The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

I'm going to have to disagree. I'd say it is unprincipled. If you don't think it is good for the government to fund X, then you should be trying to get the government to fund X in your district.

(And it turns out he did specifically deny making any requests, so he knew it was unprincipled and lied to try to save face.)

 

[Kaosium]

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.

No, it doesn't work that way--or it sure as hell shouldn't! You don't pass national legislation--paid for by everyone--and think you can shame or punish those who didn't vote for it: they're still paying (in part) for it! This isn't earmarked pork!

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

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

What, was it written in invisible ink and they used their decoder ring?

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.

Six so far I do believe, so far only one was funded on the order of $20 million. That stimulus package (of which 500 bil or so) was spending comes out to about 1.2 billion per district. This is stuff the people of WI-1 are due to be fairly distributed by the various departments of the federal government, they're not earmarks written in or insisted upon by Paul Ryan and must be distributed according to the merits of the proposals.

Or they better be.

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

President Obama, the Patron of Pork!

 

[Frank Newgent]

Looks pretty obvious to me that Kaosium simply mistyped! That... um...happens to people typing!

Hell yes it does, doesn't it happen to you too?

Been hoping the sign on a restaurant near here advertising "Pancake Tacos" was a mis-take of some kind. But it's still up.

Some people will buy anything if it sounds different.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm going to have to disagree. I'd say it is unprincipled. If you don't think it is good for the government to fund X, then you should be trying to get the government to fund X in your district.

So what kind of incentive would that provide? Not only earmarks but the legitimate funding of a bill is gonna be all pork too?

(And it turns out he did specifically deny making any requests, so he knew it was unprincipled and lied to try to save face.)

He explained it three weeks ago now, there is a difference between writing for an earmark and forwarding district proposals. One is guaranteed spending in the district, the other is supposedly based on the merit of the proposal.

However a national program like Obamacare cannot be considered even close to the same thing! How can that possibly work?

 

[Clayton Moore]

When I read "gunshot or heart attack" in the same sentence as "vice president," I couldn't help but think of Dick Cheney. The nation, if not his friend, dodged a bullet there.

Yeah. Don't want to lose a traitor who makes Benedict Arnold look like Shirley Temple.

 

[Meadmaker]

But Ryan was asked if he'd ever sought stimulus funds and he said no....

OK. That's a lie.

Opposing any funds, but asking for your share of the funds that get doled out isn't a lie, but if you say you didn't ask for them, and you did, it's a lie.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm going to have to disagree. I'd say it is unprincipled. If you don't think it is good for the government to fund X, then you should be trying to get the government to fund X in your district.

But what's the alternative? Basically, the congressional leadership is doling out the goodies and is saying, "Unless you sign on to this, you're going to be left out, and when you run for reelection your opponent is going to say that you aren't effective because you can't bring home the bacon."

This is a bipartisan scam by the way. I often recommend the book "Betrayal of Trust" by Tom Coburn. It was written between the time Coburn was a representative and a senator, and it details how Newt used that sort of trick to wrack up massive spending while claiming to cut the budget. When Coburn, who is one of the few people in Congress who is sincere about wanting to cut the deficit, opposed the spending, Newt obligingly said, "Good. We'll start with your district."

 

[Frank Newgent]

OK. That's a lie.

Opposing any funds, but asking for your share of the funds that get doled out isn't a lie, but if you say you didn't ask for them, and you did, it's a lie.

Oppose something then follow that by petitioning for that very thing?

That's sure to unite the constituency.

 

[Kaosium]

But what's the alternative? Basically, the congressional leadership is doling out the goodies and is saying, "Unless you sign on to this, you're going to be left out, and when you run for reelection your opponent is going to say that you aren't effective because you can't bring home the bacon."

This is a bipartisan scam by the way. I often recommend the book "Betrayal of Trust" by Tom Coburn. It was written between the time Coburn was a representative and a senator, and it details how Newt used that sort of trick to wrack up massive spending while claiming to cut the budget. When Coburn, who is one of the few people in Congress who is sincere about wanting to cut the deficit, opposed the spending, Newt obligingly said, "Good. We'll start with your district."

Did he say they did it with form letters sent to the Department of Energy and the such run by an opposition Administration where they could be competitively judged on their merits?

 

[Robrob]

Must get lonely out there in the field, moving goalposts all day...

So why have you spent so many posts trying to pretend it wasn't?

do you recognize that it's dishonest to pretend that a false statement is inherently a lie?

That's why.

Either Ryan is a complete idiot or he lied. Your choice.

As stated by many others who have run a marathon; the difference between three hours and four hours is enormous and you always know your time - especially if it was your only marathon.

 

[Kaosium]

Must get lonely out there in the field, moving goalposts all day...


Either Ryan is a complete idiot or he lied. Your choice.

As stated by many others who have run a marathon; the difference between three hours and four hours is enormous and you always know your time - especially if it was your only marathon.

Who cares!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Why did Standard and Poor's downgrade

Kaosium,

I am not sure I understood all of your points, but the issue that bothered me was the brinkmanship over the debt ceiling. Dan Indiviglio quoted S&P as saying, "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Who cares!

I do, it speaks to the character of the man.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who cares!

It depends on whether it's an isolated incident or part of a pattern.

Does he consistently overinflate his own accomplishments? That's a problem. Does he just not really remember his time because finishing was the big deal, not how fast he finished? Then he won't do it again.

 

[Olowkow]

It depends on whether it's an isolated incident or part of a pattern.

Does he consistently overinflate his own accomplishments? That's a problem. Does he just not really remember his time because finishing was the big deal, not how fast he finished? Then he won't do it again.

Pure hypothesis: There is also the remote chance that running that marathon was a traumatic experience for him as a young competitive man, knowing he had to finish and wanting desperately to beat his brother's time.

This sort of stressful situation could have caused him to have the false memory that he actually did do well, simply filing this interpretation away in his mind for 20 years, blotting out the actual time. It would be interesting to know if he has ever told anyone else this same story.

ETA: Of course, this would not fit with his explanation that this time was news to his brother at dinner a week after he made the "under 3 hour" claim.

 

[Tricky]

A marathon liar and a teen-age bully. Boy, the GOP really goes for character these days.

 

[Kaosium]

A marathon liar and a teen-age bully. Boy, the GOP really goes for character these days.

Bully? Where are you getting this one from? I couldn't find anything on it.

 

[Tricky]

Bully? Where are you getting this one from? I couldn't find anything on it.

Not Ryan. Mitt. I should have said "What a pair!"

 

[TheRedWorm]

A marathon liar and a teen-age bully. Boy, the GOP really goes for character these days.

I think this is the same thing that happened in 04 to the Dems. Since they just wanted to beat bush, they chose a very stale Kerry. In the Repubs frenzy to beat Obama, they chose less than ideal candidates, possibly.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

I am not sure I understood all of your points, but the issue that bothered me was the brinkmanship over the debt ceiling. Dan Indiviglio quoted S&P as saying, "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

That's an excellent article, it pretty much sums it up at the end:

But S&P must be counting on more than just Republicans acting insanely enough to cause default: Democrats would have to act just as irresponsibly. After all, spending and entitlement cuts alone can easily allow the U.S. to avoid default. The agency makes this point, saying that the nation needs entitlement cuts and/or more tax revenue. S&P must assume that Democrats, like Republicans, could reach a limit of how much they'll concede and just let the U.S. economy burn on mere principle.

This isn't a problem just one side can cause, it's not just the GOP playing brinkmanship, it's also the ones that won't pass a budget and let it get that far, taking the opportunity to score political points and blame it all on the ones not willing to raise the debt ceiling, and the deal eventually struck wasn't enough reform. That's the real problem, and the one underlying the credit downgrade, (in my view and his) not really the kabuki theater over the debt ceiling. The culture has to change in DC, maybe it will. That was one hell of a speech by Clinton, what the country needed to hear, people should listen. It really depends on how this campaign goes now, and how the election turns out.

Or, maybe it's just human nature to think you can always solve your problems at another's expense, and there always seems to be people who'd tell you can, and that nothing bad will ever happen. Sometimes it does, but let's hope not.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville