commission putting the onus to him to push forward the proposals, not Ryan. Ryan had his own plan that predated the commission, and proposed an alternative budget that passed the house and effectively reduces the deficit and eventually the debt. Pres. Obama has submitted two budgets that received zero votes from either the senate or house, and neither of the budgets included anything from the results of his own commission. The Democrat led Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years, and it's their JOB to do so every year...

Claimed the American people were “cut out” of stimulus spending. Actually, more than a quarter of all stimulus dollars went for tax relief for workers.

The "Cut out" statement is a pretty general stump comment I took to mean a philosophical difference on how stimulus should be applied, and I never thought he meant to say exactly zero money went to citizens, but it's a semantic argument that can go either way depending on your leanings. I concede the point.

Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office.

Addressed previously.

Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.

Ryan's actual quote was a factual statement, but again omits much of the details surrounding it that included brinkmanship on both sides.

But I fail to see how this is any more offensive than blaming Republicans for the current state of the debt when the current Administration has spent far more every year than Republicans did under Bush. Again, Ryan's speech was misleading, but I just don't get why everyone is losing their minds over it, aside from political bias and the fact his speech was largely effective.

Side note: I always watch Chris Matthews to see when Republicans are effective in communication. When he loses his mind, Republicans hit a home run. When he laughs at them, they dropped the ball. Matthews was insane after Ryan's speech.

And by the way, you can feel free to disagree with me, and considering our political philosophies I'm not shocked we disagree since Ryan's speech was largely philosophical, but I think I know "wtf I'm talking for".

[Bond]

Just watched Clinton's speech; he is a master at politics.

Any thoughts on Obama's speech? I've only seen the first ten minutes, but so far it's terrible.