We need a Fact Checker for the Liberal Fact checkers. After the Paul Ryan speech someone set out to accuse Paul Ryan of lying with their dishonest supposed fact checking. I will take a look at four statements that were rated false.
The worst example so called fact checking was a fact check was claiming President Obama was not responsible for the credit downgrade. This is not surprising as the left and Obama refuse to be responsible for anything. The fact checkers argued that the downgrade happened because of Republicans in congress threatening to shutdown the government if Obama would not cut spending. This would be like believing your credit rating is hurt because your wife would not let you get another credit card and just max out the one you have. The truth is Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling increase which would be worse for our credit rating than the deal that was struck resulting in a downgrade. S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." (1) In short the deal did not cut enough in the medium term. Before this deal was struck Obama rejected an offer from the GOP basically caving to his desire for more revenues and instead moved the goalposts to ensure a larger conflict. He thought he would win politically if the government was shut down. While Obama wanted to do nothing, the GOP passed Cut Cap & Balance which would have avoided the downgrade. Clearly the downgrade is all on Obama and it demonstrates his inability to lead. We can rate this fact check as Pants on Fire wrong.
Then we have the statement about the Janesville GM plant. The statement was 100% correct. He quoted Obama. Paul Ryan did not say Obama was responsible for the closing of that plant. His point was it is an example false hope offered by Obama as he campaigned in 2008. Fact checkers focused on the fact that the plant closed in December 23, 2008 before Obama took office, which is irrelevant to the point. This false hope continued for years as there were rumors of a possible re-opening of the plant. This fact check is also completely false. (2)
Paul Ryan made a comment critical of the failed Stimulus. The supposed Fact checkers complained Paul Ryan helped some Wisconsin companies get stimulus money. This is again irrelevant information. Once the bill becomes law, Paul Ryan should try to help his constituents get what benefits they can from the law even if he disagreed with the law. I may disagree with a tax deduction, but I am still going to take it if I can. Again Paul Ryan was correct and the fact checkers had this wrong.
Paul Ryan was critical of Obama for rejecting the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations. The fact checkers argued this was unfair because Paul Ryan voted against the plan. This ignores that Paul Ryan offered another plan that corrected the major failure of that plan, which was not dealing with healthcare the major driver of our debt. (2) Obama meanwhile has created budgets that ignore our major issues. Then after pressure from some in his own party he came out with a framework that falls way short of being a serious solution.(3) Fine, if you don’t like your own commission’s plan, but President Obama should have proposed a serious alternative, especially after Paul Ryan came out with his plan.
I guess my point is that we cannot trust any of these fact checking sites as they are not honest. We need to explore these issues on our own. Politicians often say things that are stretching the truth or outright lies. These items however are not examples of either. Each statement above was correct for the point Ryan was making.
1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903366504576490841235575386.html
2) http://video.foxnews.com/v/1815240580001/paul-ryan-speaks-out-after-rnc-speech
3) http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/erskine-bowles-praises-paul-ryan-budget-plan-video-003642883.html
I also followed your link and read the article. "Doubled down" is your term. You might want to quote him so we can all see what he actually said.
Obama, of course, denies having any influence and GM / Chrysler aren't talking. However, the FACT remains that plants in Bedford, Toledo, Massena, Bloomington, etc. were either already closed or scheduled for closing, but then miraculously remained open after Obama's bailout went through. Funny how that worked out. And if Obama didn't have any influence, then why the need to use a cars czar? Bush wasn't going to use one under his proposed bailout plan that mirrored how Carter successful saved Chrysler back in '79. So why was this czar even necessary under Obama's bailout if GM and Chrysler were just going to be able to do whatever they wanted anyway? If that's the case, then shouldn't you and other libs be pissed at Obama for wasting money on paying that cars czar to essential do nothing? Coincidence - perhaps. Suspicious - highly! Think for yourself, as Hoffa always says. There's really only one logical conclusion considering all the facts involved, though. "You might want to quote him so we can all see what he actually said." Luke already did that in the original thread on this comment board, but Hoffa will re-post below. What Randy1949 did not do was answer Hoffa's question and explain why the omission matters in face of all the facts.
"This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America." Remember, the GM announcement to close the plant occurred in June of 2008, so this statement was made after that announcement. Clearly, the word 'like,' used in such context, meant 'such as,' otherwise why mention creating good paying jobs in Wisconsin, unless Obama was planning to keep Janesville closed and build a new plant in Wisconsin, which would just be plain STUPID and why would anyone need to "retool" a brand new plant? I don't know about you, but to Hoffa, it sure sounds like Obama was pitching to the Janesville and similarly situated autoworkers to vote for him in the HOPE that Obama's victory might CHANGE their situation. Honestly, how could you conclude otherwise? Please explain. The deceitful and dishonest one here is clearly Obama and the left for wrongly accusing Ryan of lying! Prove me wrong Randy!
Obama's statement in October of 2008: "This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America." Remember, the GM announcement to close the plant occurred in June of 2008, so this statement was made after that announcement. Clearly, the word 'like,' used in such context, meant 'such as,' otherwise why mention creating good paying jobs in Wisconsin, unless Obama was planning to keep Janesville closed and build a new plant in Wisconsin, which would just be plain STUPID and why would anyone need to "retool" a brand new plant? I don't know about you, but to Hoffa, it sure sounds like Obama was pitching to the Janesville and similarly situated autoworkers to vote for him in the HOPE that Obama's victory might CHANGE their situation. Honestly, how could you conclude otherwise? Please explain. The deceitful and dishonest one here is clearly Obama and the left for wrongly accusing Ryan of lying! Prove me wrong Bren, or admit that you were WRONG!!!
The statement only expressly contained the word "promise," but you don't see wherein a promise was made??? You're kidding, right? BTW - You still didn't explain how the omission was relevant in the face of all the facts.
I'll do you one better -- you explain to me why the decision was made to close the plant in the first place?
1) Did Obama not adopt Washington's promise as being his own in that statement, wherein he said "As president I will lead..." basically an effort to fulfill that promise? Come on - you're a smart guy. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious. 2) "He says he'll lead an effort to retool US factories to make fuel efficient cars." And the speech specifically mentions Janesville and good paying jobs in Wisconsin!!! Again, clearly, the word 'like,' used in such context, meant 'such as,' otherwise why mention creating good paying jobs in Wisconsin, unless Obama was planning to keep Janesville closed and build a new plant in Wisconsin, which would just be plain STUPID and why would anyone need to "retool" a brand new plant? 3) The GOP wasn't blocking anything then - Obama got to do the bailout the way he wanted to do it, remember? Deal with the UAW, Italians, and Canadians, cars czar, over $25B in taxpayer dollars lost. Ryan and the GOP supported the Bush/Carter bailout and opposed the crooked Obama bailout but were outvoted by the Dems. You're trying to re-write history here, which shows just how desperate you are to spin this to make Obama look good, despite the facts being against your erroneous conclusion. Let's go with what really happened instead of Randy's revisionist histrionics! 4) I'll answer your question just as soon as you tell us why the omission changes anything in light of the facts or you admit that you were WRONG.
This sandbox has too many kids playing in it. Truly, I come back from looking at this thread at noon and you guys are still at it after 9pm at night. Do you not have anything better to do? Gawd people, get a life.
My mistake is falling for Hoffa's verbal manipulations. You can't have a fruitful discussion with people who use their own definitions and insist on putting words in your mouth.
I just counted Alias Hoffa's comments just in this thread. If you just count them to the end of last night there were a total thread of 75 comments. Hoffa had 26 of them. That, all by itself is over a third, not counting the other threads he may have been involved with. That is why I expressed the comment last night that people need to get a life. When people engage in this type of banter I would suggest not playing in that type of sandbox simply because there really appears to be more at stake just taking the opposing point of view that others bring to the table. I suggest that people put balance back into their participation. We might even get better and more informative threads in the process. By the way Randy, I commend your roof work. That is very hard physical labor.
Please point out Hoffa's alleged "verbal manipulations" or where Hoffa "insist[ed] on putting words in your mouth." You're the one who's rewriting history by claiming that the GOP obstructed Obama from doing the bailouts the way he insisted upon doing them! Thanks! Thanks!
The link I provided did mention Isuzu car building... It did not, however, state specifically that there was a CONTRACT with Isuzu, but then, none of any source available does... "Obama could not have promised to keep the plant open because it's a privately owned plant. However, he did say government assistance could keep it open. In addition, even though he was not president, General Motors and Chrysler did get word that they would be receiving a bridge loan from the U.S. Treasury in mid-December, 2008, before the plant stopped producing GM vehicles. It continued to produce some cars for Isuzu and completely shut down mid-2009." Further, as you have so many times stated that there is no “objective reality, no facts”, that could ever dissuaded you that you are not always 100% correct, one can endeavor to hope you one day obtain help for your crippling psychosis. Meanwhile, please keep practicing with the “empty chair” that Reince Priebus Screw-US Maximus sent you for doing such a fine job proving that all psychotics really do belong in the GOP… practice, practice, practice…
I should know better than to get into a whizzing contest with Hoffa, but I like him and enjoy sparring for the most part. Plus, spin needs to be countered. And Hoffa, you just want me to admit I'm 'wrong' and we'll be done. Not happening. We're arguing over semantics and their interpretation, which neither side completely owns.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts or to rewrite history to defend their opinion. Honestly, at least Lyle admits that the facts are the facts and are irrefutable in this case, but because of his preconceived bias and the FACT that the facts back the position that Ryan is telling the truth, he writes it off as "meaningless rhetoric," thereby admitting that his bias won't permit him to openly admit to the ultimate factual conclusion - that Ryan told the truth and Obama and the left accusing Ryan of lying were in fact the LIARS! I've asked Randy to show why an omission from Ryan's speech is relevant in face of the facts - crickets. Instead he comes back with made up crap about how the GOP obstructed Obama from doing the bailouts the way he insisted upon doing them! Rewriting history to support your position shows just how low and pathetic that Obama and his supporters have become in order to be able to still support him. Even some of the liberals have jumped the Obama train-wreck, such a Michael Moore, Newsweek magazine, etc. If you guys are honestly that gullible, then Hoffa would like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge - he'll give you a really good price on it ;-)
The decision to close the plant happened in 2008, as the result of economic forces that had been building for a long time. President Obama owns very little of that. Yes, i suppose he could have decreed that the plant be opened again, but that argument really grasps at straws. I thought you were against the government takeover of the auto business?
There you go trying to shift the subject about government takeover of a private business. This isn't about ideologies - it's about Ryan's speech and Obama's actions. Let's stick to the issue instead of shifting the subject, shall we? I don't see how the omission of the June closure announcement from Ryan's speech was germane given that Obama doubled down in the October statement, as Obama new about the closure at that time and still gave the statement. Given the context of that statement, which you haven't disputed, let's insert the words 'such as' for 'like,' as that's how Obama was using the word 'like' in that statement: "As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants [such as] the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America." And yet, that's not a direct or implied promise???
Yeah, you're right - Obama definitely wasn't deceitful to the Janesville autoworkers. All that talk about providing assistance to keep the plant open for a hundred more years, retooling, good paying jobs in the state, the direct attention that Obama showered upon Janesville. Those autoworkers should have just wrote it off as "meaningless rhetoric," right?
After that, you're asking me to address your arguments with counter-arguments that just lead to accusations of changing the subject, and frankly i have more important things to do today than engage in the whizzing contest I mentioned to Rees. Randy's done playing for the day.
Hoffa stands corrected on the Isuzu contract issue in regards to your linked to fact check. "Obama could not have promised to keep the plant open because it's a privately owned plant." And your so-called fact-check contradicts itself wherein it also states: "The U.S. Treasury -- which is part of the Obama administration -- has owned a sizable stake in GM since 2009, so, presumably, if the president and Treasury had wanted to take a more activist role to reopen Janesville, it could have. After all, the administration called for and got the firing of then-CEO Rick Wagoner." So let me get this straight - Obama couldn't tell a privately owned company to save a plant, but he could tell them to fire and replace their CEO???? How is this not a most serious contradiction in logic????
Instead we needed the Obama hanky panky deal with the UAW, Fiat, and Canadians - WHY??? And why aren't you upset over that the fact that over $25B taxpayer dollars were lost in the way Obama insisted upon structuring the bailout, while Fiat, the UAW, and private investors are allowed to now profit at the people's expense? I thought liberals hated giving taxpayer money to select special interests / corporatists? Obama screwed you out of tax dollars so others could profit and it's the GOP that wants to screw people? You're spinning more than records were in a '70's roller-disco!
If Obama didn't have influence over the industry in the bailout, then why did GM fire and replace then CEO Rick Wagoner? John Wilson has provided a link indicating that Obama directly forced such action. Also, why was there a need for a cars czar and his supporting staff if Obama had no influence? If Obama had no power, then why didn't he just follow Carter's successful model of bailing out Chrysler back in '79 under Iaccoca with a straight up interest bearing loan with a defined repayment scheduled, whereby the taxpayers would have recovered 100% of their investment plus a little interest? Bush wasn't just going to let the industry die, as you suggest - he was going to save it using the successful Carter model - a plan that Ryan voted in favor of. Instead we needed the Obama hanky panky deal with the UAW, Fiat, and Canadians - WHY??? And why aren't you upset over that the fact that over $25B taxpayer dollars were lost in the way Obama insisted upon structuring the bailout, while Fiat, the UAW, and private investors are allowed to now profit at the people's expense? I thought liberals hated giving taxpayer money to select special interests / corporatists? Why couldn't the industry have been saved without ripping off taxpayers? Carter proved that it can be done. You always duck the hard questions and I have no doubt that you will once again.
Good for you. Notice Hoffa, whoever he is, didn't comment on my observations how much he takes during the day sputtering. This is my last comment in this thread too. Way too nice outside not to enjoy it. Cheers
I'd agree with you about the importance of the June closure announcement had it not been 1) for the October statement by Obama, as you've provided no logical analysis negating the veracity of that statement; 2) the influence that Obama actually did exert over the companies during the bailout, as supported by all the facts, despite Obama's denial of such; and 3) for the fact that GM could in fact change its mind about plant closures, as was demonstrated on multiple occasions throughout the bailout process. Even John Wilson's fact check supports the conclusion that Obama LIED about not having any influence over GM and Chrysler during the bailout. And Hoffa raised a valid analysis about the need for the cars czar if no influence existed. If you can't support your contentions with a logical analysis, then one must wonder if you really believe in such a contention yourself!
Investment creates wealth and puts money in the hands of people that have gone out and earned it, from the investor, to the small business owner selling a goods or services to the investor, to the laborer providing the work. There is no "hoarding" going on. Investors are being very cautious and making sure their investments are secure in these volatile times. What we need to do is get people back to work, and not at a cost of 109,777.78 per job!