|
|
And for the sake of clarity, let's be clear on how HHS waives the work requirements. They do it by allowing other definitions of "work" than those that are listed in Section 407.
|
On August 31 2012 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 02:08 stk01001 wrote:On August 31 2012 01:31 Mortal wrote:On August 30 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 30 2012 21:21 Agathon wrote:
I read on a french newspaper (Le Monde) that republicans are blaming US' newspapers and website for "fact-checking" (Bloomberg, Slate, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Daily Mag, Talking Points Memo, The New Republic, Salon, Fox News, Politifact).
What's their arguments for blaming objective verifying of facts? I don't get how they can justify that's something bad...
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" -Romney campaign. Source: huffingtonpost/ Ah the HuffPo, always a solid source of hilarity and mind-bogglingly stupid statements. 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. Facts are facts but you can still cherry pick which facts you want to present and how you interpret the facts. You can also argue over the facts themselves. Ex. Fact: Obamacare will reduce the deficit. You can then interpret this fact in a number of ways. You can argue that reducing the deficit is a good thing, you can argue that reducing the deficit is a bad thing, or you can argue that reducing the deficit is an irrelevant issue. You can also argue against the fact itself - you can argue that certain provisions within Obamacare are unsustainable and so at the end of the day the fact will not be a fact. Or you can argue that the time frame used to determine that Obamacare reduces the deficit is invalid and by extension, the fact as well.
You can argue about whether Obamacare will reduce the deficit or not. That's not a fact.
What you can't argue is that the CBO *says* Obamacare will reduce the deficit (2012-2023). It's a fact that the CBO says this.
And that was my point. You can argue about whether something about the world is a fact. But when it comes to whether or not someone said or wrote something, there is no argument. It is simple to decide on whether it is true or false.
|
On August 31 2012 02:46 xDaunt wrote:
And for the sake of clarity, let's be clear on how HHS waives the work requirements. They do it by allowing other definitions of "work" than those that are listed in Section 407. The items on the wavier are still "work".
Romney charges that "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job, they just send you your welfare check", but you do have to work or do training, they will not just send you your welfare check for lounging around.
Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
|
On August 31 2012 02:47 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 02:08 stk01001 wrote:On August 31 2012 01:31 Mortal wrote:On August 30 2012 21:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 30 2012 21:21 Agathon wrote:
I read on a french newspaper (Le Monde) that republicans are blaming US' newspapers and website for "fact-checking" (Bloomberg, Slate, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Daily Mag, Talking Points Memo, The New Republic, Salon, Fox News, Politifact).
What's their arguments for blaming objective verifying of facts? I don't get how they can justify that's something bad...
"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" -Romney campaign. Source: huffingtonpost/ Ah the HuffPo, always a solid source of hilarity and mind-bogglingly stupid statements. 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. Facts are facts but you can still cherry pick which facts you want to present and how you interpret the facts. You can also argue over the facts themselves. Ex. Fact: Obamacare will reduce the deficit. You can then interpret this fact in a number of ways. You can argue that reducing the deficit is a good thing, you can argue that reducing the deficit is a bad thing, or you can argue that reducing the deficit is an irrelevant issue. You can also argue against the fact itself - you can argue that certain provisions within Obamacare are unsustainable and so at the end of the day the fact will not be a fact. Or you can argue that the time frame used to determine that Obamacare reduces the deficit is invalid and by extension, the fact as well. You can argue about whether Obamacare will reduce the deficit or not. That's not a fact. What you can't argue is that the CBO *says* Obamacare will reduce the deficit (2012-2023). It's a fact that the CBO says this, And that was my point. You can argue about whether something about the world is a fact. But when it comes to whether or not someone said or wrote something, there is no argument. It is simple to decide on whether it is true or false
I'll agree with that 
|
More on Ryan's speech
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
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. 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.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare.
![[image loading]](http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/EconomicDownturnGraph.jpg)
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid
|
Lots of faded Obama posters on people's walls ITT.
|
On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:More on Ryan's speech Show nested quote +You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
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. 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.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid
That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
|
On August 30 2012 22:10 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 22:02 Liman wrote:On August 30 2012 21:06 Praetorial wrote:On August 30 2012 20:43 Liman wrote:
As non-American i found that it doesnt matter who is US president,because that person is just for show.Real power is in the hands of industrialists (not all of them are even americans).
Elections and politics are used to make people think they have a choice and that their oppinion matters.
I believe this thread is pointless. Because the Yugoslavian countries are all about democracy and freedom of choice in elections, right? No. It doesn't work like that. People have votes. Them votes are counted, and a president is elected using the electoral college as a means of bunching votes together. Industrialists and lobbyists can only influence, not force a person to vote one way or another. Ex Yugoslavian countries are the best example of fake democracies,we see the influence of Industrialists in our countries.That is why I understand much better than you what ``democracy`` rely is. In this day and age its naive to think that your vote can change anything. Sorry. And sorry for being off topic. To quote John Taylor: ![[image loading]](https://kitchabichin.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dinass.jpg)
Can't say I agree, it is very much a spectator sport to me. The elections have become a choice of brands, a choice between Coke and Pepsi- but I don't like soda. Most elections, my candidate of choice is blocked off the ballot by the Democrats. Then the game is rigged and elected officials who become persona non-grata with the establishment have their districts re-shuffled. I assume John Taylor backs one of the two major parties- easy for him to say so I guess (amounts to the casino owner encouraging everyone to take advantage of the free drinks).
The problem is that people need to put their support behind movements and issues, not candidates. Idol worshipping does not equal democracy, but has unfortunately devolved into just that.
|
On August 31 2012 02:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 02:33 BluePanther wrote:On August 31 2012 02:21 kwizach wrote:On August 31 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2012 01:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:No, you disagree with politifact because of your partisan, fact-proof, stance. 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. 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. 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: 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?" Source. 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. The only grounds on which you can say that Romney's charge is "half true" are that HHS hasn't explicitly said that it would in fact waive any or all work requirements, regardless of whether they're in Section 407. However, if you read the memo, it is very clear that HHS has assumed that very power, regardless of whether it exercises it.
You're still refusing to look at the detail of the memo and understand its implications correctly. The memo states the HHS has authority to waive compliance with this requirement: "[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407", but it very clearly says that the part I bolded is the part they're replacing. The parents and caretakers receiving assistance will STILL have to engage in work activities, only there will be more flexibility regarding how participation is measured, what work activities are targeted, etc. The rest of the memo, which you obviously did not quote, goes into detail to explain how the new approaches seeking to improve employment outcomes are evaluated. If they are not sufficiently effective/constraining, it specifically says that the waiver will be removed. In fact, with any waiver application must "include a set of performance measures that states will track to monitor ongoing performance and outcomes throughout the length of the demonstration project, along with the evaluation". To claim like Romney that people will now be able to receive their welfare check without doing anything is therefore an outright lie - there will still be work requirements, and they will be very closely monitored. The fact-checker did its job, he was lying.
|
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill.
|
I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion:
Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care:
In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership:
I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage:
Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
|
On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote:
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill.
I've found that conflations of the discovery of truth with Matrix quotations are oftentimes good indicators of tinfoil hattery. Thanks for the grace of your wisdom.
|
On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote:
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill.
Care to expand on any of your conspiracy theories or would you just like us to plunge down the rabbit hole with blinders on?
I am a recent college graduate, I make decent money and live a pretty comfortable life. It sucks that a chunk of my paycheck goes to taxes that may or may not improve the quality of life in this country, but it's not enough of my money that I'm ready to get up-in-arms about it. At what part of this whole scenario do I become a slave to my corporate overlords?
|
On August 31 2012 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:More on Ryan's speech You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
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. 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.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts).
The numbers appear to be in the right ballpark.
From FRED: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FYFSD#
Date Surplus/Deficit (Trillions)
2008-09-30 -0.458553
2009-09-30 -1.412688
2010-09-30 -1.293489
2011-09-30 -1.299595
I haven't looked at the original source of the graph.
EDIT: Found the source: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-16-09bud.pdf
Table 1 might be useful for context.
|
On August 31 2012 03:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote:
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill. I've found that conflations of the discovery of truth with Matrix quotations are oftentimes good indicators of tinfoil hattery. Thanks for the grace of your wisdom.
Tinfoil Hattery. I like that.
|
On August 31 2012 03:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote:
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill. I've found that conflations of the discovery of truth with Matrix quotations are oftentimes good indicators of tinfoil hattery. Thanks for the grace of your wisdom.
Well he is not all wrong. Just look at the LIBOR scandal. Just because a government passes laws does not mean the mega-corporations will follow them. A few months later and the common public has all but forgot about it and I am ceirtan there is yet more manipulation going on that will never come to light because they are simply too powerful and can cover it up, but that is just how the world works.
|
On August 31 2012 03:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:More on Ryan's speech You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
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. 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.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts). The numbers appear to be in the right ballpark. From FRED: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FYFSD#Date Surplus/Deficit (Trillions) 2008-09-30 -0.458553 2009-09-30 -1.412688 2010-09-30 -1.293489 2011-09-30 -1.299595 I haven't looked at the original source of the graph. EDIT: Found the source: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-16-09bud.pdfTable 1 might me useful for context.
Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
|
On August 31 2012 03:31 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:18 MCMXVI wrote:
"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
-Mark Twain/Emma Goldman
Simply put, you're all slaves to the men behind the curtain. You know, they ones who print the fiat currencies of the world.
"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I'd probably sound like a broken record by now, but hey; its time to wake up. Take the red pill. Care to expand on any of your conspiracy theories or would you just like us to plunge down the rabbit hole with blinders on? I am a recent college graduate, I make decent money and live a pretty comfortable life. It sucks that a chunk of my paycheck goes to taxes that may or may not improve the quality of life in this country, but it's not enough of my money that I'm ready to get up-in-arms about it. At what part of this whole scenario do I become a slave to my corporate overlords?
Got to love the "I got mine Jack" mentality. I don't know what you do for a living, so I can't comment on policy that would affect that, but we could always take an example that affects all of us... Monsanto. I have no reason to believe that corporations are going to stop at just controlling our entire food supply either. Lucky that you didn't choose to be a farmer I guess huh?
|
On August 31 2012 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2012 03:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 31 2012 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:More on Ryan's speech You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
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. 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.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106730/ryan-most-dishonest-convention-speech-five-lies-gm-medicare-deficit-medicaid That graph does not make sense. Pre-crisis the deficit was $160B, for 2012 the deficit is $1,320B ... not sure how you can explain the change with policies that existed both pre and post crisis (wars and tax cuts). The numbers appear to be in the right ballpark. From FRED: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FYFSD#Date Surplus/Deficit (Trillions) 2008-09-30 -0.458553 2009-09-30 -1.412688 2010-09-30 -1.293489 2011-09-30 -1.299595 I haven't looked at the original source of the graph. EDIT: Found the source: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-16-09bud.pdfTable 1 might me useful for context. Yeah, but you can't attribute an increase in the deficit to factors that existed before the increase occurred. It just doesn't hold water.
What?
|
On August 31 2012 03:28 Wayne123 wrote:
I have question for the citizen of the United States of America on TL:
As a person living in Germany I never understood why someone votes the Republicans. Maybe it´s because I´m German and our political system and social norms are different from the United States of America and I have no clue about the American culture and their values. But when I read some points out of the Republican manifesto for the coming elections I honestly though "These people are fuckin stupid and they don´t know what they are doing. How can somebody support that?".
Here are some points I don´t understand. I´m also going to explain why I don´t understand them. Maybe somebody can explain to me why some people in the USA support that.
1. Abortion:
Sorry for my harsh language, but to my mind it´s retarded that some Republicans(For example Paul Ryan) say that abortion shouldn´t be allowed in any case even when the woman was raped or the life of the woman is in danger. To my mind, a woman should decide on her own if she wants to keep the child or not. No one should tell a woman what to do with her own body. And the claim that abortion shouldn´t be allowed for raped woman is just beyond comprehension for me. How can somebody seriously believe that unless he´s fuckin stupid? That´s just inhuman. I don´t think that any woman wants a child from her rapist.
2. Health Care:
In Germany, we have universal health care for anyone and to I think that´s good. Everyone should be able to see a doctor or go to the hospital when he/she needs it. I read that millions of people didn´t have a health insurance before Obamacare. What would happen to these people if they get a serious illness? They could never support that without insurance. That´s why I do not understand why the Republicans are against Obamacare. It doesn´t makes sense to me. It´s a good thing because it supports their own people.
3. Gun Ownership:
I guess this is a really controversial topic but to my mind, no citizen should be allowed to own a gun. Only the army and the police and other important government bodies should be allowed to carry weapons. However, the Republicans have absolutly no problems with gun ownership.
4. Gay marriage:
Why shouldn´t gay people be allowed to marry according to the Republicans? They don´t harm anyone. Just let them do it.
I also ask myself why they are so conservative. In Germany, people with these kind of political goals don´t exist. Even the most powerful party at the moment in Germany, the CDU, isn´t that conservative.
I'm not a Republican, but I'll try to go through and address these, hopefully in a manner that accurately reflects their arguments.
1) This is an issue of when life starts. Once a woman is pregnant she has another living being inside her, and this human being cannot be denied his or her right to life.
2) I don't really understand this either. I think the argument hinges on the free market being more efficient than the government in allocating services. Why that means poor people should be denied health insurance is beyond me.
3) There are several arguments here. One argument (and this is pretty out there) is that guns are needed so that the people can protect themselves from the tyranny of the state, and rise up against the state if their rights are intruded upon. A more mainstream argument is that violent crime does not happen because of guns, guns are just sometimes used in violent crime. You don't ban knives because they are involved in violent crime. With this in mind, it's not the government's place to prevent you from owning guns.
4) Alot of people feel like marriage is an institution that is solely between a man and a woman, and has been throughout history. Any change to this lessens what it is. This doesn't make sense to me either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
