The Guardian UK comes through again: Ryan's "audacious untruths" this is the best one today.

[progressivebydesign]

"Paul Ryan laid a mound of misdeeds at President Obama's door. To sustained applause from the floor, the vice-presidential candidate accused Obama of raiding Medicare, lying to auto workers and turning his back on the poor. But the speech was not always at pains to adhere to the historical record. At times, we are disappointed to report, Ryan baldly lied. Here's a round-up of Ryan's most audacious untruths:"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/paul-ryans-speech-audacious-untruths?newsfeed=true

[grasswire]

1. Ryan's lying to YOU. n/t

[NMDemDist2]

2. funny responses

dirkadirka
30 August 2012 4:24PM
He LIES????

Next thing you'll be telling me that bears defecate in areas of high concentrations of perennial woody plants.

[starroute]

3. Ryan opens things wide up for the Democrats to attack the Congressional GOP

It hasn't been possible to tie Boehner's crew of wreckers to directly to Romney. But with Ryan on the ticket -- and particularly given some of the whoppers in this speech -- it becomes a slam-dunk.

Ryan voted for all the Bush administration's budget-busting wars and tax cuts. Ryan was on the failed Simpson-Bowles commission. Ryan was part of the brinksmanship that got the US credit rating downgraded. Ryan was there when the Bush administration did nothing to protect that GM plant.

All the failed policies of the Bush years come home to roost with Ryan on the ticket -- and this speech has just given the Democrats a royal invitation to pounce.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. This is what happens when you triangulate, compromise with, and capitulate to the Republicans.

As noted by the Guardian, the same Medicare cuts called for by Ryan in his budget plan(s) are the same Medicare cuts being called for by Obama.

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget. The cuts are designed to extend the solvency of Medicare for an estimated eight years. Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries, who share costs with the government

The cuts, whether they have a (D) or an (R), are going to cut $716 billion in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals. This means for Social Security recipients, whether the reimbursement cuts have a (D) or an (R), is that they will find it more difficult to find doctors and hospitals that will be willing to treat them and accept Medicare.

The downside for Obama is that he doesn't even get credit from the Republicans for triangulating, compromising with, and capitulating with the Republicans. An alternative would be to push for doing away with the Social Security cap and make capital gains subject to the Social Security tax so that the super-rich would pay a fair share of the Social Security tax.

Those who have considered voting for Ryan are not going to give Obama credit triangulating, compromising with, and capitulating with the Republicans. Instead of Ryan is a liar on the Medicare issue, they may even give him credit for causing Obama to triangulate, compromise, and capitulate.


“Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me.” - Harry Truman

http://www.famousquotes.com/show/1711989/

[jenmito]

5. Obama's cuts impact providers. Ryan's cuts impact beneficiaries. HUGE difference. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. You know, the link provided by the OP indicates that both Obama's cuts and Ryan' cuts

impact providers.

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/paul-ryans-speech-audacious-untruths?newsfeed=true

If the you are right and the linked information provided by the OP is wrong, where is your link?

You say that there is a "HUGE difference." Maybe you're right. If you're not just relying upon the (D) versus (R) categories, where's your link to a source more reliable to that provided by the OP?

[jenmito]

9. My proof is from your post. You just bolded different parts...

I'll take the 2 paragraphs from your post but bold the parts which prove my point:

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget. The cuts are designed to extend the solvency of Medicare for an estimated eight years. Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries, who share costs with the government

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. What you highlighted doesn't contradict the source cited by the OP, but reinforces the fact

that you do not have a link to a source more credible than the one cited by the OP.

1. As stated before, "the link provided by the OP indicates that both Obama's cuts and Ryan' cuts impact providers.

2. As quoted before from the source cited by the OP:

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/paul-ryans-speech-audacious-untruths?newsfeed=true

3. If both are providing for the same cuts (as stated by the source cited by the OP), the statement that you've highlighted can obviously be true for both budget proposals. The source cited by the OP does not indicate that any proposed Medicare cuts would only be repealed by Ryan or by Obama.

If we assume that it is true that "Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries, who share costs with the government," you have not shown that the proposed cuts are different. You haven't done that at all. And you certainly haven't provided a link to show that the source cited by the OP is wrong is saying that the cuts are the "same cuts."

Medicare beneficiaries already share costs with the government. If Medicare reimbursements to insurers and hospitals are cut, that presents a different problem in trying to find providers that will accept Medicare. Nonetheless, if Medicare reimbursements to insurers and hospitals are cut, the shared cost to Medicare beneficiaries should also be cut (but good luck in finding a medical provider). If the cuts are repealed, the Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals will obviously increase and the shared payments made by Medicare beneficiaries will obviously increase.

If the cuts are the same, as said by the source cited by the OP, it does not follow that a repeal of the cuts would only increase the shared cost to the Medicare beneficiaries if the President in 2013 has a (D) or an (R) after their name.

If you genuinely believe that you are right and the linked information provided by the OP is wrong, where is your link to a contrary source that is as credible or more credible than the source provided by the OP?

Where is your source to contradict,

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget.

[jenmito]

11. Here ya go:

Members of the right-wing media have promoted the claim that President Obama has "gutted" Medicare in order to fund health care reform, while GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan is attempting to preserve the program. In fact, though Obama and Ryan have advocated similar spending reductions, the Affordable Care Act would not affect Medicare benefits, while Ryan's plan is projected to harm current and future seniors' care. :

http://www.mediamatters.org/print/research/2012/08/16/a-guide-to-the-right-wing-medias-dishonest-medi/189385

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Apples and oranges. The Guardian UK source cited by the OP is not part "of the right-wing media."

You are referring to "the Affordable Care Act" which has already been passed whereas the Guardian UK article is referring to "Barack Obama's budget plan."

According to the Guardian UK source cited by the OP, the Obama budget plan which "calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved."

The Guardian UK source cited by the OP is not claiming that the Affordable Care Act would affect Medicare beneficiaries. It doesn't even refer to the Affordable Care Act.

[jenmito]

14. So you think Obama took $716B TWICE? Once for a "budget plan" and once for the ACA?

There's only one $716B that Obama dealt with-the money taken from Medicare providers & hospitals to fund the ACA.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. No. What I believe is that the OP cited the Guardian UK

which stated that the same Medicare cuts called for by Ryan in his budget plan(s) are the same Medicare cuts being called for by Obama.

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget. The cuts are designed to extend the solvency of Medicare for an estimated eight years. Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries, who share costs with the government.

[jenmito]

17. It's the same AMOUNT in cuts, but as the last sentences of each paragraph state,

Obama's would PRESERVE payments to beneficiaries, but Ryan's would CUT payments to beneficiaries.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. The last sentences of each paragraph speak for themselves. They DO NOT STATE that

"Obama's would PRESERVE payments to beneficiaries, but Ryan's would CUT payments to beneficiaries."

You are interpreting the language. Those words are not used.

[jenmito]

19. Yes they do:

Barack Obama's budget plan calls for $716bn in cuts to Medicare spending over the next 10 years, but in reimbursements to insurers and hospitals, not in payments to beneficiaries, which would be preserved.

Ryan knows this because he has written these same cuts in to successive drafts of his famed budget. The cuts are designed to extend the solvency of Medicare for an estimated eight years. Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries, who share costs with the government.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. Both want cuts. The OP's source indicates that the cuts are the "same cuts." Deny that if you will

The OP's source also indicates "Repealing the cuts would likely increase payments by hundreds of dollars a year for beneficiaries."

That opinion expressed in the OP's source may be right. If it is right, it does not indicate that the "same cuts" have somehow been made different or that the "same cuts" would result in a reduction of payments to beneficiaries.

[jenmito]

21. OMG! I will not cut and paste the paragraphs which prove my point any more. For

some reason, you're hell-bent on denying what is right there in print. I can show you over and over, but if you keep ignoring it, I can't help you. I'm sure everyone who sees this sees the facts.

[HopeHoops]

7. These are Republicans. Don't bother them with facts. It just confuses them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Ryan's SIGNATURE (pic, pdf via house.gov): knew of plant closing in June 2008

Here's the letter with Ryan's June 2008 signature acknowledging the closing (pdf via house.gov)

Signed, June 3, 2008

http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ltr_gm_060308.pdf

Technically, the Ryan line is that the President failed to "keep it open".

Technically, the plant had a hundred workers paid after the main line closed Dec 23, 2008, to keep a small line open to fill out a truck order until April 2009.

However, the basic fact that the weasel would have you not know is that the plant closing was accelerated by the Republican President who applauded GM for being "adaptable" in closing that and other plants. The plant was slated to close in 2010 (see letter below) but was accelerated and closed in 2008 except for an essentially inconsequential amount of work for a few months.

[font size = "+1"]Fact: [/font]It was all decided and finalized by time Obama took office.

[ailsagirl]

13. The UK has a stake in this race, too

They don't want Nitt-- they didn't like him during the Olympics, and they certainly don't like him now!!

A critical race

[CBHagman]

16. Be sure to read the comments section.

Same grab:

ghostinthemachine

30 August 2012 4:29PM

Hopefully he's a Christian, and if they are right, he will burn in hell.