Paul Ryan's speech-- case study in lies by ommission.

[fadedpsychosis]

uurgh... this is why I get sick to my stomach reading/listening to the news... you people are so entrenched in your opinions that the slightest hint that something might not agree with it makes you go into violent histrionics to either prove the other person is a whining lying idiot dumbhead or you stick you fingers in your ears and loudly sing the national anthem off key...

[rdsrds2120]

I can see how some of them can be distorted/mixed up to not be "lies", but just misdirecting and misleading. However, the most clear-cut one seems to be this one:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... /208160480

Washington - Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan inaccurately said Thursday that President Barack Obama "broke his promise" by failing to keep a General Motors plant open that closed in 2008 - before the Democrat took office.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... z256vbFhFc

-rd

[heavycola]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

Fall for the conservatives lies hook, line, and sinker. The conservatives will flat out believe anything one of their own tells them, so all the comments Ryan made must be true.

TRANSFORMER FIGHT

[Night Strike]

I can see how some of them can be distorted/mixed up to not be "lies", but just misdirecting and misleading. However, the most clear-cut one seems to be this one:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... /208160480

Washington - Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan inaccurately said Thursday that President Barack Obama "broke his promise" by failing to keep a General Motors plant open that closed in 2008 - before the Democrat took office.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... z256vbFhFc

-rd

And again, the "fact-checkers" were wrong. Candidate Obama went to the town and stated that under his policies, he would make sure GM wouldn't go bankrupt and would keep the plant open. In went idle in December 2008, but it was not formally closed until 2009, which means Obama could have kept his promise by making GM keep that plant open. This was also discussed in the article I posted.

[Symmetry]

And again, the "fact-checkers" were wrong. Candidate Obama went to the town and stated that under his policies, he would make sure GM wouldn't go bankrupt and would keep the plant open. In went idle in December 2008, but it was not formally closed until 2009, which means Obama could have kept his promise by making GM keep that plant open. This was also discussed in the article I posted.

Hmm- yet another dodge for Ryan. It's odd that you can't discuss his lies without attacking Obama.

Let's face it- you'd defend Ryan to the hilt as long as he was anti-Obama. Lies or truth are pretty much irrelevant, you just don't like Obama,

[Night Strike]

And again, the "fact-checkers" were wrong. Candidate Obama went to the town and stated that under his policies, he would make sure GM wouldn't go bankrupt and would keep the plant open. In went idle in December 2008, but it was not formally closed until 2009, which means Obama could have kept his promise by making GM keep that plant open. This was also discussed in the article I posted.

Hmm- yet another dodge for Ryan. It's odd that you can't discuss his lies without attacking Obama.

Let's face it- you'd defend Ryan to the hilt as long as he was anti-Obama. Lies or truth are pretty much irrelevant, you just don't like Obama,

No, I'm explaining how the "fact-checkers" were clearly wrong in their "fact-checking". I'm sorry you're pre-set to anti-Romney/Ryan to see that.

[AndyDufresne]

Those liberal fact checkers always getting their facts wrong-correct-right-left-acurrate.


--Andy

[GreecePwns]

making GM keep that plant open.

Oh, okay.

[jay_a2j]

.

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?

Quote of the day!

[BigBallinStalin]

The following is an extremely useful article. It'll explain what Obama and Romney/Ryan are doing. It takes about 5 minutes to read, and you gain the benefits of cutting through political rhetoric on both sides.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... full-stop/

Paul Ryan’s budget keeps Obama’s Medicare cuts. Full stop.
Posted by Ezra Klein on August 14, 2012 at 10:24 am

Since the Romney campaign wants to run against President Obama’s cuts to Medicare, it’s something of a problem for them that Paul Ryan’s budget includes those very same cuts to Medicare. And so they’ve come up with a somewhat confused and confusing argument to distinguish the two plans.

Obama’s cuts to Medicare are different because Ryan “keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency” while Obama uses it “to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare.”


Ryan’s budget keeps Obama’s Medicare cuts. (Joshua Roberts — Bloomberg)

This is basically a misunderstanding of how budgeting works. Or, at the least, it’s predicated on the listener misunderstanding how budgeting works.

What they’re doing is switching between two questions very quickly. The first question is: “How much money are you cutting from Medicare?” The second question is: “How much overall deficit reduction is contained in your plan?” And the second question isn’t getting answered.

Here’s what everyone agrees on: Ryan and Obama include the same cuts to the Medicare program itself. So if you’re an insurance company participating in the Medicare Advantage program, you’re getting the same cut no matter who wins the election. So the answer to the first question is, “the same amount as the Obama administration.”

What Romney/Ryan are saying is that they then take the money saved from their cuts to Medicare and put it toward deficit reduction while Obama takes that money and spends it on health care for poor people. The argument here is that by using the money to cut the deficit, Romney/Ryan make future cuts to Medicare less likely.

But Romney/Ryan also add a trillion dollars to the defense budget. And they have trillions of dollars in tax cuts they haven’t explained how they’re going to pay for. So those decisions make future cuts to Medicare more likely. Meanwhile, Obama cuts defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, raises about $1.5 trillion in new taxes, and puts all that money into deficit reduction. So that makes future Medicare cuts less likely.

So if the argument is that Romney/Ryan protect Medicare by putting the $770 billion in cuts towards deficit reduction, Obama protects Medicare by twice as much by putting the $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues towards deficit reduction. So far as the deficit is concerned, there’s no difference between a dollar from Medicare and a dollar from taxes.

Which just leaves us where we began: Romney/Ryan want to do more of their deficit reduction by cutting social services while Obama wants to do more of his deficit reduction through raising taxes. Deciding whose plan makes more sense requires making judgments about whether Romney/Ryan will ultimately pay for their tax cuts. But deciding who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion just requires looking at who is cutting Medicare by $700 billion. And at the moment, that’s both Obama and the Republican budget.

The Romney/Ryan campaign is aware of the difficulties in their argument, and so they’ve introduced a new wrinkle. They told Avik Roy, who also serves as a health adviser to the campaign, that “A Romney-Ryan Administration will restore the funding to Medicare.” If that’s true, then their budget math just got completely impossible, as I’ll explain in a coming post.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is confusing to me.

Obama: I love people that don't have health insurance. I would never cut entitlements. The Republicans would though because they are evil fatcats (no Player thread).

Ryan: I hate people that don't have health insurance. I would always cut entitlements. You already know and believe these things about me. And guess what... that guy Obama? He also cut your entitlements. (Player thread).

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?

Stop being so reasonable! Only the Republicans are the true cause of this country's problems! Don't you see that a vote for the Democrats will save this country from utter devastation!?


MMYYYEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[Symmetry]

One of the weirder lies from Ryan- apparently he can't even tell the truth about running a marathon, let alone running for VP.

LIE OR MISTAKE? PAUL RYAN’S MARATHONING PAST

Yesterday, Paul Ryan got in a little trouble for telling Hugh Hewitt in a radio interview that he had run a marathon in just under three hours. As I wrote, runners were skeptical, and eventually his claim was revealed to be untrue: he actually ran a marathon in just over four hours. Last night, Ryan gave The New Yorker a statement:

“The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight.”

Does the misstatement—or lie, or fib—matter? As James Fallows pointed out on The Atlantic, in one way it obviously doesn’t. It has no bearing at all on the republic how fast Paul Ryan ran. Ryan could also surely beat any of the other major candidates, or the Supreme Court justices, in a foot race. But in another way it is important: Is the potential Vice President the sort of person who lies congenitally? In that sense it matters.

What a strange thing to lie about.

[fadedpsychosis]

yeah, the least he could do is lie about a blowjob... come on, a marathon is hardly worthy of a political lie

[Symmetry]

yeah, the least he could do is lie about a blowjob... come on, a marathon is hardly worthy of a political lie

Kind of why it's so weird. It's such a silly thing to lie about. But there he is, lying about it.

Weird.

[PLAYER57832]

This is confusing to me.

Obama: I love people that don't have health insurance. I would never cut entitlements. The Republicans would though because they are evil fatcats (no Player thread).

Find the quote.
Obama is no political saint, but there is a fundamental difference betwen Obama's words (and even Romney's, by-the-way) and Ryans. There is a difference between a general "you are eliminating benefits, but giving tax breaks to the wealthy ... I won't be eliminating benefits (even if he will cut them) and Ryan declaring "Obama is cutting 700 million from Medicare" and neglecting to point out that he is advocating the same dollar cuts AND fundamental changes to Medicare that will change it to a need-based program that is in no way shape or form gauranteed to cover even minimal care for those who are covered.

ALSO, I only quoted one piece of misinformation. There was

Ryan: I hate people that don't have health insurance. I would always cut entitlements. You already know and believe these things about me. And guess what... that guy Obama? He also cut your entitlements. (Player thread).

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?[/quote]

As I said, Obama is no political saint, but show me where your claim is true. Obama is not cutting programs, he is cutting the budget of some programs. Ryan's plan is about outright gutting and eventually eliminating many programs.

Plus, the Medicare cuts were just one point. He also blasted committees of which he was a part, and one of the major reasons the committees were not effective (saying "do it my way or I won't play" is NOT negotiating or working with others).

[PLAYER57832]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

yup. We are already expecting apologies from those who have said the Vice Prez candidate was lying, but they were going to call him a liar no matter who the VP pick was and no matter what the VP cand. says. I guess we throw Player on the list of coming apologies for actually being the liars themselves. When I heard the evidence that Ryan was telling the truth, I already knew there would be a thread here on this, except I thought it would be made by Phat Bottom. Player.....yeah she is in good company too

How about you actually LISTEN TO the speech before you start claiming I am lying!

As noted above, even FOX.. hardly any liberal friend, blasted him for his speech.

But go ahead and present your evidence that Ryan was not lying. It should be interesting.

[PLAYER57832]

Some of these aren't even lies by omission, they're simply lies (i.e. the "Obama killed the Budget Commission plan" c'mon man, Ryan was on the commission and personally voted his own commission's recommendations)

Ryan voted against it because they did not adopt his amendment for reforming Medicare, so he felt the plan was incomplete.

Most of us learn in elementary school that saying "play my way or I take the ball home" are words of a bully, not a leader.

And for him to blame Obama for his own failure is pretty low, by any standard.

[Night Strike]

Fallen for the liberal lies hook, line, and sinker. The liberals had absolutely no attack on his speech, so all their headlines had to make up that he lied.

yup. We are already expecting apologies from those who have said the Vice Prez candidate was lying, but they were going to call him a liar no matter who the VP pick was and no matter what the VP cand. says. I guess we throw Player on the list of coming apologies for actually being the liars themselves. When I heard the evidence that Ryan was telling the truth, I already knew there would be a thread here on this, except I thought it would be made by Phat Bottom. Player.....yeah she is in good company too

How about you actually LISTEN TO the speech before you start claiming I am lying!

As noted above, even FOX.. hardly any liberal friend, blasted him for his speech.

But go ahead and present your evidence that Ryan was not lying. It should be interesting.

Because you ARE lying. And apparently you "forget" notes like how that Fox article was written by a Democrat. Damn facts!

Some of these aren't even lies by omission, they're simply lies (i.e. the "Obama killed the Budget Commission plan" c'mon man, Ryan was on the commission and personally voted his own commission's recommendations)

Ryan voted against it because they did not adopt his amendment for reforming Medicare, so he felt the plan was incomplete.

Most of us learn in elementary school that saying "play my way or I take the ball home" are words of a bully, not a leader.

And for him to blame Obama for his own failure is pretty low, by any standard.

So if the committee refuses to address a monstrous area of spending while proposing reforms, that means everyone involved must still agree to the group's finding? Sounds awfully stupid to me.

This is confusing to me.

Obama: I love people that don't have health insurance. I would never cut entitlements. The Republicans would though because they are evil fatcats (no Player thread).

Find the quote.
Obama is no political saint, but there is a fundamental difference betwen Obama's words (and even Romney's, by-the-way) and Ryans. There is a difference between a general "you are eliminating benefits, but giving tax breaks to the wealthy ... I won't be eliminating benefits (even if he will cut them) and Ryan declaring "Obama is cutting 700 million from Medicare" and neglecting to point out that he is advocating the same dollar cuts AND fundamental changes to Medicare that will change it to a need-based program that is in no way shape or form gauranteed to cover even minimal care for those who are covered.

ALSO, I only quoted one piece of misinformation.

And then it was shown our your "one piece of misinformation" was actually misinformation itself. As I have clearly explained, when constructing new budgets (of course, Senate Democrats don't even know what that is), the preparer has to assume that all current spending plans will stay the same unless specifically changed by their budgetary proposal. The Obamacare cuts to Medicare must be repealed in either stand-alone legislation or the budget/spending plan in order to say it won't happen. Until then, just because Paul Ryan used those numbers in his budget does not mean an automatic endorsement of those cuts.

[thegreekdog]

This is confusing to me.

Obama: I love people that don't have health insurance. I would never cut entitlements. The Republicans would though because they are evil fatcats (no Player thread).

Find the quote.
Obama is no political saint, but there is a fundamental difference betwen Obama's words (and even Romney's, by-the-way) and Ryans. There is a difference between a general "you are eliminating benefits, but giving tax breaks to the wealthy ... I won't be eliminating benefits (even if he will cut them) and Ryan declaring "Obama is cutting 700 million from Medicare" and neglecting to point out that he is advocating the same dollar cuts AND fundamental changes to Medicare that will change it to a need-based program that is in no way shape or form gauranteed to cover even minimal care for those who are covered.

ALSO, I only quoted one piece of misinformation. There was

Ryan: I hate people that don't have health insurance. I would always cut entitlements. You already know and believe these things about me. And guess what... that guy Obama? He also cut your entitlements. (Player thread).

I guess my question is, why do you care that Paul Ryan lied by ommission when you do not seem to care that the president lies period?

As I said, Obama is no political saint, but show me where your claim is true. Obama is not cutting programs, he is cutting the budget of some programs. Ryan's plan is about outright gutting and eventually eliminating many programs.

Plus, the Medicare cuts were just one point. He also blasted committees of which he was a part, and one of the major reasons the committees were not effective (saying "do it my way or I won't play" is NOT negotiating or working with others).[/quote]

There is no fundamental difference Player. Until you realize this, you'll be stuck in the morass that is partisan politics; always arguing against the other guy and in favor of your guy to the exclusion of any sort of knowledge about the issues. I'm not going to spend the time linking to various items that you won't read and will respond to with some post that ignores what I've linked to... I'm done with that now. Let's just say my ridicule of you will begin and end on your inability to think critically about issues and rely entirely on your own predjucial bias against Republicans and in favor of Democrats.

[Evil Semp]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... -will.html

ON HIS FIRST DAY AS PRESIDENT

On Day 1,

I will begin turning this economy around with a plan for the middle class.

So, as president,

I will begin with an equally big dose of certainty across our economy: By granting waivers to all fifty states, I will start the process of repealing Obamacare on Day 1.

As your president, starting on Day 1,

I will do everything in my power to end these days of drift and disappointment.

What the Court did not do on its last day in session,

I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Starting on Day 1,

I will do what it takes to get America back to work.

As president, on Day 1,

I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy.

On the first day as president,

I will issue waivers from Obamacare to all 50 states.

On Day 1,

I will reinstate the Mexico City policy. I will cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports China’s barbaric One Child Policy. I will ensure that organizations like Planned Parenthood get no federal support. And I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life.

In my first 100 days in office,

I will take a series of measures to put these principles into action, and place America and the world on safer footing.

Let me tell you some of the highlights of what

I will do. Beginning on Day 1 of my presidency, I will take bold action to help grow our economy and create jobs.

Ryan's plan has to "cut" Medicare because it was already cut in previous legislation. When they write legislation, they have to write it assuming that no other law already on the books will be changing except by changes in the new legislation. He could have refunded those cuts back into his plan, but that would have caused a fight (distraction) over repealing Obamacare as part of his budget proposal. He would definitely like to cut Obamacare, but when preparing budgetary plans, he is forced to assume that it stays as law (unless his budget plan specifically repealed it). Those cuts are already the established law of the land, so they have to be assumed as the starting point for any new spending.

If I remember correctly Romney has stated that he will repeal Obamacare on some of his ads. Here is my question on Ryan's plan.

If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

[Night Strike]

If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

[Symmetry]

If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Erm, I don't undestand. He's saying the law will be repealed. not adjusted. Was Romney lying? Is he just going to improve Obamacare? Or is he going to repeal it?

[Woodruff]

If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Erm, I don't undestand. He's saying the law will be repealed. not adjusted. Was Romney lying? Is he just going to improve Obamacare? Or is he going to repeal it?

I think Night Strike is saying that ObamaCare will be repealed, but that RYAN'S PLAN will have to be adjusted because of that repealing of ObamaCare.

[Symmetry]

If Romney succeeds in repealing Obamacare where will the money come from to fund Ryan's program?

The plan will have to be adjusted, just like every other plan has to be adjusted when the law changes. Although, they might deficit fund the current promises (age 55 and up) while at the same time instituting long-term solutions that will ultimately keep the program alive.

Erm, I don't undestand. He's saying the law will be repealed. not adjusted. Was Romney lying? Is he just going to improve Obamacare? Or is he going to repeal it?

I think Night Strike is saying that ObamaCare will be repealed, but that RYAN'S PLAN will have to be adjusted because of that repealing of ObamaCare.

That makes more sense.

[Woodruff]

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/yes-paul-ryan-lied-and-yes-it-matters