The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[varwoche]

Please! Simple, he said the word 'business' inadvertently. It happens when people are speaking, they sometimes say the wrong thing. You've never noticed this?

He says a lot of false things "inadvertently".

Does it get tiring, schlepping such volume of water?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You can support whoever you wish, I'm guessing you're not a Tory!

I could go into detail, but you are correct. I can only think of one situation where I would vote conservative that has any chance of actually happening, to whit, the only other options are all further to the right.

Over here none of that matters for a vice-presidential candidate, that's the sort of thing congressmen or state and local officials might have influence on, not a VP candidate.

Yes, yes it does matter. The VP hasn't got much power, this is true, but what is the purpose of the VP?

The purpose of the VP is to lead the nation if the President becomes unable to do so, typically by being killed or in one case effectively sacked, although I would assume a few other unlikely scenarios might also result in a VP being bumped to the top job. Therefore if Romney wins, and I hope he does not, and is killed in office which I really hope he is not, we would be left with Slimeball Von Douchebag in charge. That is not good.

However there is an even bigger issue with the opinions of a VP candidate. A VP, particularly I have noticed in the party not in the White House, is there to appeal to voters from the parties base that may not like the Presidential candidate. Now, say what you want about Romney and I can say plenty, but the man is obviously a smart guy. He's obviously well educated, and he seems socially fairly moderate. He has said and done a few things that might be questionable, but some of his actions and his views are quite reasonable or at least not repugnant. Contrast this with the small but vocal Christian Right in the Republican party of today. They don't want someone who implemented a socialised medical system in his state (despite the fact that it worked, and that such systems are superior to the current US system) and they don't want someone who refuses to condem LGBT people. They want someone to bring back DADT at the very least and criminalise homosexuality at the very worst. They want someone who is mistrustful of science, who thinks creationism or Intelligent Design is a valid theory and should be taught as such and so on.

These people may not be the majority of Republicans (and I don't believe they are at all) but the elite of the party have come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they must pander to these people to win. They must either have a leader who attacks things like gay marriage or allowing gay people to serve openly, or if they want the leader to appeal to the moderates, must have a VP who will do these things.

It is a cold, calculating attitude towards politics in the USA today. Obama is a centre-right leaning Democrat, so he might appeal to the fiscal conservative-social liberal Republicans. We will counter this by having fiscal conservative-social moderate Romney stand for President, but so we don't lose the support of the hyper religious, we have to include some whackadoodle psychotic off his meds VP candidate so we can have the numbers.

 

[Kaosium]

No, their job as neutral fact checkers is to check the accuracy of Ryan's arguments.

That's not what they're doing though! Especially in this case, it's worse than I thought.

Ryan was using those numbers to try and argue that the economy under Obama is doing so horribly awful that things were better even under The Worst President Ever, Carter. The fact checkers pointed out just how misleading and disingenuous Ryan was being, and how he was misusing those numbers to disguise the fact that the economy under Obama isn't doing nearly as bad as Ryan is trying to get you to think it is, and that, in fact, the numbers under Obama are actually better than they were at times during the post-Carter Republican administrations.

Let me show you how misleading and disingenuous their Obama Campaign Response 'fact check' is:

It looks to me that they're making the 'are you better off than you were four years ago' argument. I went back and I think this is the article you're talking about, right?

Let’s start at the beginning. In comparing President Obama to Jimmy Carter, Ryan said in July 1980 the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent and “for the past 42 months it’s been above 8 percent under Barack Obama’s failed leadership.”

Both parts of this sentence are true according to the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, but in July 1983, when Ronald Reagan was president, unemployment was at 9.4 percent. In July 1982 it was higher at 9.8 percent.

In July 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president, unemployment was at 7.7 percent.

Look at the comparisons they use, for both Carter and George the Elder they use the figures from July of the election year, that means the President has had basically 3.5 years to get it right. For Reagan however, they use the ones from 2.5 years, he had another year to get it right. Now, off the top of my head I just happen to know that 1984 was one of the highest growth years in my lifetime, and perhaps even for a significant time before. Do you really want me to dig up that unemployment number? I'm betting it sure as hell isn't 9.4!

Incidentally, here's something I recall from macro class too, as I was taking it at the time and I recall the prof saying something about it at the time with a big smirk on his face. Circa 1991 they changed the way they counted unemployment, I forget exactly why, perhaps it was removing discouraged workers. That just so happened to make the unemployment rate look slightly better...

Or do you, personally, now wish you had voted for John Kerry in 2004, knowing that there were more than two million personal (not personal and business, just personal) bankruptcies under George W. Bush in 2005, over six times the number of all bankruptcies as during the last year of the Carter administration?

That's not what they're doing though, they're taking the numbers out of the context Ryan used and putting them into a bogus one to try to make Obama look better and Ryan as being misleading!

However they did do something in Ryan's favor inadvertently it appears: one thing George the Elder and Carter have in common is they were one-term presidents, something likely reflected in those unemployment statistics, as they rather impact on the the aggregate answers of 'are you better off than you were four years ago?'

Oh, I voted for LBJ in that election. I had to really hold my nose too, I actually wanted to vote for Howard Dean, but the punditry puppet parade made such a BIG DEAL out of that meaningless scream, he was forced out of the race.

Yeah, I thought LBJ left office when I was a baby too, in fact I thought he was dead and buried by 2004, which made me wonder why he was running for president again!

 

[lomiller]

The first thing they said was the compromise wasn't good enough, even after the House Republicans took it all the way to mat

Republicans did not “go to the mat” that’s the problem. They came out and bluntly said that they would not even consider the direct and effective way of reducing the long term deficit.

This, combined with Republican insistence they would not cut any of the large spending programs like the military and would try to block further borrowing as well led S&P to believe that it’s possible the US will default on some of it’s obligations.

More realistically, the real situation is that Ryan is simply lying when he says he’s not willing to cut spending, raise taxes or borrow money. It’s been amply demonstrated he’s more than willing to borrow and spend for a Republican president.

 

[A'isha]

It looks to me that they're making the 'are you better off than you were four years ago' argument.

Actually, that's the argument Ryan is trying to make. It's rather telling that he has to go back thirty years to make it.

Now, off the top of my head I just happen to know that 1984 was one of the highest growth years in my lifetime, and perhaps even for a significant time before. Do you really want me to dig up that unemployment number? I'm betting it sure as hell isn't 9.4!

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, it averaged 7.5 during 1984 (and was 7.2 at its lowest during that year).

Incidentally, here's something I recall from macro class too, as I was taking it at the time and I recall the prof saying something about it at the time with a big smirk on his face. Circa 1991 they changed the way they counted unemployment, I forget exactly why, perhaps it was removing discouraged workers. That just so happened to make the unemployment rate look slightly better...

Remind me again, who was president in 1991, and what party did he belong to?

That's not what they're doing though, they're taking the numbers out of the context Ryan used and putting them into a bogus one to try to make Obama look better and Ryan as being misleading!

To be fair, that's only because Ryan is being misleading.

 

[Kaosium]

Republicans did not “go to the mat” that’s the problem. They came out and bluntly said that they would not even consider the direct and effective way of reducing the long term deficit.

Ryan's budget reduced the deficit, are you talking about the bilateral commission?

What I meant by 'going to the mat' is they actually used their leverage to try to force concessions. If they were just going through the motions to please the base, just posturing basically, they could simply have passed the budget and let the Senate and Administration have more or less what they wanted and waited for the election. What I mean is that action showed Ryan especially was deadly serious about deficit reduction, not just playing games to please the folks at home.

This, combined with Republican insistence they would not cut any of the large spending programs like the military and would try to block further borrowing as well led S&P to believe that it’s possible the US will default on some of it’s obligations.

I would cut the military budget, maybe to 500 bil right away. However I am not unaware that might have consequences, just not so much for us and these days I care less about that. It does actually sadden me, that which could occur, thus I do not consider it an entirely unreasonable argument that we shouldn't. Rice looked nervous, it might be as I found out because it was her first campaign appearance, it might not be though. McCain looked...strident, I wasn't quite expecting that. Those two know something about this, it did give me pause watching the convention.

More realistically, the real situation is that Ryan is simply lying when he says he’s not willing to cut spending, raise taxes or borrow money. It’s been amply demonstrated he’s more than willing to borrow and spend for a Republican president.

Yes, I noticed too, I don't think he's an ideologue, but committed. Politicians bark and bite depending on circumstances, but deals get done like they did in this case.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually, that's the argument Ryan is trying to make. It's rather telling that he has to go back thirty years to make it.

To the last one term Dem president? I wonder why...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, it averaged 7.5 during 1984 (and was 7.2 at its lowest during that year).

Morning in America! Me in my parachute pants and Black Sabbath t-shirt!

Remind me again, who was president in 1991, and what party did he belong to?

George the Elder, he was a Tory I do believe!

(I think he was a fine and heroic man, but I voted for Dukakis--then I got pissed off and voted for the ears with the attitude!)

To be fair, that's only because Ryan is being misleading.

No--they are! Ryan took a valid comparison, a one term president who was a Dem and made a legitimate point about the unemployment rates during the summer of their last year. They decided to find a high number from the middle of Reagan's third year. Reagan has nothing to do with this, if they're actually fact-checkers! If they are going to use Reagan as a comparison, they should use the middle of his fourth year too!

 

[lomiller]

Ryan's budget reduced the deficit,

Ryan’s plan did little to reduce the US deficit over what will occur naturally as the US returns to more normal growth rates.

 

[A'isha]

To the last one term Dem president? I wonder why...

Because Ryan is engaging in misleading partisan hackery in order to try and gull people into voting for him and Romney, that's why.

Morning in America! Me in my parachute pants and Black Sabbath t-shirt!

Parachute pants were a thing back in 1984?

I'm suddenly glad I was far too young to pay attention to such things at the time.

George the Elder, he was a Tory I do believe!

Misleading partisan hackery about unemployment numbers has a long and venerable tradition among Republican politicians, it seems.

No--they are! Ryan took a valid comparison,

It's not a valid comparison. That's the point.

a one term president who was a Dem and made a legitimate point about the unemployment rates during the summer of their last year. They decided to find a high number from the middle of Reagan's third year. Reagan has nothing to do with this, if they're actually fact-checkers! If they are going to use Reagan as a comparison, they should use the middle of his fourth year too!

No, because the comparison was not about equivalent years, but whether or not Obama's stewardship of the economy is really as poor as Ryan is trying to make people believe it is. Because if Obama is a terrible president for having certain economic numbers being so much worse than Jimmy Carter's numbers, then Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were also terrible presidents for the same reason.

Ryan completely glossing over that little factoid in his attempt to make Obama sound like Carter Only Worse is why the comparisons he's making are invalid and misleading.

 

[Kaosium]

Ryan’s plan did little to reduce the US deficit over what will occur naturally as the US returns to more normal growth rates.

Granny goes off a cliff and no deficit savings!?!

Shouldn't we be saving on dogfood at least?

I tend to think what we need is to spur growth, and we need to fix the entitlement mess before any haymakers are delivered to the economy. Have you see this man's charts? I'm talking about his data here, especially on debt in the US that isn't just government. His philosophies are...interesting. I'm considering them, but for now I'm interested in the data he's displaying.

 

[Kaosium]

Because Ryan is engaging in misleading partisan hackery in order to try and gull people into voting for him and Romney, that's why.

No, he's not! He's making a comparison with how the country was in '80, unemployment was one part of it, but another was simply demoralization. That is a problem with societies and it impacts economies. Hoover couldn't do it either, he was a fine and highly intelligent man, just like Carter who off the top of my head finished something like 12th in his class at Annapolis--mighta been higher. However they couldn't stir people up and give them hope, though they did at first.

Parachute pants were a thing back in 1984?

Yes! We thought we were so cool! You should have seen our hair too, we looked like something from a boy band.

I'm suddenly glad I was far too young to pay attention to such things at the time.

It was an interesting time to be young and having fun, the doomsday clock was at two minutes to midnight, it turned out the Russians loved their children too. Yay!

Misleading partisan hackery about unemployment numbers has a long and venerable tradition among Republican politicians, it seems.

You know what, I'm wondering if these 'fact-checkers' just have no clue of American political history? They just don't seem to understand, they're just throwing other numbers at it that don't even fit the point of 'are you better off than you were four years ago?'

It's not a valid comparison. That's the point.

The 'fact-checkers' is not, it's deliberately distorting his point to 'discredit' it.

No, because the comparison was not about equivalent years, but whether or not Obama's stewardship of the economy is really as poor as Ryan is trying to make people believe it is. Because if Obama is a terrible president for having certain economic numbers being so much worse than Jimmy Carter's numbers, then Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were also terrible presidents for the same reason.

How can they decide what his point is! That's what I mean by entirely disingenuous, it reads like a really bad campaign response ad--one that needs to be exposed for its dishonesty!

He is saying the country is in similar shape to what it was like in '80--I happen to agree, I'd say 1932 is a good comparison too.

The problems we faced in both those years was profound. I do not think it is a coincidence people are talking about them, they see the same thing. However I suspect David Brooks is right, blowout elections might be a thing of the past.

Ryan completely glossing over that little factoid in his attempt to make Obama sound like Carter Only Worse is why the comparisons he's making are invalid and misleading.

He has a right to make his comparisons without out-of-context 'factoids' irrelevant to his argument.

 

[lomiller]

I tend to think what we need is to spur growth, and we need to fix the entitlement mess before any haymakers are delivered to the economy. Have you see this man's charts

As soon as the site loaded it popped up a full screen ad for a work by the same author call “Debunking Economics”.
As a general security measure I won’t click on ads even to “close” them, I close the browser tab instead. As a result I could get no farther into the page but the fact that he seems to think economics needs debunking pretty much excludes him as a source I would put faith in.

Nonetheless feel free to present your own spin on whichever of his arguments you find compelling.

I tend to think what we need is to spur growth, and we need to fix the entitlement mess before any haymakers are delivered to the economy.

Entitlements are long term issue not an immediate one. Trying to “fix” them immediately is likely to create problems not solve them.

I also note that you are essentially trying to pull the same weasel expressions Ryan is using. You can’t save money on entitlement spending without paying less in those entitlements. This means:
Cutting social security benefits
Cutting Medicare benefits
Cutting Medicaid benefits.

The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to any such cuts and will not vote for anyone proposing them. Ryan is trying to dance around this by saying he will “reform” them but also keeps insisting the benefits won’t be cut. The problem is that if the benefits are not actually cut there will be no actual cost savings. He tries to disguise this by being incredibly vague about the details of his “plan” but in reality he is either lying about the cuts or lying about the savings.

Until Republicans are willing to address the issue rationally and deal with the fact that to fix entitlements the US government needs to cut these benefits or raise the taxes than pay for them no meaningfully entitlement fix is possible, so it’s good than an immediate fix isn’t required. That said, at some point there does need to be a real discussion about benefit cuts vs tax increases so the American public can chose what combination of these two is most appropriate.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's yet another lie from Ryan.

In public he railed against Obamacare, while in private, he sought funds that were only made possible by the law he said was the bane of freedom.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169757/exclusive-paul-ryan-quietly-requested-obamacare-cash

Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan is barnstorming the country, promising to repeal every provision of the Affordable Care Act if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected. But a letter he wrote to the Obama administration may undermine this message.

On December 10, 2010, Ryan penned a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a grant application for the Kenosha Community Health Center, Inc to develop a new facility in Racine, Wisconsin, an area within Ryan’s district. “The proposed new facility, the Belle City Neighborhood Health Center, will serve both the preventative and comprehensive primary healthcare needs of thousands of new patients of all ages who are currently without healthcare,” Ryan wrote.

Just like claiming to finish a marathon in less than three hours, eventually the truth comes out.

Paul Ryan: second hander, moocher, and the apparent Ellsworth Toohey of Wisconsin.

 

[Kaosium]

As soon as the site loaded it popped up a full screen ad for a work by the same author call “Debunking Economics”.
As a general security measure I won’t click on ads even to “close” them, I close the browser tab instead. As a result I could get no farther into the page but the fact that he seems to think economics needs debunking pretty much excludes him as a source I would put faith in.

Nonetheless feel free to present your own spin on whichever of his arguments you find compelling.

It wasn't the argument, it was the data, notably the private debt charts. Whether you like his arguments or his philosophy does not invalidate his data. I'm not sure what to think about the mass of private debt frankly, I was soliciting your opinion.

Here's another one with the same basic data, I'd been introduced to the other one on another thread and found it an interesting read, I like looking at new and different ideas whether I like them or agree with them or not.

Entitlements are long term issue not an immediate one. Trying to “fix” them immediately is likely to create problems not solve them.

We have immediate problems, some of which are caused by the debt. Debt servicing is minimal, but that's because interest rates are minimal, that's a problem too, both ways! That much debt owned by those who own it is troubling.

I also note that you are essentially trying to pull the same weasel expressions Ryan is using. You can’t save money on entitlement spending without paying less in those entitlements. This means:
Cutting social security benefits
Cutting Medicare benefits
Cutting Medicaid benefits.

We still have to do something about it, don't we?

See--it's a problem!

The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to any such cuts and will not vote for anyone proposing them. Ryan is trying to dance around this by saying he will “reform” them but also keeps insisting the benefits won’t be cut. The problem is that if the benefits are not actually cut there will be no actual cost savings. He tries to disguise this by being incredibly vague about the details of his “plan” but in reality he is either lying about the cuts or lying about the savings.

All the big boys know this, they've known for quite some time. There's going to have to be solutions, there's gonna be no free lunch. However the sooner it is done the more options we will have, people in the immediate future are in no danger.

Until Republicans are willing to address the issue rationally and deal with the fact that to fix entitlements the US government needs to cut these benefits or raise the taxes than pay for them no meaningfully entitlement fix is possible, so it’s good than an immediate fix isn’t required. That said, at some point there does need to be a real discussion about benefit cuts vs tax increases so the American public can chose what combination of these two is most appropriate.

You didn't read those links in my long post about the history of this issue, did you? Some Republicans and Democrats and have thinking rationally about this for many years.

 

[Kaosium]

Here's yet another lie from Ryan.

In public he railed against Obamacare, while in private, he sought funds that were only made possible by the law he said was the bane of freedom.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169757/exclusive-paul-ryan-quietly-requested-obamacare-cash



Just like claiming to finish a marathon in less than three hours, eventually the truth comes out.

Paul Ryan: second hander, moocher, and the apparent Ellsworth Toohey of Wisconsin.

What does this have to do with anything, especially 'lies?' What, Wisconsin-1 doesn't get any care because Paul Ryan opposed the bill? I don't get it. Did they build interstates around the districts with congressmen that opposed the Interstate Highway Act?

Are you guys really thinking this through?

Obama wants to be the President of Pork? He only wants to ladle out money to those who vote for his legislation and punish those who don't?

 

[Unabogie]

What does this have to do with anything, especially 'lies?' What, Wisconsin-1 doesn't get any care because Paul Ryan opposed the bill? I don't get it. Did they build interstates around the districts with congressmen that opposed the Interstate Highway Act?

Are you guys really thinking this through?

Obama wants to be the President of Pork? He only wants to ladle out money to those who vote for his legislation and punish those who don't?

The reason why lying is bad is because it presents a false front to the voters. It erodes trust so that when a real crisis comes around, there's no reservoir of good will to draw from. If you do nothing but lie, people will assume you're lying as the default position. Ryan wants to mislead the voters about Obama's record, about his role in voting against the deficit commission, or his role in requesting funds for health clinics in secret while denying to his constituents that he was doing so.

In other words, noting that the GOP nominee for Vice President is a complete phony is worthwhile.

Best quote from that article:

“I don’t know what’s the bigger sin,” says Tom Perriello, a former Democratic congressman who championed health clinics as a supporter of the Affordable Care Act. “The hypocrisy of asking for funding from a program while seeking to repeal it, or that the Republicans have been so much more committed to hurting the president than to helping people that something as uncontroversial as funding for community health centers must be requested in secret.”

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's yet another lie from Ryan.

In public he railed against Obamacare, while in private, he sought funds that were only made possible by the law he said was the bane of freedom.

That's not a lie.

Saying "I oppose pork barrel spending, but as long as we are doing it, it might as well be in my district." is not lying. It's just being realistic.

Sadly, this kind of tactic is often used on people as a club to force them to go along with pork barrel spending. It's basically telling Congresscritters that they have to support the pork barrel, or they won't get any for themselves.

 

[Unabogie]

That's not a lie.

Saying "I oppose pork barrel spending, but as long as we are doing it, it might as well be in my district." is not lying. It's just being realistic.

Sadly, this kind of tactic is often used on people as a club to force them to go along with pork barrel spending. It's basically telling Congresscritters that they have to support the pork barrel, or they won't get any for themselves.

It is if you deny it and seek the funds in secret. If no one asked, then yeah, not technically a lie, as in a false statement of fact. It's more like deceptive and weaselly behavior.

But Ryan was asked if he'd ever sought stimulus funds and he said no, while that was clearly a lie. If no one ever asked if he was also seeking Obamacare funds then he's just a weasel and a phony and not a liar.

Technically.

 

[Kaosium]

The reason why lying is bad is because it presents a false front to the voters. It erodes trust so that when a real crisis comes around, there's no reservoir of good will to draw from. If you do nothing but lie, people will assume you're lying as the default position. Ryan wants to mislead the voters about Obama's record, about his role in voting against the deficit commission, or his role in requesting funds for health clinics in secret while denying to his constituents that he was doing so.

You misunderstand, first off, did Racine get the hospital? I saw they received the letter, but will it be funded?

In other words, noting that the GOP nominee for Vice President is a complete phony is worthwhile.
Best quote from that article:

Not quite, if Racine needs a health care center that will still be there if Obamacare is repealed, it will just be funded differently. Without Obamacare people in Racine will still need healthcare and if we're going to be paying boucoup bucks for this bill as long as it lasts we damn well better be getting funds back and not punished for not supporting it. This is not a 'stimulus package' at all and as far as I've seen Wisconsin-1 didn't get much out of that at all, and it was all at the pleasure of the various government departments, not written into any bills by Paul Ryan.

'There's truth, there's justice, and then there's the Chicago Way!'

 

[Unabogie]

You misunderstand, first off, did Racine get the hospital? I saw they received the letter, but will it be funded?

I'm at a loss to understand why this should matter. Whether or not they got the funds is a different question than whether or not Ryan is a phony weasel. Asking for funds in secret while decrying a program qualifies as complete phoniness. But judging by your positions in this thread, I hold no hope you'll ever admit this.

Not quite, if Racine needs a health care center that will still be there if Obamacare is repealed, it will just be funded differently.

What does this have to do with Ryan secretly asking for Obamacare funds?

Without Obamacare people in Racine will still need healthcare and if we're going to be paying boucoup bucks for this bill as long as it lasts we damn well better be getting funds back and not punished for not supporting it.

If that's his position, why did he do this in secret?

This is not a 'stimulus package' at all and as far as I've seen Wisconsin-1 didn't get much out of that at all, and it was all at the pleasure of the various government departments, not written into any bills by Paul Ryan.

He sent two letters in secret. One for stimulus money, another for Obamacare money. Who can guess how many more secret letters he sent? Maybe we could ask him, but I wouldn't expect him to tell the truth.

'There's truth, there's justice, and then there's the Chicago Way!'

And then there's Paul Ryan's way, which is to lie and prevaricate and never be straight with the people he represents.