Paul Ryan's RNC Speech "Stunning for its Dishonesty," "Full of "Brazen Lies"

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

"They came back with an urgent report," Ryan said on stage. "He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing."

So, tell me what the absolute proof of the lie ?

As far as you know, the Simpson-Bowles Commission gave Obama a copy of a draft report for review and comment before their vote and he never gave ANY input. Wouldn't that be typical of a committee created by Obama? To have them create a draft idea and REVIEW it with his own input? Yes, it got voted down by the committee. Obama probably thanked them for their efforts and NEVER came up with his own debt reduction plan. This is a point that was made clear in the transcript. Obama "did exactly nothing" after the report was voted down. So, what makes that a lie?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So, tell me, how does that compare to the $1.49 TRILLION that the CBO says that Obamacare will cost between 2012-2021?

Cost....without factoring savings...How many times will the GOP hope people don't read, research or fact-check.

GROSS Costs??? Over 10 years?? Yes...1.49 Trillion...

After Savings from the law?...It REDUCES direct costs...Net Savings 210 Billion.

Once everything is factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period

www.factcheck.org...

Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit: FALSE

The CBO said this about the health care law back in 2010: It lowers the deficit, by about $124 billion over 10 years.

And in 2011, when Republicans offered a bill to repeal the health care law, the CBO said that increased the deficit, by about $210 billion over 10 years.

www.politifact.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


Now tell me how Obama is actually saving $210 Billion dollars over a period of 10 years when his 2013 budget alone has a $900 Billion deficit for one freaking year. Which by the way, I think we'll find to be totally false because I don't believe that their revenue projection is accurate. I think revenues are going to be down and not up from the previous year making the deficit for 2013 actually larger than projected.

So, let's look at that again.

$210 Billion over 10 years = $21 Billion per year

2013 Budget Deficit = $900 Billion for one year

Now we know why the S&P downgraded our rating. None of this is close to being sustainable. S&P wasn't kidding when they said we needed to come up with a SERIOUS debt reduction plan. One which the Democrats will NEVER agree to.

Originally posted by Deetermined
In the meanwhile, Obama just placed a tax on the poor and middle class who can't afford health care and is expanding the Medicaid program.

I do not get upset when strangers online lie to me. So if that is your goal, pfffft. Sorry pal, but I rely on the truth for my arguments. You just saying I am getting taxed more does not make that happen.

According to CBO, Obamacare is going to cost $1.49 - $1.7 TRILLION over the next ten years. Obama spends it all and then some.

You have no idea what the CBO said. You know what right wing talking point about it you heard.
I am not going to waste time responding if you are just going to post lies.

reply to post by Deetermined


You are mixing up two completely different word problems and then wondering why everything does not add up to what you are guessing it should.

Do people like you really exist outside on the roads where I drive?

reply to post by Endorra


Seriously. You need to keep up with the news. Did you totally miss all the reports of the new "tax" instead of "penalties" being placed on people who don't purchase health insurance plans, based on Obamacare laws? I'm not sure how anyone could have missed that.

Here's what the CBO says. Since you don't want to know the truth, I'll post it for you:

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011 CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.) The net costs--specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending--reflect:

Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly established exchanges and related costs, and tax credits for small employers, Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenues).

www.cbo.gov...

The CBO is just now lowering their projected cost estimate due to what they THINK is going to be brought in as revenue by the new "tax" to offset the cost. This still remains to be seen. That's why they are now saying $1.1 Trillion instead of $1.49 - $1.50 Trillion.

Worth a read if you are convinced the title of this thread is accurate.

The Media's 'Fact Check' Smokescreen


news.investors.com...

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."

MSM is stunning for its dishonesty, full of brazen lies. Obviously.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Endorra

 

Seriously. You need to keep up with the news. Did you totally miss all the reports of the new "tax" instead of "penalties" being placed on people who don't purchase health insurance plans, based on Obamacare laws? I'm not sure how anyone could have missed that.

Here's what the CBO says. Since you don't want to know the truth, I'll post it for you:

The Estimated Net Cost of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Is Smaller Than Estimated in March 2011 CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012-2021 period-about $50 billion less than the agencies' March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period. (For comparison with previous estimates, these numbers cover the 2012-2021 period; estimates including 2022 can be found below.) The net costs--specifically the combined effects on federal revenues and mandatory spending--reflect:

Gross additional costs of $1.5 trillion for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), tax credits and other subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the newly established exchanges and related costs, and tax credits for small employers, Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenues).

www.cbo.gov...

The CBO is just now lowering their projected cost estimate due to what they THINK is going to be brought in as revenue by the new "tax" to offset the cost. This still remains to be seen. That's why they are now saying $1.1 Trillion instead of $1.49 - $1.50 Trillion.

edit on 31-8-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

Seriously...you need to stop BSing...again, you are talking about costs while pretending there are no revenues or savings.

From your own fricken source/doc...NEXT PARAGRAPH DOWN...which you somehow chose not to read..

Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period

www.cbo.gov...


Mitt Romney says 'Obamacare' adds trillions to the deficit...FALSE
www.politifact.com...

reply to post by Indigo5

Seriously...you need to stop BSing...again, you are talking about costs while pretending there are no revenues or savings.

Seriously...you need to understand that after ESTIMATED revenues and "FAKED savings" you have COSTS left over!

What part of using Medicare savings to pass to Medicaid for Obamacare is an ACTUAL savings?

What makes you think that you're actually going to gain revenue at the expense of God knows how many IRS agents and government workers to oversee Obamacare and all of the new taxes that were put into place?

Remember, there were other tax changes associated with Obamacare and the "tax" to those who don't have health insurance was just ONE of them.

It doesn't look promising when you already have government workers who sent out $375 BILLION in bad payments by mistake and in error JUST IN THE LAST 3 YEARS!!

Here's an eye opener for all of you.

Attached is a link showing my state's Medicaid spending costs.

www.statehealthfacts.org...

While our Medicaid spending came to $8.1 Billion, what you don't know is that our state revenue for that year came to only $7.2 Billion.

If it wasn't for federal government reimbursement and contributions, we'd be one sorry state.

I challenge all of you to go to your state Department of Revenue websites and compare your state's actual revenue against just it's Medicaid spending habits.

reply to post by Deetermined


Yes...revenues are lower because we are in an ECONOMIC CRISIS

Who got us into that crisis? BUSH!! You can blame Obama for not fixing it fast enough (be specific though!) but you can't blame him for creating the crisis.

I'm greatly enjoying the RNC so far...the GOP is now the official "anti-facts" party

Ryan's speech was sooooo littered with lies it would be comical if it weren't so sad at the same time...

And then hot on the heals of Ryan, Romney promises to "create 12 million jobs in four years".

Unfortunately for Mitt, independant estimates have put the number of jobs to be created 2012 - 2016 in the United States at "11.8 million, no matter who's President".

Mitt isn't promising anything that isn't already predicted.

If Mitt's going to create ANOTHER 12 million, that would mean 24 million jobs before 2016.

He claims he's going to do this with deregulation of small business rules and lowering corporate taxes, but with corporate loopholes corporations in the USA already pay some of the lowest taxes in the World, and deregulation will simply lead to chaos of the sort seen in the banking industry in 2008.

The only person that deregulation is good for is the business owner, consumers get massively shafted by any industry that this is allowed in.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Seriously...you need to understand that after ESTIMATED revenues and "FAKED savings" you have COSTS left over!

You mean after pages of touting the CBO cost estimates as gospel..you consider the savings in the same CBO you cited in the same document to be "FAKE"....???

Nope...no cherry picking there....
Costs?..."Look! Look!...the non-partisan CBO and authority on governmental accounting says it will Cost Trillions!!!"...

Savings and revenues that outweigh those costs? "The CBO is a sham who fakes numbers!!!"

For the love of GOD...I simply qouted the second paragraph of the document YOU cited to make your case ...but THAT part is "FAKE"..

Honestly???...Does your head hurt? Any sharp pains in you forehead??

Originally posted by MrXYZ


Who got us into that crisis? BUSH!! You can blame Obama for not fixing it fast enough (be specific though!) but you can't blame him for creating the crisis.

Seriously, I saw this crisis coming over 20 years ago when I worked for a real estate company. Then I knew we were in serious trouble when I was a mortgage loan officer 10 years ago.

Whoever sets the standard for inflation and credit is to blame.

So, the Federal Reserve and the banks were mostly responsible, and then you have Presidents who played into their hands when they couldn't control them, thinking they were helping Americans to play the game.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far (February 2008)

www.businessweek.com...

You throw in a tragedy like 9/11 and then it all just starts to unravel.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Ryan's speech was sooooo littered with lies it would be comical if it weren't so sad at the same time...

I knew that the GOP had slipped into bizzaro world when Sarah Palin made the comment about Paul Revere riding town to town to warn the BRITISH...

And then what amazed me...Instead of rational minds saying..OK, She effed up...instead the GOP tried to defend her statement with some of the most bizzare attempts to re-write history the country has ever seen.

Claim night is day...then double down on the claim when normal people ask WTF?...Then scream that anyone who doesn't think night is day is a liberal commie....and that includes those Fact obsessed "Fact-Checkers"!!

Maybe point out that it is always night somewhere...so when that GOPer said it was night-time despite it being high-noon, he was actually correct!!!

It is one part comedy, one part horror movie to see basic facts consitently molested like they have been this election cycle.

reply to post by babybunnies

And then hot on the heals of Ryan, Romney promises to "create 12 million jobs in four years".

Unfortunately for Mitt, independant estimates have put the number of jobs to be created 2012 - 2016 in the United States at "11.8 million, no matter who's President".

Mitt isn't promising anything that isn't already predicted.

Personally, I think they are all wrong. I don't see how it's possible to create 11.8 - 12 million jobs when we're still losing jobs at an average rate of 141,000 per month and have been for the last 30 months straight. We haven't seen enough job increases over the last four years to even come close.

Since January 2010, we've only seen 3.5 million jobs being created, while we've lost 4.2 million.

The truth is, no one has a clue and I don't expect it get better after Europe starts crumbling. From what I understand, Obama may have already asked Merkel to encourage European banks to keep pumping money into Greece until after our election is over.

reply to post by Indigo5


OMG! Star for you! LOL!

I can't wait until this election is over!

Personally, I don't think anyone has a winning chance in hell of accomplishing anything of significance. I would just like to see someone slow down the bleeding!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Yes...revenues are lower because we are in an ECONOMIC CRISIS

Who got us into that crisis? BUSH!! You can blame Obama for not fixing it fast enough (be specific though!) but you can't blame him for creating the crisis.

I'm greatly enjoying the RNC so far...the GOP is now the official "anti-facts" party

Ryan's speech was sooooo littered with lies it would be comical if it weren't so sad at the same time...

We are in an ECONOMIC CRISIS. Well, you got that right.

Paul Ryan has a plan to save us all.

Unfortunatley, Obama has failed miserably.

Clint Eastwood told us that last night.

Clint Eastwood also told us " When someone does not do the job, you got to let them go."

Behold, the great wisdom of Clint Eastwood.

reply to post by Indigo5


Here's what we know for sure.

The CBO has all of the data available to it in order to determine costs from past spending history.

What it doesn't have the clear ability to do is determine future income and savings.

In reality, we'll probably see the costs turn out to be much higher, unless a bunch of doctor's just decide to drop out of treating Medicare patients, and then you'll have all kinds of savings. But then you have a whole new problem.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Personally, I don't think anyone has a winning chance in hell of accomplishing anything of significance. I would just like to see someone slow down the bleeding!

edit on 31-8-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

Both Obama and Romney can promise a quick recovery...and both would be full of crap.

On the Obama course we will have a slow recovery, cuz we took a big ...BIG...effen hit. But a recovery all the same.

On a Romney course we would have a brief, less than a year, bump up...due to Wall Street being "unshackled" and back to thier "inventive" ways... followed by a second crisis that will come more quickly than the first in 2 to 3 years.

Those are the choices on the economic front to me...I follow the numbers, I invest, I own two small businesses, employ over a dozen folks...am in the bracket that will take a hit when the Bush era tax cuts for the "wealthy" expire...and I support Obama as the best choice...why?? Cuz I THINK and I think long term. It is what allowed me to survive the near economic collapse.

to the economy...Obama is milk...romney is tequilla...We are still recovering from our last binge and 'hair of the dog" aka Bush Policies...is not the answer...it will feel good briefly followed by another larger hang-over.