President Obama Re-Elected - Page 363

On August 31 2012 01:19 xDaunt wrote:

Politifact peddles all sorts of bullshit under the guise of "fact checking."

1. Ryan said Obama failed to save a General Motors plant in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin:
Here’s what Ryan said:

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. 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. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
Actually, Obama’s speech in Janesville happened in February 2008. In June of that same year, G.M. announced the plant would close. Most of it was shuttered in December; it continued producing medium-duty trucks until June 2009, when that, too, stopped, in accordance with the plan announced in 2008. While it’s ludicrous to criticize a politician for a plant closing that predated his time in office, Ryan himself stands accused of not helping to save the factory.
As I reported recently, when I asked pro-Ryan Republican John Beckord, the leader of the local Janesville business-development organization, if there was some project where Ryan’s anti-government views conflicted with the needs of local business, he hesitated before saying, “I suppose there could have been a full-court press to just cobble together as much federal money as possible on our behalf to make it irresistible for G.M. to keep this plant open.”


2. Ryan pilloried Obama’s stimulus bill:

The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama’s first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost eight hundred and thirty-one billion dollars—the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government.
It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. 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.
What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn’t just spent and wasted—it was borrowed, spent, and wasted.
But as has by now been well documented, Ryan lobbied for stimulus money for his district. Furthermore, as I reported, the major economic success stories in Janesville—a business incubator, a new medical manufacturer, and a new highway project that will benefit local warehousing businesses—are all linked to federal money, including money from Obama’s 2009 stimulus.

3. Ryan criticized Obama for cutting seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare:

You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health-care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more. So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it.
Ryan’s famous budget plan, the Path to Prosperity, repealed every aspect of Obamacare except the changes to Medicare.
(Also, it’s not entirely accurate to say that the money was “funneled.”)

4. Ryan hit Obama for arguing that it was his message and not his policy that failed:

President Obama was asked not long ago to reflect on any mistakes he might have made. He said, well, “I haven’t communicated enough.” He said his job is to “tell a story to the American people”—as if that’s the whole problem here? He needs to talk more, and we need to be better listeners?
Here’s the section from my piece in the magazine about Ryan’s response when I asked him why his Social Security reform plan failed in 2005:
“The Administration did a bad job of selling it,” he told me. Bush had campaigned on national-security issues, only to pitch Social Security reform after reëlection. “And … thud,” Ryan said. “You’ve got to prepare the country for these things. You can’t just spring it on them after you win.” The lesson: “Don’t let the engineers run the marketing department.”

5. Finally, Ryan attacked Obama for ignoring the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission:

He 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.
Guess who the leading Republican budget wonk on that commission was? Yes, Paul Ryan. When “the urgent report” came up for a vote, Ryan voted against it.
Ryan started this race with a reputation for honesty. He’s on his way to losing it.

On August 31 2012 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/the-paul-ryan-speech-five-fibs.html


Its honestly a damn shame that they are able to lie like this. What a sad world.

On August 31 2012 01:23 Derez wrote:

It also symbolizes the belief that literally anything the government does is wrong and as one republican so eloquently put it 'I want government to be small enough to drown it in my bathtub'. The phrase has now become hollow to a point where depending on the government to help you out in life is completely unacceptable, but just living off your parents trustfund is justified. And the instances where government has helped individuals out get conveniently ignored.

See Ann Romney's comments about how hard she and Mitt had it when they were students. Their dining table was a fold out ironing board and they had to sell stock to make it through it. Genuinely believing that they had it 'rough' is probably the funniest thing to come out of this convention so far.

It's not just politifact that rates that a lie, but every fact checker.

This isn't something like whether or not stimulus works, which is impossible to completely prove or disprove. All you can do is look at the evidence and make a judgement.

This is basically a question of whether someone has written something. This is a proposition that can be unambiguously and absolutely proven or disproven with 100% accuracy. And it has been disproven.

1. Ryan said Obama failed to save a General Motors plant in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin:
Here’s what Ryan said:

2. Ryan pilloried Obama’s stimulus bill:

3. Ryan criticized Obama for cutting seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare:

4. Ryan hit Obama for arguing that it was his message and not his policy that failed:

5. Finally, Ryan attacked Obama for ignoring the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission:

On August 31 2012 01:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Fact checkers write opinion pieces under the guise of checking accuracy, they're worthless. They've been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans because they're full of shit.

On August 31 2012 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:


Its honestly a damn shame that they are able to lie like this. What a sad world.

On August 31 2012 01:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Fact checkers write opinion pieces under the guise of checking accuracy, they're worthless. They've been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans because they're full of shit.

On August 31 2012 02:01 dvorakftw wrote:


This is an excellent example of unthinking partisan spin in the guide of fact checking. Ryan voted against the proposal because he didn't think it went far enough and he then wrote his own budget that passed the House and was subsequently shunned and ignored by the Senate which hasn't passed a budget in over three years despite being required by law to do so.

Of course you could come back and say Obama didn't actually do "nothing" and had his own budget. I then ask "Is that the one that couldn't get a single vote, not even from a Democrat?" and then someone links some post saying those votes were just a political stunt completely oblivious to the fact that the "stunt" was done because no one was interested (dumb enough) to seriously offer up Obama's proposal for serious consideration.

On August 31 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:

No kidding. Let's take a look at the Politifact article on the welfare-gutting charge by Romney. The article admits that the waivers allow states to get rid of the work requirements. Then the article says that it doesn't matter because overarching goal of the waiver is to encourage states to run more "more effective" welfare programs. In particular, the article's argument hinges upon the fact that the waivers will only be granted if the states can demonstrate that their proposed programs will lead to a 20% reduction in welfare rolls. Without even getting into the details of why this is an obviously absurd policy and argument, how the fuck does this analysis lead to a "pants on fire" verdict? Talk about bullshit.

On August 31 2012 01:31 Mortal wrote:


Ah the HuffPo, always a solid source of hilarity and mind-bogglingly stupid statements.

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

On August 31 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:

No kidding. Let's take a look at the Politifact article on the welfare-gutting charge by Romney. The article admits that the waivers allow states to get rid of the work requirements. Then the article says that it doesn't matter because overarching goal of the waiver is to encourage states to run more "more effective" welfare programs. In particular, the article's argument hinges upon the fact that the waivers will only be granted if the states can demonstrate that their proposed programs will lead to a 20% reduction in welfare rolls. Without even getting into the details of why this is an obviously absurd policy and argument, how the fuck does this analysis lead to a "pants on fire" verdict? Talk about bullshit.

The waivers, then, would allow for flexibility. For example, someone with a special-needs child might require different work arrangements than are currently allowed. Or a person who needs to improve his or her English skills might need more time to take classes.

"It’s really about the underlying program," Schott said. "The real starting place is: What’s the most effective program to get this person to work?"

On August 31 2012 02:21 kwizach wrote:

Either you did not read the politifact article in sufficient detail, or you misunderstood it. In both cases, you're wrong. The new policy does not "get rid of the work requirements". It allows for more flexibility in how those requirements are met, notably by using alternate performance measures. What Romney said was flat untrue, and if you had bothered to take off your partisan goggles when reading the politifact article you'd have understood both why Romney clearly lied and the relevance of fact checkers.
edit: what you just quoted in your newer post doesn't change anything to what I and the politifact article wrote.

On August 31 2012 02:24 xDaunt wrote:

Quit reading that politfact garbage and read what the plan actually does. HHS and Obama have determined that they have discretion to interpret the work requirements to mean whatever they want them to mean. They're basically ignoring the statutory work requirements and signalling that they can replace those requirements with whatever they want.

1. Dazzling
At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably.
So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.
To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.
3. Distracting
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters.
Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.
Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
Sally Kohn is a writer and Fox News contributor. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter@sallykohn.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz253GtFSI8

On August 31 2012 02:08 stk01001 wrote:


Examples? Plus that has nothing to do with the quote, that quote was actually said, and the quote itself is a mind boggingly stupid statement, the huff post just reported it.

Only mind boggingly stupid statements i've heard are coming out of Paul Ryan's mouth, but you know, they don't want to let "facts" get in the way so I guess it's justified.

Also, facts are facts. If you can't distinguish between a fact and an editorial or opinion that's your own fault, at the end of the day facts are still facts.

On August 31 2012 02:21 kwizach wrote:

Either you did not read the politifact article in sufficient detail, or you misunderstood it. In both cases, you're wrong. The new policy does not "get rid of the work requirements". It allows for more flexibility in how those requirements are met, notably by using alternate performance measures. What Romney said was flat untrue, and if you had bothered to take off your partisan goggles when reading the politifact article you'd have understood both why Romney clearly lied and the relevance of fact checkers.
edit: what you just quoted in your newer post doesn't change anything to what I and the politifact article wrote - it's precisely what we're talking about. The directive specifically says that the work requirements are not to be simply removed but that they can be modified and tweaked to improve their impact (i.e. to get more people to work). To quote politifact:


Source.

On August 31 2012 02:33 BluePanther wrote:



I just read that and I'm not sure how you justify that fact-checker. That article is highly biased. After reading that, I think it's a 50/50. Romney's not technically wrong, but he's definitely exaggerating. How that gets "pants on fire" is beyond me. It's a clear half-true under their rating system.

On August 31 2012 02:33 BluePanther wrote:



I just read that and I'm not sure how you justify that fact-checker. That article is highly biased. After reading that, I think it's a 50/50. Romney's not technically wrong, but he's definitely exaggerating. How that gets "pants on fire" is beyond me. It's a clear half-true under their rating system.

On August 31 2012 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Even Fox News is saying Paul Ryan's speech was full of deception:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/