Ryan's double-speak..

[Gob]

Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan has come under fire for alleged inaccuracies during his convention debut in Tampa, Florida.

Mr Ryan attacked the president for making cuts to the Medicare healthcare programme, but did not say that his own budget plan includes the same savings.

He complained that proposals by a budget commission were not adopted, but did not mention he opposed its report.

On a key area of debate, the future of Medicare, the government-run health programme for over-65s, Mr Ryan accused the White House of slashing $716bn (£450bn) from the much-loved scheme.

But FactCheck.org, amongst others, said Mr Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law does not cut money from Medicare, but simply reduces the growth in spending on the scheme in an effort to keep it solvent.

In addition, Mr Ryan - who described the Obama plan as "the biggest, coldest, power play of all" - failed to note that he proposed virtually the same cuts in his own budget plans.


He accused the president of "political patronage" via his $800bn stimulus plan, passed in 2008. However, he neglected in his speech to mention that he sought to procure stimulus dollars for energy firms in his home state of Wisconsin, the Associated Press notes.

The vice-presidential hopeful was also accused of misleading his audience over the timing of the closure of a GM plant in his home town of Janesville, Wisconsin.

That statement earned Mr Ryan a "false" rating from PolitiFact.com, having failed to note that the plant closed under the previous administration of President George W Bush.

[Scooter]

Oops!

Oh wait, don't tell me. The same people who last week were saying that putting Ryan on the ticket would re-energize the campaign, are now going to say that nothing the VP candidates say or do will have an impact on the result.

[Grim Reaper]

Mr. Ryan included several lies in his speech.

He lied about an auto plant closing, trying to pin the blame on President Obama, even though the plant was closed before he was even sworn in as President.

He also lied about the bipartisan debt commission. He claimed that President Obama ignored the commission's report. When the reality is that Mr. Ryan made sure there was never any report to do anything with.

And this is the person picked to potentially become the next Vice President. I eagerly await the amazing spin that dgs49 will attempt to use blame President Obama for Mr. Ryan's lies.

And just to make dgs49's head spin even more, Fox News even took Mr. Ryan to task over his dishonesty.

[rubato]

The thing that shocked me the most was the consistent and shameless lying by BushCo driven by Karl Rove. I am surprised that there are any intelligent and moral people left in the Republican party; there are rumors that a few are scattered around. No evidence, just rumors.


"The campaign is pretty much laughing at the fact checkers and saying, so what? "

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ation.html
[/quote]
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Agents of Misinformation

Steve Benen:

A pass-fail test, by Steve Benen: At the Republican National Convention last night, Paul Ryan told so many demonstrable lies, he raised important questions about his character and what's left of his integrity. What matters next, however, is whether anyone notices.

It's come as something of a relief to see so many media professionals go after Ryan for his dishonesty last night. ... I'm well aware of the fact that the vast majority of Americans will never see any of this scrutiny, but other reporters, editors, and producers will, and if a consensus begins to emerge that Romney/Ryan is fundamentally dishonest, this is likely to influence the public's perceptions of the race.

But let's not ignore those inclined to give Ryan a pass. ...

Not to put too fine a point on this, Ryan, like his running mate, tells obvious falsehoods because he's confident there will be no consequences. He simply assumes he can lie with impunity because the media doesn't care to separate fact from fiction.

This is a critical test of the political world, and a few too many are failing.

They have been doing this with economics for a long time, but it has been difficult for reporters to figure out the difference between legitimate disputes about theory and evidence within the profession, and outright misrepresentations (it's not that hard in every case, and it's frustrating reporters still don't do better than this, but it's at least understandable in some instances).

But this year it is rising to a different level, and what used to bug me about the right's presentation of economics has now been extended to their discussion of everything. The campaign is pretty much laughing at the fact checkers and saying, so what?

The press is supposed to be helping America understand, not helping to mislead them, and it's time for reporters -- political reporters in particular -- to take a long, hard look inward and figure out where they've gone so wrong.

[/quote]

[Crackpot]

I vote Rubato stops posing any interesting articles as it ensures they don't get the respect they're due.

Please stick to charts, graphs and Paul Krugman op-eds.

[rubato]

Fuck you.

People who care about facts and real analysis will care about those things no matter what.

People who don't care (like nearly all republicans) will never care and you can't make them.

LJ and DGS will never care about facts in this universe or any other. Ever. In all the course of human history.

I have proven that conservative states predict the highest rates of teen pregnancy for all racial groups individually. And Liberal states predict the lowest rates for all racial groups individually.

But they do not care. They want their daughters to be knocked up so they can blame them for being sluts and whores.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

They want their daughters to be knocked up so they can blame them for being sluts and whores.

Not just a moron and a complete ignoramus, but a disgusting pig to boot....

But of course we already knew that...

Well, at least your wife had the good sense to realize what a hopeless case you would make as a father, (not to mention passing on those dimwitted genes) and refused to breed with you.

Maybe if you whine long enough, she'll finally let you at least get that puppy you haven't had permission to buy....

But don't whine too long....

She might finally kick your sorry ass out and then you might have to actually support yourself....(at least until you could get a court to grant you some alimony)

We certainly wouldn't want that...

[Econoline]

I vote Rubato stops posing any interesting articles as it ensures they don't get the respect they're due.

Frustrating, ain't it?

[rubato]

You can either be driven by the hate-filled bullshit of the idiots or you can be driven by facts and cogent arguments. The moron chorous - have made a choice to divert any thread into a 'hate rubato' thread because they are unintelligent and care more about their own (generally negative) 'feelings' than any thing else. They do the same every time they can with Loca.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

______________________________
http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... llers.html

Paul Krugman: The Medicare Killers

Paul Ryan’s 'big lie' about Medicare:

The Medicare Killers, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night may have accomplished one good thing: It finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative. Indeed, Mr. Ryan’s brazen dishonesty left even his critics breathless. ...

But Mr. Ryan’s big lie — and, yes, it deserves that designation — was his claim that “a Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.” Actually, it would kill the program. ...

The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government ... would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance..., the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate...

Why would anyone think that this was a good idea..., wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid ... are better than the private sector at controlling costs. ...

So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.
... "
________________________

[Lord Jim]

LOL!!!

The moron chorous - have made a choice to divert any thread into a 'hate rubato'

And now lets add "transparent liar" (like I said, the guy must have a check list) to moron, complete ignoramus, and filthy pig, to the list of rubato's many fine attributes...

Let the record show that I had not posted in this thread at all prior to this loathsome creature's deciding to announce that I want my daughter to "get knocked up" so that I can call her "a slut or a whore".....

[dgs49]

Look at these sources. Paul Krugman? Are fucking kidding me? Why not just go straight to the looney bin and see what Biden has to say about it? Are you people aware how few people actually read or care about what he says?

Medicare is a fee-for-services program that is literally NOT SUSTAINABLE. Doctors and hospitals are rewarded for the number of tests and procedures they do, and have learned how to play the game to get approval and reimbursement for millions of unnecessary or dubious percedures every year. Coupling that with the known additional millions of people who will be enrolling over the next ten years (including myself), one can predict with a great level of certainty how the costs are going to explode. It cannot be allowed to continue on its current path. In the face of this stark, mathematical fact, the Democrats propose...nothing. "Let's keep doing it the way we are."

This is what they refer to as "protecting" Medicare.

It is analogous to someone promising to continue writing checks out a depleting account, and claiming that they are guaranteeing future payments. But when the account runs dry, the checks will bounce.

The Ryan budget shifts away from payment for procedures to block grants for purchasing private insurance. Dems refer to this as "killing Medicare."

Who's lying?

It's clear to me.

[Guinevere]

I can't wait for the time when you sign up for Medicare, Dave. I bet your tune will change dramatically once you actually understand what the program is and how it works.

[Grim Reaper]

Look at these sources. Paul Krugman? Are fucking kidding me? Why not just go straight to the looney bin and see what Biden has to say about it? Are you people aware how few people actually read or care about what he says?

Attack the sources when you can't attack the argument. Nice job.

Medicare is a fee-for-services program that is literally NOT SUSTAINABLE. Doctors and hospitals are rewarded for the number of tests and procedures they do, and have learned how to play the game to get approval and reimbursement for millions of unnecessary or dubious percedures every year. Coupling that with the known additional millions of people who will be enrolling over the next ten years (including myself), one can predict with a great level of certainty how the costs are going to explode. It cannot be allowed to continue on its current path. In the face of this stark, mathematical fact, the Democrats propose...nothing. "Let's keep doing it the way we are."

So the solution is to gut the program because people are abusing it instead of fixing the abuses.

The Ryan budget shifts away from payment for procedures to block grants for purchasing private insurance. Dems refer to this as "killing Medicare."

Too bad Paul Ryan is accusing the Democrats of killing the program when they're at least trying to save it. Mr. Ryan wants to gut it and leave a hollow shell that doesn't provide near enough to help people who need it.

Who's lying?

Hint: It's Paul Ryan.

[Lord Jim]

As a general rule, I don't even bother to open the drearily repetitive "All the republicans are doo doo heads" hit threads that rube starts, until I see other posting going on. You'll never see my handle as the first follow-up in one of those threads. (they're pretty easy to spot from the simple minded and juvenile subject lines, and words like "Repuglicans") It became obvious years ago that rube doesn't start threads like that out of any interest in stimulating discussion, (in fact rube rarely posts anything with that motive) but merely as a childish attempt to poke a stick in the eye of the Republican participants.

This thread however, is different, as it was started by someone other than rube and therefore did get my attention, and I fully intended to have something to say on the subject. But yesterday you may have noticed I had some other things I wanted to get off my chest about the quality of the available candidates and the depressing tone of the campaigns, and the dichotomy that they seem to be revolving around, and frankly that consumed all the time I had available to devote to this forum. (I do have one or two other things I have to do on any given day besides posting here... )

One of the programs I like to watch on Sunday mornings is a CNN show, Reliable Sources . It's a weekly discussion show hosted by Washing Post DC Bureau Chief Howie Kurtz, that reviews news media coverage of the political scene and other major news events of the previous week.

Last week they had an interesting segment focusing on how the campaigns, (both campaigns, the candidates, their surrogates, and allied groups) seem to have largely lost interest in when the news media catches them putting forward inaccuracies.

The point was made by one of the correspondents in the discussion that in previous campaigns, whenever an independent news media "fact checking" source caught them in blatantly false statements, the campaign organizations felt some need to have their spokes people respond and come forward to either correct the record or explain the statement, but in this campaign, neither side seems to feel the need to do so.

A variety of theories were put forward to explain this, including the way the 24/7 news cycle assures that "new stuff" will continuously drown out what went before, so the campaigns have cynically calculated that correcting the record is unnecessary; they can get the advantage of the falsehood with virtually no PR penalty.

This strikes me as an interesting topic worthy of further exploration and discussion; it's an issue that reaches well beyond inaccuracies in a single speech by a single candidate.

My intention is to start a thread about this larger issue sometime over the weekend. To get things started, I plan to spend a little time researching, so that I can illustrate the problem with some "four Pinocchio" and "pants on fire" examples from both sides, and then toss out some possible explanations.

I think one thing we can all probably agree on, is that it's a very unhealthy development in the nature of the national political dialog.

[Long Run]

Look at these sources. Paul Krugman? Are fucking kidding me? Why not just go straight to the looney bin and see what Biden has to say about it? Are you people aware how few people actually read or care about what he says?

Attack the sources when you can't attack the argument. Nice job.

[/quote]

Actually, every person on here does this. When someone posts an Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh quote, it is dismissed almost immediately because of the source. Coulter, Limbaugh, Krugman and many others, are good at getting their base riled up by focusing on something stupid the other side said, taking things out of context, creating straw men to knock over, making arguments based on limited facts, etc. They do it because it sells. But is also why, on this board, where many people demand some semblance of rationality in arguments, cut and paste jobs from obviously biased sources are rejected out of hand.

[Grim Reaper]

Right, but the sources aren't just Mr. Krugman. The other sources were just ignored to attack one individual.

[Lord Jim]

Speaking of liars....



I saw this interview live last week....

I literally got up out of my chair and applauded Anderson Cooper, (who is certainly no GOP shill) for finally nailing Wasserman-Shultz for her non-stop dissembling (rather than giving her the kind of free ride she always enjoys on MSNBC...I suspect that's the last time she'll agree to appear on his show.)

If you watch the clip, (and it's worth watching the whole thing) you'll see coming from Wasserman-Shultz the sort of rationalization that both camps are now routinely using for blatantly false statements...(I've seen the same sorts of rationalization about some of the things Ryan said in his speech)

It amounts to:

"Well, maybe the details are wrong, but that's okay because we're telling a "larger truth',"....

It's the same sort of "reasoning " that Sharpton used years ago when he blatantly lied in the Tywana Brawley case....

But at least Sharpton suffered a penalty for that....

Now we have leading figures in our Presidential campaigns engaging in it, and there is no penalty....

There's certainly nothing new about lies in political campaigns....

But the willingness to be absolutely shameless about it when caught, does seem to me to add a new dimension....

A new dimension which is essentially corrosive and degrading to our democracy....

[rubato]

Equating Limbaugh and Coulter with Krugman is astonishingly ignorant.

Two of them have been caught lying and hate-mongering on a constant basis. The other one is a Nobel-prize winning economist.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Equating Limbaugh and Coulter with Krugman is astonishingly ignorant.

Two of them have been caught lying and hate-mongering on a constant basis. The other one is a Nobel-prize winning liar and hate monger.

yrs,
rubato

Fixed.