[Paul Ryan] said on a national radio show that his best marathon time was under three hours, "I had a two hour and fifty-something." When in fact, thanks to Scott Douglas of Runner's World, it appears that his "personal best" was more than an hour slower, 4:01. ... The mystery in this case is why someone just stepping into the spotlight of national attention would risk telling an (a) entirely unnecessary and (b) very easily disprovable lie. It doesn't make "normal" political sense, where you lie to get out of a jam, or because you think you can't be caught
How many people really forget their personal best in a marathon competition particularly as he erred in a way that was to his advantage?
If he could lie about something that was not political and had no negative implications to his campaign, what else does he lie about that does? It is a matter of character as he has been caught more than once as fast and loose with the facts. This is just another liability that Romney has to bear as part of his campaign. More lies from someone who seems to find it easy to lie?
Your thoughts please.
Every time I read a question/forum post like this (about dishonesty in politics), all I can ever think of is my favorite scene from Casablanca:
" I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
What was it that Perry White told his reporter staff at the 'Daily planet' I want that guy "Superman' to go with the Daily Planet, like beans and franks, politics and corruption..... A little levity never hurts..
You know when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving.
OMG! You didn't go there.... Did you?
That was not a "real" question - it was a lead-in for a point you wanted to make.
You know very well why he would lie. He's a politician!
You think you have found another arrow for your quiver, but perhaps what you really grabbed was a holstered pistol to shoot yourself in the foot with.
Raising character and moral issues? Really... and after we just had that discussion about Clinton... tsk. tsk. And not just Clinton.
And talking about fast and loose with facts... not just picking on the DNC - because the RNC did it too - but there were so many Gumby facts in some of your top speaker's speeches - I felt like I was in a rubber factory. for example... no wait, I'll let you pick.
Glass houses... and all that. You know?
GA
But GA and Rhamson, it was such a stupid and useless lie. This guy Ryan is not even smart enough to know when to lie and when not to. And it is as much a stupidity issue as one on how easily he is willing to change the facts. Why lie about your marathon score, let everybody see that you are a liar rather than save such a risky revelation before the public for a more dire circumstance that would at least merit it? Clinton at least knows that much!
I don't trust Ryan anyway......
GA, remember that classic line in the western "The Wild Bunch" with Bill Holden and the late Ernest Borgnine One of the bandits said to the other " I gave my word", the Borgnine character said, Nuts, what counts is who you give your word to..... They all do it, I know that, but you have to have some finesse and not be stupid about it.
It's very odd he would lie about something so insignificant. Being honest would have no political risks whatsoever.
Unfortunately, Ryan is very truthy, and I guess he couldn't pass up an opportunity to attempt to lie.
You guys get lied to by your leadership every day and pass it right along.
If you tell a lie long enough people think it's the truth.
Don't you?
Saying Obama lies doesn't magically make Ryan's claims true.
Never said it did Sooner. Never said it did. Now did I?
However you have to just sit back and be amused at the picayune level The Party is going to in order to try and discredit him. I bet if you look hard enough you will find he ordered a sandwich at Subway without getting it toasted. Can we really trust someone whose sandwich isn't toasted?
I like that word, picayune. I'll have to incorporate it into my writing.
Ryan lying about the marathon isn't a huge deal in and of itself. It's a very strange thing to lie about, especially when it's easily discredited. The problem is his persistent distortion of the facts, and the marathon lie simply being an example.
Bill Clinton had a persistent distortion of the facts and one of his colleagues even commented what a good liar he was. Yet he remains one of the greatest heroes of the Democrat party. Do you even know how many lies he may have told in his speech at the Convention?
Ted Kennedy even caused someone's death and he is possibly even a greater hero.
Understand the problem here?
Democrats don't make the same outrageous claims Republicans do, like global warming is a hoax, tax cuts pay for themselves, or tax increases destroy all economic growth. I don't disagree you with that they do lie, but the level of distortion is not equivalent, on average.
Bill Clinton's claim about Democratic presidents creating more jobs than Republican ones was fact checked and...found to be true. What big claim did Ryan make that was true?
I didn't say he made any claim that turned out to be true. I am merely pointing out that there are liars in the Democrat party too. Big ones at that and if you know anything about Bill Clinton you know full well he told some whoppers. Openly. Into a microphone.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
That one is my personal favorite.
The man must have his pants custom made, lol.
No doubt he lied about Monica Lewinsky. That was a personal thing though.
If Paul Ryan lied about cheating on his wife, it wouldn't effect his policy positions. I wouldn't be in favor of IMPEACHING Romney if he happened to cheat on Ann. It was a sanctimonious political circus. I'm interested in the higher arguments.
That's why I didn't go after Ryan for the marathon. It's annoying, but I evaluate politicians differently than I evaluate normal folk.
I expect a certain level of lying and distortion. I focus on whether their general focus and themes are closer to the truth than not. It's unfortunate, but lies in the political arena are normal to me.
Sooner there are outrageous claims against Conservatives made every day which basically go all they into comparing the to the Nazi party. Outrageous and false. You know that.
So just because a guy from "runner's world" said something makes it true? Ohhh Ok.
I guess I better vote for Obama, since this runner guy said a VP candidate lied about something not one of us can prove…sounds good. Wait no it doesn’t.
Not even a link to check out…Things that make you say hmmmm.
We had a thread about Ryan's lies (marathon and other) a couple of days ago.
Not surprisingly, his supporters trivialized it as no big deal and not in any way related to his fitness for office.
I mean, there's running and there's RUNNING, right?
But the prevaricating pattern is concerning.
Of all the convention speeches (RNC and DNC), Ryan's was fact checked to contain the most lies. Some accounts 5, others 8.
He has lied about the CBO approving his plan when they didn't.
The list goes on.
You're hardly alone in scratching your head over Ryan's whoppers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ch/261775/
Excerpt:
"To restate the larger points for the moment: The bad one is that a major party's nominee for national office apparently just doesn't care that he is standing in front of millions and telling easily catchable lies. T
he less-bad one is that parts of the media are noticing, and are trying to figure out what they can do in response."
Thanks for the link, MM, As I said before there are few politician that do not stretch the truth from time to time, but this guy, verified over several sources seems to drop lies everytime he opens his mouth. While in the campaign mode and trying to convince us all that their leadership is a viable one to who is currently in charge, this is not helping.
For more insights into his motives, google 'Is Paul Ryan a narcissist?"
Fixed.
Fixed again.
I dunno really about Ryan, but I never have really cared that much about VPs. Is he a younger sibling maybe? He might have grown up always playing the one-up game, so in his mind the story has grown.
Anyway, I care much more about Obama promising to keep unemployment under 8%, or cut the deficit in half, or be completely transparent in all lawmaking, than Ryan's marathon time.
So you are more concerned with holding someone accountable for things he really does not have 100% control over (for a variety of reasons) than someone deliberately and blatantly fibbing about something he did have 100% control over?
I thought you guys were all about rugged individualism, personal responsibility and all that.
Hmmm.
If Obama proposed a budget that cut the deficit in half, I would count that as promise kept no matter if it passed. He hasn't though.
I absolutely hold PROMISES from a PRESIDENTIAL candidate much higher than non-political stories from a vice-president.
At the end of the day, what would you rather have? A VP that told the right time for his marathon, or a president who kept his campaign promises?
Like I said, I don't care about VPs so much. The presidents are the ones who screw things up.
At the end, middle or beginning of any day, I don't want Paul Ryan. Period.
How many different sources do we need to hear this from?
If you don't like the word liar, how does hypocrite grab you? As in, criticising Obama for things he himself proposed/voted for.
•An AP item headlined, "FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech."
•An item from NPR with a mildly "he said, she said" headline ("Fact Checkers Say Some of Ryan's Claims Don't Add Up") but that gets the main points across.
•One just now from the NYT, with the headline "In Ryan Critique of Obama, Omissions Help Make the Case." It begins this way: "In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for vice president at the Republican National Convention, Representative Paul D. Ryan criticized President Obama for seeking Medicare cuts that he once sought as well, and for failing to act on a deficit-reduction plan that he too opposed."
•Another excoriation by Michael Tomasky, in the Daily Beast, that is headlined "Paul Ryan's Convention Speech and his Web of Lies" and which begins, "It just boggles the mind to imagine how Paul Ryan can stand up there and lash Barack Obama for abandoning Bowles-Simpson when he did exactly that himself."
•An item on the Fox News site for which there must be an interesting backstory, in which contributor Sally Kohn says that "Ryan's speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."
•On TPM, a catalogue with the headline "Top 5 Fibs in Paul Ryan's Convention Speech."
•Update An excellent item I had somehow missed before, by Jonathan Chait in NY Mag, about "Paul Ryan's Large Lies and One Big Truth." Worth reading in general, and to see what that "truth" is.
•And Dave Weigel in Slate, plus Zack Beauchamp in Think Progress, about the euphemisms some reporters still use in order to avoid saying that Ryan "lied."
Ok, you don't want Ryan. Fine.
Ryan's not the presidential candidate.
Will you admit that Obama broke his promises about unemployment and the deficit?
Don't forget GITMO. They have too much invested in him emotionally to judge him logically.
Oh, don't worry. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of broken promises from Obama.
But, the budget is one he has at least partial control over. It's a MAJOR promise. He basically said it's the worst thing in the world to keep spending on deficit, and he never attempted to keep his promise of cutting it.
That should be the biggest game-changer.
The Tea Tards in the House of Representatives prevented him from reducing unemployment as fast as he suggested he would.
Nope... he got his stimulus, and he said the stimulus would keep us under 8%. He said the stimulus would have us at 5.5% by now.
The stimulus was cut back by 20 billion to get Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe's votes which were needed for passage. If there had been more Republican support the stimulus package would have been bigger and more effective. Also, Obama's advisers may have underestimated how much was needed to spur a faster recovery..
The Republicans in the House and Senate were dragging their feet. If it had been up to them we'd in a double dip recession or another great depression.
Ralph, the under-8 percent was projected with a $775 billion stimulus.
Obama ended up getting $831 billion.
Well, apparently the projection was too low. But the Republicans weren't advocating anything better. I've read that the amount would have been $900 billion but for Susan Collins whose vote was needed to get the bill passed. To pacify her, the amount was cut by $20 billion.
You can quibble about the figures, but tell us what the Republicans would have done? Angela Merkl looks like a big spender compared to the GOP whose ignorance of economics is monumental, exceeded only by their desire to get that black guy out of the White House.
Jaxson likes to quibble over minutiae while ignoring the big picture, which is that most Republicans were fine with bailing out banks but opposed to a stimulus bill to help the economy for everyone else.
If a candidate promises he can keep unemployment under 8%, and that by 2012 it will be down to 5.5%, but his plans fail so miserably that unemployment in 2012 is actually at 12%... that isn't minutia. It's a failed policy. It's another example of Obama promising things he can't deliver, like promising that the auto plant would remain open.
That's not the minutiae I was referring to, but okay. Can you show me where Obama promised to keep unemployment under 8% and that it would be down to 5.5% by 2012? Because I don't remember hearing such a promise, but then I'm gettin' kinda forgetful.
It was put forward in his report that argued in favor of the stimulus.
Using the same standards as they used, our current unemployment rate is 12%. Off the top of the chart.
No, I said please show me where Obama promised. This is a policy document written by Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, Office of the Vice-President-Elect. I don't see Obama's name on it.
Do you have a video or interview of him making such a promise?
Obama used that report as justification for his stimulus.
I'll change my statement to projected, instead of promised, if that helps. The report says it is a projection that falls within the margin of error.
To be true, you have to have a margin of error of 7% unemployment...
It's just another example of campaign promises that aren't kept, but in Obama's case there is always an excuse, even if he was over-reaching. If Obama uses a report that says unemployment won't go above 8% as evidence, I consider him liable for that.
Okay, please show me where Obama used the report as justification for his stimulus.
See how this works? lol
Have I ever made a claim that I couldn't back up?
Lol...
I don't bother to post sources for everything because it takes too much time and people ignore them or criticize them. There are very few people willing to objectively discuss politics here.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index … z1OPNVsvHl
Sorry, not good enough. I quote Obama from your link:
"The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector – the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs we save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities."
See the word "likely"? That is not a promise. That is a qualified estimate.
Epic fail.
LOL [wink]
A qualified estimate, which just happened to be off by some 10 million jobs.
Saying 'my plan will likely do X', and then it doesn't even come close, means he is off the hook because he said 'likely'?
Wasn't it you who just criticized Ann, even though she 'was clever enough' not to use the word struggle? Obama was clever enough to say 'likely'...
It's not an epic fail on my part. His plan painted a picture 10 million jobs different from reality. Go tell those 10 million Americans how it's OK because Obama said 'likely'.
Lighten up. I'm just turning your tactics back on you. Obama did not use the word "promise" any more than Ann used the word "struggle."
Get it?
Ann called her time special.
To say she meant 'difficult' is a lie. She didn't say that, she said something else.
Obama presented the report as 'evidence' of what his plan would likely do. Yes, he said likely, but it's still showing what he expected from it. He wasn't even close.
Not the same thing.
Oh, but you used the word "promise." Now you're backtracking since someone decided to call you on the facts. No different than what you do to us, is it?
Ann used a silly tuna and pasta story to IMPLY that she and Mitt struggled. She wasn't even close. Barack estimated the number of jobs that would be saved and created and he wasn't even close. You're parsing words on one to bolster your argument; I used your own tactics against you on the other.
Wow, you know that wink was set in stone four yeas ago. That's why you voted for him
Right?
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be leveled at Obama.
You're demeaning yourself by perpetuating that closed auto plant line.
It's been thoroughly debunked.
And when you do that -- when there is absolutely no reason to or new point to be gained -- you weaken all your other arguments.
Repeat the same falsehood over and over and refuse to admit it's wrong.
Surely you do not want to be viewed as the Hub Pages version of Lyin' Ryan?
You're better than that, J.
Debunked?
I said it is a promise that he couldn't deliver on. Candidates making promises they don't have the power to keep is a bad thing. I'm not saying it's Obama's fault the plant closed, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he promised it wouldn't.
You seem to think I said something other than what I actually said.
Hey Jaxson. Mind if I stick in my two cents?
While you and Ralph were debating the affects of the stimulus on unemployment and President Obama’s campaign promise of 5.5%, it occured to me that you are both correct. The President did not succeed in reaching his promise and a larger stimulus package would have probably resulted in a bigger, faster recovery.
Regardless of who signed the bill, why not brush aside the negativity and applaud the positive affects it has had on the recovery. Taking all the incentives in aggregate, the economy turned the corner and began to improve within 6 months of President Obama’s inauguration as the result of several aggressive measures including the Obama stimulus of 2009. So, while you are focusing on what did not happen, allow me to list a few positive things that did.
Contrary to the many claims that President Obama accomplished little or nothing in his first term, his stimulus bill was introduced in the House on his sixth day in office. Two days later, the bill was passed in the House without a single Republican vote. {1} The final Senate version passed on Feb. 10th on the votes of all the Democrats and only three Republicans. {2}
Alabama Republicans Jo Bouner and Robert Aderholt both denounced the stimulus plan from the floor of the House in July 2009. Over the next three months, both congressmen wrote to the Dept. of Transportation trying to steer stimulus-funded transportation grants to Alabama on grounds that the projects would help create “thousands of jobs.” So, while they knew that the stimulus plan would benefit the job picture, they voted against it anyway. Actually, more than 100 congressional Republicans and several Democrats who, after voting against the stimulus bill, wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood seeking money from the $1.5 billion the plan set aside for local road, bridge, rail and transit grants. {3} I’m not smart enough to make up these facts but you check them out for yourself.
Why haggle over real and expected unemployment rates? If you want the real truth you have to delve into the details. Although both job creation in the private sector and real estate values continue to drag, the measured impact of all the stimulus programs has been a phenomenal success in other sectors. Princeton economist Alan S. Blinder and Mark Zandi, Chief Economist for Moody’s Analytics, have studied the results of all the stimulus packages. They concluded that “the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls.” “We estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation” {4}
Just to set the record straight, if Mitt Romney had signed this stimulus package and had had the same results, I would be applauding him now. However, he did not; President Obama did with no help from the Republican Party.
{1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/2 … 61654.html
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_R … sentatives
{3} http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … eLiub0jnQE
{4} http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/docum … ession.pdf
Quil, you are both a gentleman and a scholar, my thoughts exactly thanks for putting this all in plain english for us. You are almost as good as Clinton with a laser light focus on the pertinant facts pushing aside all of the fluff that confuses us and the true nature of the issues involved.
@Quill President Obama's stimulus package was rejected by the GOP for two predominant reasons.
1. Once again, they were shut out of the conversation entirely.
2. It was a short term "fix" that hurt the economy over the long haul.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … long-haul/
So while your facts might be correct, there is more to the story than you are presenting. Further, the stimulus Bill was far less effective even in the short term than the President led everyone to believe. The GOP had presented spending cuts as well as some differences in funding that were completely ignored.
Seems to me President Obama has bent over backwards to meet the GOP halfway, but he's gotten nowhere. The Congressional Republicans don't like federal stimulus, except in their own district. Moreover, they advanced no plan for economic recovery. Just curious, what would you have had Obama do to stimulate the economy?
Please provide even one example of this Administration or the Democrats in Congress "bending over backwards" to meet the GOP halfway.
That's easy. Do you recall that Obama had a mega budget deal worked out with Boehner until it was sabotaged by none other than Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and their Tea Tard legion in the House.
Not so easy. That is the President's claim. Boehner claims it was the President who reneged. Since neither of us were present in the room, we can't say who is being truthful.
"Obama and Boehner have clung to their separate realities not just because it’s useful to blame each other for the political dysfunction in Washington, but because neither wants to talk about just how far he was willing to go. "
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magaz … wanted=all
You'll notice that even the Dems and GOP in Congress have no idea whose side is the truth. Further, that is not Obama bending over backwards. That is both sides sitting down and coming to terms. That much we know because before it fell apart both sides claimed a deal was done.
The other was the tax cuts. Obama did not want to extend them, the GOP said without it they would not extend unemployment benefits. A compromise was met and both were extended.
That does not back up your claim of "bending over backwards". which, at least to me, would indicate something significant being offered and then being snubbed.
All the news reports and commentary I saw said Boehner's legs, much to his embarrassment, were cut off by Ryan and the Tea Baggers in the House. Obama has been conciliatory toward the GOP to the point of alienating many progressive Democrats.
Apparently you didn't notice that Obama appointed three or four Republicans to his cabinet and a Republican ambassador to China.
Politifact: " For starters, we're going to give Obama three Republicans, though a stickler could point out that Defense Secretary Robert Gates isn't actually registered as a Republican. But he's Republican enough in our book. Gates has served under several Republican administrations, and though he dropped his party registration to present an apolitical appearance while with the CIA, Gates himself said in December, "I consider myself a Republican."
"The other two Obama appointees are card-carrying Republicans: Ray LaHood, a former congressman from Illinois, as secretary of transportation; and Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire as commerce secretary (though he has not yet been confirmed).
"And Obama is right. No other president has had this many."
No more homework assignments, please.
Good evening, Sue. How nice to discuss and exchange ideas with you again.
Sometimes it is absolutely impossible to have a discussion with people who reject rational, intelligent facts because they do not like what the facts are saying. I imagine most readers in this forum would take “bending over backward” as a synonym for “compromise.” Very few, I think, would insist that “bending over backward” means “capitulation.” Take for example, the Obama-Boehner budget compromise and your response to Ralph:
Duh! I rest my case.
P.S.
I was going to omit the following thinking it would fall on “deaf” ears. However, for the benefit of others, here are several recorded examples of President Obama’s compromises during his first term. There are dozens more at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ompromise/
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups.
Expand the earned income tax credit.
Double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that encourages manufacturing efficiency.
Include environmental and labor standards in trade agreements.
Establish a small business initiative for rural America.
Create a tax credit of $500 for workers.
Create more public-private business incubators for poor communities.
Freeze the 2009 estate tax law.
Hello again, SassySue. I am happy to see you read the Washington Times.
If I may, I would like to address to two reasons you mentioned for the GOP refusal to support President Obama’s 2009 Stimulus bill.
You claim, “1. Once again, they were shut out of the conversation entirely,” and that is inaccurate. Look for yourself:
“Obama also persuaded House Democrats to remove provisions related to family-planning from the stimulus and -- over the objections of many Democrats -- inserted large tax cuts for businesses that Republicans wanted. None of it was enough.” {1}
“U.S. senators began debate on a massive economic-recovery package Friday evening, after a working coalition of Democrats and some Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version.” {2}
“A small, bipartisan group of moderate Senators emerged from closed-door negotiations with White House officials Friday evening and said they had reached an agreement to trim $110 billion from the stimulus bill by reducing tax cuts and spending less money on education.” {3}
“The House-Senate compromise, however, cuts funds for extended health care coverage for the unemployed; cuts $30 billion in aid to state governments to prevent reductions in social services to the poor and out-of-work; and also cuts a special "Making Work Pay" tax holiday from $500 to $400 for an individual, and from $1,000 to $800 for a couple, for low-to-middle-income workers still hanging on to their jobs” {4}
So, Sue, as you can see for yourself, President Obama not only urged Democratic Congressmen to compromise and to consider points important to Republicans, but Republicans also participated in further Senate negotiations that lead to additional concessions.
If you do not mind, I would like to respond to your second claim in another post.
{1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/2 … 61654.html
{2} http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-06/poli … M:POLITICS
{3} http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … ulus_N.htm
{4} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/1 … 66192.html
If I may continue…
Your other claim was “2. It was a short term "fix" that hurt the economy over the long haul.” This claim has two parts: it was a short term “fix” and it hurt the economy over the long haul. In addition, you added a link to the Washington Times in support of your claims, which is greatly appreciated.
First, the 2009 Stimulus bill was designed to be a short term “fix” and, as such, it was NOT a reason it was rejected by the GOP. If you can not accept that as a fact in light of the economic tailspin at the time, then you can not possibly comprehend why the bill was drafted and passed in the first place. Second, did you not notice that your supporting link leads to a Washington Times article dated Feb 4, 2009 that quotes from a CBO report released before the Senate even voted on the final measure? We will have to wait to see how badly the bill hurts the economy in the future! At that time, opponents of the bill can create their own versions of what could have, should have, and might have happened if the bill had been different.
In the mean time, every CBO report issued since the bill was signed, including the very latest, said the economy would have been in worse shape had the bill not been passed. Even in 2012, three years later, the bill is having a positive influence on the economy. I invite you to read the latest report issued May 25, 2012 that concludes:
“Still, CBO estimates that, compared with what would have occurred otherwise, in 2012 ARRA will:
+ Raise real GDP by between 0.1 percent and 0.8 percent, and
+ Increase the number of FTE jobs by between 0.2 million and 1.3 million.”
Many thanks, Sue, for adding to the discussion. Your views are always challenging.
http://cbo.gov/publication/43274
Compromise is not "bending over backwards". It is BOTH sides giving something. On this thread there has been much made of an obstructionist Congress. How can that be if there have been compromises? Ralph's example was suggesting an offer of compromise that was snubbed to try to support his idea of an obstructionist Congress that has ensured the President's failure. Compromise involves both parties. So thank you Quill for helping to prove the entire obstructionist theory that has been presented is a false one.
Capitulation was not what was being suggested either. An offer of something in return for something else is not capitulation. But "bending over backwards", being itself a very difficult thing to do, would mean to continually make offers that were being consistently denied. As you have so graciously pointed out the compromises between the President and the GOP, I'm glad we can put this entire idea of blaming the GOP as obstructionists to rest.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans
You go right ahead and put the idea to rest.
It may not exist in your head, but it exists on the record.
And it is documented and it is extensive.
Hi again, Ms. Sue.
I surrender! I can not keep up with people who make up their own terms and definitions.
You asked quite clearly “Please provide even one example of this Administration or the Democrats in Congress "bending over backwards" to meet the GOP halfway.” You asked for examples of Democratic concessions and I pointed you to a couple of dozen of them.
I would be happy to see your list of examples where the GOP has yielded during the last four years. I am sure there are a few. However, to a large, almost extreme measure, the GOP has been putting the defeat of President Obama ahead of the best interests of the country. Have you not studied the events surrounding the credit rating debacle or the GOP role in forcing Arlen Specter and other moderates out of the party? "A senator is supposed to be able to exercise his judgment without being excommunicated, and when I voted for the stimulus that was the end of my relationship with the Republican Party," Specter said. {1}
For the undeniable truth is this: there will never be compromise, or what ever you want to call it, in the Congress without moderates in both parties.
{1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 0051805617
@Quill
First, please refrain from using sources like the huffingtonpost. We both know that it is extremely left and biased. Second, once again, while your facts are not exactly incorrect, you tend to omit so much of the facts to appear to have made your argument valid.
After those so-called negotiations, where only 3 GOP members were included I might add and not even senior GOP members (you'll note that neither Boehner nor McCain were invited), the GOP stated categorically their positions regarding the package.
1. It was too expensive and would balloon an already large debt.
2. Historically, the specific spending proposed historically had shown not to be largely effective as was being promised
3. They were judging the measure over its ability to actually do what it claimed.
I used the Feb. 2009 CBO report because that was the knowledge at the time it was voted upon. (I know you had another post addressing that, however, it keeps on telling me it no longer exists). You completely ignore the part of the new CBO report which also states the effect on the deficit and debt, which was one of the key arguments from the GOP. The key argument in favor of the bill, all those shovel ready jobs, never materialized. The numbers you claim were the initial impact, a measly gain in GDP of 1% and the 2 million jobs, which is not a net gain btw, nor ongoing. No one was against a stimulus package either, they were against the manner of spending proposed because it has historically been proven not to have the large and immediate impact it was promising.
Oh I did discount Specter as one could hardly count him as a Republican when he switched to Democrat in 2009.
Hi again, Ms. Sue.
Your first point is “First, please refrain from using sources like the huffingtonpost.” I look everywhere for facts and I shall continue to source the Huffingtonpost for facts even though you seem to be uncomfortable with what you hear. I never quote their opinions, just the facts. Twice you admitted you found no errors in my facts (“So while your facts might be correct” and
“While your facts are not exactly incorrect,”) and then you presume to tell me where I should look.
You go on to say, “only 3 GOP members were included I might add and not even senior GOP members (you'll note that neither Boehner nor McCain were invited), the GOP stated categorically their positions regarding the package.” Some might consider that statement absurd for being self-contradicting. Had Boehner and McCain signaled their willingness to compromise, I would guess they may have been invited to negotiate but like you admitted, “the GOP stated categorically their positions regarding the package.”
Further evidence suggesting a lack of knowledge about the impact of the bill is found in your statement, “The numbers you claim were the initial impact, a measly gain …[of] 2 million jobs, which is not a net gain btw, nor ongoing.” The ongoing numbers, Sue, were in fact substantially better then initially reported but to know this you will need to learn more about the effects and results of the bill. New full time employment was reported at about 3 times greater in the years 2010 – 2011 and declined to slightly less in 2012 after the funds had been spent.
Another of your unsupported claims, “The key argument in favor of the bill, all those shovel ready jobs, never materialized.” In spite of the lack of “shovel ready” projects, new full time employment did materialize. Not as many jobs as expected but, obviously, more than you know or are willing to acknowledge. Examine the CBO report of Aug 23, 2012, table I on page 11, to learn that the bill helped to fund somewhere between 8.3 to 43.3 million jobs directly and indirectly. {1} I do not ignore the cost and debt elements of the bill but I am willing to concede we were in a state of economic meltdown that demanded immediate and drastic action.
I realize, Sue, that you would have been in favor of a different approach but, after 3 years, you are still bemoaning the outcome and misrepresenting the accomplishments. Thank you for your insights and observations. I sincerely appreciate your sharing them with us.
{1} http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … -Col_0.pdf
"It was a short term "fix" that hurt the economy over the long haul."
A short term fix was just what the economy needed according to nearly all economists.
Once the economy is out of the woods it will be time to credibly deal with the deficit and health care costs and Medicare.
Clinton is a convicted liar, you don't seem to have a problem with that. Biden told us he use to frequent a restaraunt that had been closed for years, no problem for you.
Isn't it just unreal that one of the biggest heroes of the Democrat party is one of the biggest liars in American history?
And they believe everything that drops out of his mouth!!
I'm not sure how Clinton keeps a straight face when he talks, he doesn't even believe his own bullshit.
Particularly the fact he can look them right in the face and lie to them and they KNOW he is lying and eat it up anyway.
But these are the more intelligent folks you know........
How funny.
Maybe Bill Clinton is actually Paul Ryan's role model du jour. Ayn Rand is out. Thomas Aquinas is obviously out, too. Maybe he's taking his political cues this week from Slick Willy.
However, to paraphrase on an old quote, we know Bill Clinton. Paul Ryan, you're no Bill Clinton (or Jack Kennedy, for that matter).
Ryan told a "big fish" story. LOL
That's not good and I'm not trivializing it. He lied.
But, to put it in perspective - remember what happened when the girl Obama was dating in NY claimed the things in Obama's book concerning her were lies?
Obama came up with the excuse that he really didn't mean THAT girl - even though he named her and described their time together - he really meant "a compilation of girls."
Politicians lie. Not all lies rise to the level of Bill Clinton's lies under oath, which earned him an impeachment charge in the House.
But - they all lie. Our job is to discern which ones lie the least - or at least, which ones get by with it the most.
What do you mean he doesn't have control? Obama told us he would do these things, if he couldn't do it he should have said that instead of lie to the American people.
This is mighty righty, mom, that is a good point and a big difference.There has not been any president in modern times that could keep all the promises made because of circumstances out of his control, (little things like a treasonous right wing house of reps) But I am more concerned about the GOP who promised to wreck the economy and without Obama may well have succeeded. It is more about motive and intent.
What about promises he broke that he had control over?
Let's say you start your day with a to-do list with 20 items on it.
At the end of the day you look at your list and see you have 11 items you can cross off.
But, you think back to what you actually did during the day and add 7 new items to the day's list.
Maybe a client called with an emergency that had to be dealt with immediately.
Maybe your kid got sick at school, so you had to go pick her up.
Maybe a neighbor's car wouldn't start so you pulled out your jumper cables and helped him out.
Maybe you were going to pay a credit card bill and checked your bank account and discovered a check hadn't cleared. So you ended up having to talk to both the bank and the credit card company before you could proceed with what should have been a very simple transaction.
These are all items you didn't plan to do today, but that demanded your attention today.
And they all got done.
So if you are measuring your success based on the original 20 items, you're going to feel like a failure with only 11 items.
But if you look at what you actually got done, you see 18 items complete.
And I've got promises to keep. And miles to go before I sleep. And miles to go before I sleep.
Those seem to be much larger lies that actually have an impact on other people. But, I'm sure they will continue to discuss things that don't matter. Maybe nobody will notice the complete failure known as the obama administration.
Seriously? This is about how fast he ran a marathon and whether you think he lied about it?
Wow good thing he wasn't describing the last fish he caught. That would disqualify him from VP for sure.
You can always smell the fear of failure in these things. You must be getting pretty desperate.
This is funny, actually.
I posted a thread, asking for examples of Mitt breaking promises he made as Governor. We got maybe one lie, although I have to check it.
Ryan though... people are ALL over him for his marathon time years and years ago.
MM, what do you think is worse? Lying about a marathon time, or plagiarizing a speech, for a VP?
I get a real kick out of all this because it's like Sarah Palin all over again. They laugh about Romney but are scared as hell about Paul Ryan because they know he's the real deal.
I think it goes back to when they were debating the ACA. They had that summit of the leaders and Barack about burst a blood vessel because Ryan actually brought the bill which sat three feet high on the desk. I think Barack was scared he was going to have to explain things in it. He could not possibly have because he didn't and still doesn't know anything about it.
You don't know what PRESIDENT Obama was thinking. Anyway, Ryan is a habitual and pathological liar. He can't help himself. We have always known those kinds of people. They are infuriating because they lie even when they do not need to!
Funny when people call someone out for lying now...they have to bring up something else that happened a decade ago. Deflect, deflect, deflect.
I guess if Clinton was nowhere around that might mean something. He is still relevent to the dems so its still important to point out they blindly follow liars.
Actually, UW, I keep hearing that same thing about GWB, "He lied about Iraq having WMDs to get us into the war." That was a decade ago.
But it's not really accurate. GWB followed B. Clinton's intelligence and Clinton signed the Iraqi Freedom Act in 98, which advocated the remove of Saddam from power because he had WMDs.
Selective memories go back only as far as GWB, but considering the impact, shouldn't they actually go back to the man who signed the bill and insisted on the intelligence to begin with? That kind of brings Clinton right back to today in importance.
So - his lies (if it was a lie) are still having an effect.
Invading Iraq was a huge mistake whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He had no reason to use them against the United States or Israel. Clinton would not have committed such a blunder. He's too smart. Bush was convinced by the neocons and Dick Cheney.
Go to the head of the class. I did a hub on that complete with video evidence.
On the topic of lying, I came across this.
Toward the end of a piece that chilled my blood. (Worth the full read, btw).
http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/08/the- … tt-romney/
How could Romney – a religious man – justify telling such lies? His wife Ann provided part of the answer when she told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, “It’s Mitt’s time. It’s our turn now.”
The Romneys are entitled to the presidency. Mitt has done the things one does to become president: he got a good education, he ran a highly-successful business, organized the winter Olympics, governed Massachusetts and ran for the presidency in 2008. Ann did her part. They reared a photogenic family, they go to church, they live in lots of nice houses and they belong to the right “class.” It’s their turn now.
In a Time essay, Prof. Justin Frank links Romney’s lying to his Mormonism: “There is a long tradition in the Mormon belief system in which evidence takes second place to faith…. There are no lies, only faith-based certainty that translates as truth for which no apology is needed.”
It isn’t a lie if you say something that will help fulfill God’s plan for you. In this context, there is some sense to a statement Mitt made in May: “I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was.”
The truth is what Mitt says it is. And if “the truth” is that Mitt Romney should be president, then the end justifies the means.
there are two main reasons why Ryan is lying, first the campaign already said they will not pay attention to fact checkers,and second they figure since they now have the money advantage they can drown the truth in advertising.
Ryan's speech at the GOP convention "was written without benefit of shame or fact checking. Ryan accused the President of ignoring the Simpson-Bowles commission's advice on the debt, while failing to mention that his own opposition had already deep-sixed that advice. He accused the President of damaging America's AAA credit rating, but neglected to say that he himself had led the Republican strategy of deliberately putting it in peril, in order to achieve the Party's fiscal goals. He spent a good part of the speech vowing to protect Medicare, without ever describing his plan, which would basically turn it into a voucher system. Ryan even accused Obama of allowing an auto plant in his home town to be shut down, when the closing was announced during the Bush Presidency."
George Packer in The New Yorker, September 10, 2012.
(Ryan's lie about his 3-hour marathon should be enough to disqualify him from public office, IMHO.)
"We now all know that even in the long line of Paul Ryan distortions, his claim of a sub-3-hour marathon ranks as among the most stupid. It was easily and quickly proved to be no more than the grandiose claim of somebody at least slightly out of touch with reality. Let’s be clear what the difference is: A sub-4-hour marathon is possible for a determined but not-too-talented runner. Sub-3 requires real talent.
"Ryan’s problem is that he is about to become as phony as the proverbial $3 bill—or 3-hour marathon time. His dissembling about the marathon fits the same pattern as his claims about deficits, taxes, his role in Bowles-Simpson, and the alleged Obama Medicare cut. He bends numbers and facts when he wants to, merely to confirm his theological views. Facts are malleable: They can be molded and spun, with the assistance of a media willing to repeat them loudly enough that the objective truth simply gets drowned out. And let’s not forget that Ryan is the purported “wonk” of the Republican Party, the truth-teller, the numbers guy. Really?"
Slate, 9-4-12
Colbert on Ryan's Lyin' Marathon
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber … time-gaffe
by ahorseback 8 years ago
Why else would the GOP. decide that the offenses of Trump are worse than those of Either Hillary ,President Obama Or Bill Clinton . The GOP has decidedly added to the Nation Debt by ten Trillion dollars . by folding in under the spending...
by Xenonlit 12 years ago
Paul Ryan contributed to the current deficit with these votes, yet stands there with a straight face and says Obama is "wrecking" the country. Remember these facts: Invade Iraq HR 114 Voted Yea $1.3 trillion and counting First...
by Susie Lehto 9 years ago
"This is the closest that we have come to repealing Obamacare."I am over joyed at the moment! I confuse that I thought Speaker of the House Ryan was another Republican Rhino like John Boehner. The Repeal is going to the presidents desk. Obama will veto the bill most...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 7 years ago
Mueller is continuing with his investigation. Will it touch Mike Pence @ some point? If there is reason for Trump to resign, will Mike Pence be caught up in the fray? Would Paul Ryan like to become the president?
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 57504.htmlThis is bold! This is leadership! Using the recommendations from Obama's own debt commission Ryan constructed this budget. Look for the democrats to demagogue, distract, and disparage this while not bringing forth a reasonable plan of their...
by Nick Hanlon 12 years ago
What do you think of Paul Ryan and his nomination for V.P. on the Republican ticket?
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |