PDA

View Full Version : We Want This Debate. We Will Win This Debate



mikesilvia
08-30-2012, 09:50 AM
Paul Ryan today delivered remarks to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. The following remarks were prepared for delivery:Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored by the support of this convention for vice president of the United States.I accept the duty to help lead our nation out of a jobs crisis and back to prosperity – and I know we can do this.I accept the calling of my generation to give our children the America that was given to us, with opportunity for the young and security for the old – and I know that we are ready.Our...

More... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/30/we_want_this_debate_we_will_win_this_debate_115264 .html)

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 10:35 AM
You would have hoped that the first time the national audience heard from this guy he could have at least stuck to truthful statements. As usual, distort the facts.

AUTaxMan
08-30-2012, 10:45 AM
What was the lie he told?

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 10:52 AM
How about these:



Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law “substantially improves” the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings.
Accused Obama of doing “exactly nothing” about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle.
Claimed the American people were “cut out” of stimulus spending. Actually, more than a quarter of all stimulus dollars went for tax relief for workers.
Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office.
Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 11:04 AM
I watched the his speech and thought he did a pretty good job.

AUTaxMan
08-30-2012, 11:10 AM
How about these:



Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law “substantially improves” the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings.
Accused Obama of doing “exactly nothing” about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle.
Claimed the American people were “cut out” of stimulus spending. Actually, more than a quarter of all stimulus dollars went for tax relief for workers.
Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office.
Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.



*Obamacare DOES funnel money away from Medicare at the expense of the elderly, mostly in the form of reduced reimbursements to physicians, which means that less physicians will take Medicare patients.
*Obama did nothing about those recommendations. What did he do?
*The whole selling point of stimulus was to put Americans back to work. I would say that only 1/4 making its way into American workers' hands is substantially being cut out.
*What exactly did he say about that Wisconsin plant? Government was there to support GM. It bailed out GM right around the time of the plant closing (a policy championed by Obama), and it still didn't matter for that plant. He was right.
*All he said about the credit rating was that the Obama regime began with a AAA rating and ended without one.

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 12:01 PM
*Obamacare DOES funnel money away from Medicare at the expense of the elderly, mostly in the form of reduced reimbursements to physicians, which means that less physicians will take Medicare patients.
Ryan's own Medicare changes had the same recommendation. It wasn't at the expense of seniors in his plan. Now it suddenly is.

*Obama did nothing about those recommendations. What did he do?
Ryan was against them too, but he can criticize Obama for it.

*The whole selling point of stimulus was to put Americans back to work. I would say that only 1/4 making its way into American workers' hands is substantially being cut out.
"Cut out" implies they were not included in the stimulus entirely. Once again he distorts the truth.

*What exactly did he say about that Wisconsin plant? Government was there to support GM. It bailed out GM right around the time of the plant closing (a policy championed by Obama), and it still didn't matter for that plant. He was right.
He implied that the plant closed under Obama's watch. It closed before he took office. Distorting the truth again.

*All he said about the credit rating was that the Obama regime began with a AAA rating and ended without one.
Implying it was Obama's fault.


Responses in bold. As I originally stated, Ryan's first big speech and he comes out with a bunch of distortions. But thanks for pointing out the obvious in your response.

cbuskstwar
08-30-2012, 12:06 PM
Responses in bold. As I originally stated, Ryan's first big speech and he comes out with a bunch of distortions. But thanks for pointing out the obvious in your response.

Your wrong again, but nice try.

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 12:10 PM
Yeah, whatever. Thanks for the contribution.

AUTaxMan
08-30-2012, 12:16 PM
Responses in bold. As I originally stated, Ryan's first big speech and he comes out with a bunch of distortions. But thanks for pointing out the obvious in your response.

It appears that you are of the opinion that Obama not responsible for anything.

pghin08
08-30-2012, 12:22 PM
I'm kind of with Habs. Particularly on the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Should Obama have run with that? Absolutely. They had a lot of good ideas. But Habs is right, Ryan shot it down. Apparently the cuts weren't severe enough for him, but that's nonsensical. Ryan had the choice between the status quo (which he hates), and a program with spending cuts and a few revenue increases. Rather than doing the sensible thing and going with the option that gave him part of what he wanted, he just said no to all. Stupid move on his part, and Mr. O's part.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 12:28 PM
it is never Obama fault, but yet everything was bush's fault, that seems kind of distorted to me.

the facts are simple, under Obama's watch, debt increased to e new record, credit rating dropped for the first time, unemployment is higher, welfare is higher, jobs are fewer, and we have been more divided with race and political parties than ever.

pghin08
08-30-2012, 12:33 PM
it is never Obama fault, but yet everything was bush's fault, that seems kind of distorted to me.

the facts are simple, under Obama's watch, debt increased to e new record, credit rating dropped for the first time, unemployment is higher, welfare is higher, jobs are fewer, and we have been more divided with race and political parties than ever.

The credit rating dropped because the Republicans played chicken with the debt ceiling!

By the way, I'm not bashing Bush, but you could say the exact same about his numbers too.

habsheaven
08-30-2012, 12:37 PM
it is never Obama fault, but yet everything was bush's fault, that seems kind of distorted to me.

the facts are simple, under Obama's watch, debt increased to e new record, credit rating dropped for the first time, unemployment is higher, welfare is higher, jobs are fewer, and we have been more divided with race and political parties than ever.

What does this have to do with Bush? Are we resorting to the old "they do it, so we can too" defense? Facts are never simple. They are easily distorted, which was the contention I made.

AUTaxMan
08-30-2012, 12:54 PM
The credit rating dropped because the Republicans played chicken with the debt ceiling!

By the way, I'm not bashing Bush, but you could say the exact same about his numbers too.

That was a contributing factor, but that's not why it dropped. There is plenty of blame to go around for that one. Mostly on Congress over the past 20 years.

shrewsbury
08-30-2012, 01:18 PM
it has to do with bush because he is blamed for everything and Obama is blamed for nothing. if it is your fault then own it, whether you are bush, obama or a supporter of either one

Wickabee
08-30-2012, 01:28 PM
No one has mentioned Bush in this thread, shrew.

mrveggieman
08-30-2012, 01:53 PM
There is plenty of blame to go around for that one. Mostly on Congress over the past 20 years.

This. ^^^^^^^^^

pghin08
08-30-2012, 02:04 PM
That was a contributing factor, but that's not why it dropped. There is plenty of blame to go around for that one. Mostly on Congress over the past 20 years.

I feel very confident that if the debt ceiling would have been raised in the same manner as it has dozens of times in the past, then S&P wouldn't have downgraded us, at least yet. Here's a significant paragraph from the S&P report:


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.

JustAlex
08-30-2012, 04:05 PM
How about these:



Accused President Obama’s health care law of funneling money away from Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” In fact, Medicare’s chief actuary says the law “substantially improves” the system’s finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings.
Accused Obama of doing “exactly nothing” about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle.
Claimed the American people were “cut out” of stimulus spending. Actually, more than a quarter of all stimulus dollars went for tax relief for workers.
Faulted Obama for failing to deliver a 2008 campaign promise to keep a Wisconsin plant open. It closed less than a month before Obama took office.
Blamed Obama for the loss of a AAA credit rating for the U.S. Actually, Standard & Poor’s blamed the downgrade on the uncompromising stands of both Republicans and Democrats.


WOW....epic!

LOL @ the responses taxman gave.

drtom2005
09-01-2012, 07:26 PM
it is never Obama fault, but yet everything was bush's fault, that seems kind of distorted to me.

the facts are simple, under Obama's watch, debt increased to e new record, credit rating dropped for the first time, unemployment is higher, welfare is higher, jobs are fewer, and we have been more divided with race and political parties than ever.

The place our country is in is not because of one man. There is plenty of blame to go around, including Obama. The problem is Republicans are trying to make bold statements, forgetting that the Congress had a part in all of this.

They also forget that they are not fiscal conservatives. They will spent as much money as they want on their programs, the military and corporate welfare.

Republicans also forget that they have had the White House the most in the last 32 years and they did nothing to change anything.

It is like the pot calling the kettle black and then just ignoring the history. Nothing will change with either of these candidates. Although, I am seriously concerned that Romney will start a war with Iran(to prove he is really conservative). Of course, most Americans do not realize this will start WWIII as Russia and China will have something to say about it. That concern is why I am going to vote Obama.

When Republicans start acting like the Repubilcans before Reagan, I might vote for some(This does not mean a Nixon Republican. LOL).

shrewsbury
09-02-2012, 02:44 AM
when has the economy ever been this bad and when has gas prices been at $4?

you can always try to lame the ones before you but if you don't step up and do all that you can to change things then you ar ethe issue, not the past.

with this being said i do agree that many have played a role in this, but Obama's record is Obama's record. you can always have an excuse why your record sucks, but in the end, it was you.

habsheaven
09-02-2012, 07:05 AM
The economy was worse than this 3 years ago. The House of Representatives is as much to blame for the fact NOTHING is getting done as anyone. If you are going to put it ALL on Obama than I guess we won't hear a peep out of you the next time he does something by Executive Order, afterall; it's his record in the end. Right?

pghin08
09-02-2012, 08:31 AM
when has the economy ever been this bad and when has gas prices been at $4?

you can always try to lame the ones before you but if you don't step up and do all that you can to change things then you ar ethe issue, not the past.

with this being said i do agree that many have played a role in this, but Obama's record is Obama's record. you can always have an excuse why your record sucks, but in the end, it was you.

The president has almost no control over gas prices.

shrewsbury
09-02-2012, 12:19 PM
sure, ALMOST NO CONTROL, but he does play a small role and has the ability to do something about it, even if it means pulling from the reserves.

habs, the economy was not worse 3 years ago, it was bad then and still is ad now. unemployment has barely moved, still less people working, and now more taxes looming.

when your leg is chopped off, it is better when the bleeding stops, but you are still missing a leg.

habsheaven
09-02-2012, 12:46 PM
sure, ALMOST NO CONTROL, but he does play a small role and has the ability to do something about it, even if it means pulling from the reserves.

habs, the economy was not worse 3 years ago, it was bad then and still is ad now. unemployment has barely moved, still less people working, and now more taxes looming.

when your leg is chopped off, it is better when the bleeding stops, but you are still missing a leg.

Unemployment is lower today than it was back then. The stock market is up compared to back then. The housing market is better than it was. Just because it is not great, IT IS BETTER.

And using your analogy: yes you are still missing a leg, but you didn't bleed to death. Being alive minus a leg is better than being dead.

Try again.

Edit: and what taxes are looming? The ones needed to provide for Romney's tax cuts for the rich?

drtom2005
09-02-2012, 10:25 PM
when has the economy ever been this bad and when has gas prices been at $4?

you can always try to lame the ones before you but if you don't step up and do all that you can to change things then you ar ethe issue, not the past.

with this being said i do agree that many have played a role in this, but Obama's record is Obama's record. you can always have an excuse why your record sucks, but in the end, it was you.

And the whole point of my post is I do not think Romney will change a thing based on the historic record of Republicans over the past 32 years. He playing and speaking just like all of them since Reagan.

In fact, he could makes significantly worse with a war with Iran. Guess what? I do not switch horses midstream if there is a chance of war.

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 11:20 AM
habs, Obama care taxes are looming, and will take more money from folks like me who are already paying for everyone else. My taxes are already too high, now they will increase!

the republican record over the last 32 years is better than Obama and his 4 years.

habsheaven
09-03-2012, 12:00 PM
habs, Obama care taxes are looming, and will take more money from folks like me who are already paying for everyone else. My taxes are already too high, now they will increase!

the republican record over the last 32 years is better than Obama and his 4 years.

Explain to me just HOW EXACTLY you are going to pay more in taxes because of the ACA? And I am not sure what the purpose of comparing 32 years of Republicans to 4 years of Obama is. Unless of course it is for me to point out that none of those Republicans had to follow Bush, at which time you will accuse me of blaming Bush whereas I am only pointing out the reality of the situation.

At least you gave up on the analogies which didn't work out to well for you.

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 12:56 PM
habs, didn't give up, just know they can be twisted ever which way.

well for me, medical expense deduction, flexible spending account tax, capital gain surtax, then we will increase in costs, do to the medicare payroll tax, and medical manufacturing tax.

then with all the business related taxes that are going in effect or rising, we will see less jobs, which equates to less people working, which equates to more people on entitlements, which equates to someone paying more taxes to cover this, which will be the middle class.

then lets see, bush and reagan tax cuts both dropped the unemployment rate, reagans by nearly 7 points.

Obama, increase the unemployment rate

habsheaven
09-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Jay,

The changes that the ACA make to the medical tax deduction and the FSA's are designed to make the system fairer to the lower and middle class. That also applies to any capital gains tax increases that may be in the works. Insurance premiums are projected to be reduced once the system is fully implemented so I am not sure what "costs" you are referring to when you mention the medicare payroll tax and the medical manufacturing tax. Maybe I am missing what you are saying as it relates to the two.

Looking at the unemployment rates you will see that the decline in jobs started under Bush. Obama reduced the rate by almost 2 points since it peaked.

drtom2005
09-03-2012, 06:46 PM
habs, Obama care taxes are looming, and will take more money from folks like me who are already paying for everyone else. My taxes are already too high, now they will increase!

the republican record over the last 32 years is better than Obama and his 4 years.

Please site explains. Recession during Reagan. Recession during Bush I. Boom during Clinton. Recession during Bush II. Improvement since Obama. I do not see it.

If the government had given more money to alternative energy instead of spending the first year(of Obama) fighting about healthcare, we might have a manufacturing boom that China couldn't compete against the U.S.

Also, you didn't address the real possiblity of war with Iran(with Romney).

shrewsbury
09-03-2012, 07:17 PM
let me first say, i am not for romney, but also in the same breath, i think i would be insane to give obama a second chance. so i am stuck in the middle of no where. i am not saying romney would do better, just pointing out obama has done nothing to improve anything.

and look at the unemployment rate, i am tired of arguing this one, here is right from the source, no way anyone can disagree with the source.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

when reagan was in office
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

clinton was backed by some great republicans, including my states current governor, clinton gets credit, even though he is an idiot, i cannot argue his economic success.

habs, more taxes on business' will result in fewer jobs. health care increases will result in more taxes to pay for them, since obama care is paid through taxes (the only income of the us government).

i respect your opinion, and i hope it is right, but i am pretty sure things are going to get worse, don't see how obama has or is doing anything to change it. and again, not saying romney will, but i am more sure about obama, for the fact i have seen what he has done this far.

alex, free internet, computers, clothes, housing, food, and air conditioners, to just name a few. do an easy google search and be amazed.

habsheaven
09-03-2012, 09:02 PM
Jay, your unemployment numbers show exactly what I said. May/07 rate is 4.4, by the time Bush leaves Nov/08 it's 6.8, before Obama is inaugurated it's 7.8 By May (before Obama can do anything to affect the rate) it's 9.4 Anyone objectively looking at that data can clearly see that unemployment was spiralling out of control before Obama's policies, or lack thereof, could make any difference.

AUTaxMan
09-03-2012, 11:37 PM
Jay, your unemployment numbers show exactly what I said. May/07 rate is 4.4, by the time Bush leaves Nov/08 it's 6.8, before Obama is inaugurated it's 7.8 By May (before Obama can do anything to affect the rate) it's 9.4 Anyone objectively looking at that data can clearly see that unemployment was spiralling out of control before Obama's policies, or lack thereof, could make any difference.

So you're saying that there's nothing he can do about unemployment?

Wickabee
09-04-2012, 12:12 AM
So you're saying that there's nothing he can do about unemployment?

Are you asking if smurfs run the restaurant industry?

(Hey, it's not that hard to attach any meaning I want to someone's posts too!)

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 12:18 AM
a good start would be, raise import taxes, cut business taxes that create and maintain jobs. make military spending cuts but not payroll cuts, allowing members to stay in, too many jobs to lose there. cut union bargaining and create an atmosphere where public and private sector jobs are closer in pay and benefits. cut unneeded government spending, cut and create stricter guidelines for welfare programs. open up oil drilling, and repower coal mines. cut taxes to the middle class, so they will spend more. equal out taxes, but allow enough tax breaks to keep our money here. trim the debt to get the dollar back up, which will help return rates to get back up in MMA, CD's, and bonds.

but we are arguing over porn, gay marriage, abortions, student loans, and religion.

Theodor Madison
09-04-2012, 12:29 AM
First things first. Cut government jobs > Start at the top. We should have people who are willing to serve office for nothing! Eliminate all unions that hold Cities hostage. If Finances are tight, be conservative and watch your spending. In my opinion you are a slave to those who you are indebted too. There is no way that Romney can do worse than Obama.

JustAlex
09-04-2012, 01:51 AM
a good start would be, raise import taxes, cut business taxes that create and maintain jobs. make military spending cuts but not payroll cuts, allowing members to stay in, too many jobs to lose there. cut union bargaining and create an atmosphere where public and private sector jobs are closer in pay and benefits. cut unneeded government spending, cut and create stricter guidelines for welfare programs. open up oil drilling, and repower coal mines. cut taxes to the middle class, so they will spend more. equal out taxes, but allow enough tax breaks to keep our money here. trim the debt to get the dollar back up, which will help return rates to get back up in MMA, CD's, and bonds.

but we are arguing over porn, gay marriage, abortions, student loans, and religion.
And by "we" you mean the GOP, right???

NO democrat is arguing over porn, abortions, or religion, only the GOP!

As for Gay marriage, Obama said he supported it, NEVER did he say he would actually fight for it.

Student loans is the only one where both sides are equally arguing over.


If you want to blame anyone for the incredible ineptness of this terrible government blame the GOP!

Oh remind me what MITTENS is going to do if he wins???


That's right, he's going to magically repeal Obamacare which has already been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS and there is no way he can actually do anything about it.....but who cares, right?

As long as he says stupid things for stupid people, that's all that matters.

Rockman
09-04-2012, 03:35 AM
Why did the topic change from which president should hold responsibility to the recession and the steps we can take to to end it?

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 08:51 AM
So you're saying that there's nothing he can do about unemployment?

Where do you see me saying that? I was pointing out the unemployment situation when he came into office. As you can see by the chart Jay provide the unemployment rate has dropped 2 points in the last two years. He could do MORE if he had a little co-operation.

shrewsbury
09-04-2012, 09:19 AM
first 2 years he had all the cooperation he ever needed

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 09:53 AM
first 2 years he had all the cooperation he ever needed

If that were the case he would have put together another stiimulus package large enough to get results unlike the one that was passed which was too small. Politics and economics are not as simple as you want to portray them in order to make your points.

What are your comments on my analysis of the chart you provided?

AUTaxMan
09-04-2012, 10:12 AM
Where do you see me saying that? I was pointing out the unemployment situation when he came into office. As you can see by the chart Jay provide the unemployment rate has dropped 2 points in the last two years. He could do MORE if he had a little co-operation.

How could he improve it now with a little cooperation? When has stimulus ever worked in U.S. history?

habsheaven
09-04-2012, 10:33 AM
How could he improve it now with a little cooperation? When has stimulus ever worked in U.S. history?

I don't have all day to list what the Republicans could do. The least they could do though is pass his jobs bill.

AUTaxMan
09-04-2012, 12:07 PM
I don't have all day to list what the Republicans could do. The least they could do though is pass his jobs bill.

The jobs bill is just $450 billion more stimulus that won't work. The Democrats won't even support it.

bud7562
09-04-2012, 02:57 PM
What was the lie he told? which one??????

AUTaxMan
09-07-2012, 11:50 AM
On the unemployment front, 96,000 new jobs were added in August, and the unemployment rate went down to 8.1%, but 368,000 left the workforce. Our labor force is shrinking faster than jobs are being added. Thus, unemployment numbers are getting "better" although the number of unemployed people is increasing.

Wickabee
09-07-2012, 02:04 PM
On the unemployment front, 96,000 new jobs were added in August, and the unemployment rate went down to 8.1%, but 368,000 left the workforce. Our labor force is shrinking faster than jobs are being added. Thus, unemployment numbers are getting "better" although the number of unemployed people is increasing.

Why, exactly, did 368,00 people leave the workforce?

AUTaxMan
09-07-2012, 05:18 PM
Why, exactly, did 368,00 people leave the workforce?

I'm sure it was some combination of retirement, disability, and no longer seeking employment, but I haven't had time to research the specifics today. I looked briefly, but I couldn't find anything.

Wickabee
09-07-2012, 05:32 PM
I'm sure it was some combination of retirement, disability, and no longer seeking employment

Retired is not unemployed
Disability is not unemployment

What does "no longer seeking employment" mean? Are you talking lazy bums on welfare or...?