-> Democratic Liberal Umbrella Politics

-> Recent Posts

-> DLU Live Stream

Exposed: The GOP Liars, the Lies and the continued Lying at the RNC

Exposed: The GOP Liars, the Lies and the continued Lying at the RNC > Political Opinion > Political Views > DLU Articles > Democratic Liberal Umbrella

[important]Ezra Klein shows why Mitt Romney’s budget plan is ‘not viable’[/important]

>by Aliyah Shahid|Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:44 PM EDT|[It’s up to us to expose the GOP lies to the public! The GOP platform is based on lies and lying to pander to their base and that's it! The RNC was a joke and Clint Eastwood seized the night for the GOP instead of Romney!]

Mitt Romney’s numbers just don’t add up.

The Republican presidential nominee is insisting he’ll cut $7 trillion from the country’s budget without adding to the deficit or hiking taxes on the middle class.  The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein broke down the proposals within Romney’s budget plan on MSNBC, declaring it simply looks “like a fantasy.”

Romney has said he’ll bring federal spending under 20% of the overall economy and cap it there by 2016. That amounts to a jaw-dropping $7 trillion in 10 years, Klein explained.

Meanwhile, the former Massachusetts governor has said he’ll make the cuts without funneling cash from Medicare and Social Security. He also plans to increase defense spending by $1 trillion.”It’s like the Ryan budget on steroids,” said Klein, referring to Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s sweeping budget proposal, which calls for $5 trillion in cuts.

But here’s the thing: For Romney to make his proposed cuts, it means he’d have to cut every single federal program that’s not Social Security, Medicare or defense by an average of 40% in 2016, said Klein.

That includes programs like Medicaid, education, NASA, veterans’ benefits and transportation.”There’s no way he’s going to cut all of that by 40%,” said Klein.

So Romney, of course, could raise taxes to make the difference. The problem, however, is Romney wants to extend all the Bush tax cuts and slash marginal rates on top of that by another 20%.

That would mean the top 1% of earners would get $150,000 off their taxes in 2016. The government would also lose almost $5 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. On top of that, there would be a tax increase on the poorest Americans because the stimulus tax rates would expire, Klein explained.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, Klein noted, also says Romney’s plan is “not mathematically possible.”

Klein explained Romney has three choices if he wants his plan to work. “He has to make the tax cuts smaller, raise taxes on the middle class to cover tax cuts for the rich, or he can add to the deficit.”

Now you know. Watch the video

>by Andrew Sullivan – The Dish Biased and Balanced |

[important]The Lies And Lies And Lies Of Paul Ryan[/important]

CNN Calls Out Romney Adviser Over Inaccuracy In Ryan RNC Speech

Published on Aug 30, 2012 by

Dylan Matthews fact-checks Ryan’s speech. I noted most of these lies last night. But there weren’t just lies; there was a total abdication of personal responsibility in an attack on president Obama’s alleged lack of responsibility. Ryan on Bowles-Simpson, which he killed:

Top5Lies“[Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report,” Ryan stated. “He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.” But the bipartisan debt commission itself didn’t come back with a report. There were not enough votes to agree upon recommendations, in part due to opposition from committee member, er, Paul Ryan. The statement misleads viewers by implying that Ryan supports the proposal, when he aggressively opposed it, and by using the third person to avoid noting that Ryan was on the commission and voted no.

Lies and lies to portray not just a different version of the truth but its inverse. Avik Roy attempts to defend Ryan’s hypocrisy:

It’s true that Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. He did so because Simpson-Bowles raised taxes while doing little to nothing about health-care spending, the biggest driver of growing deficits. However, by rejecting Simpson-Bowles, Ryan felt morally obligated to put forth his own plan, and did so—several times, in the form of his Path to Prosperityand his 2011 and 2012 House budget resolutions.

Chait counters, noting that “defenders sometimes assert that [Ryan] only voted against the plan because it failed to include privatized Medicare, but in fact Ryan opposed a compromise that would do that, as well.” Then the irony that struck me the most:

Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is “shifting blame,” “blaming others.” It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.

The debt rating downgrade was my personal low. Really: an entirely GOP-engineered crisis that deeply damaged the country is now Obama’s fault? My jaw kept dropping. Joyner unpacks Ryan’s line about a GM plant in his district closing (discussed in the below video):

Petty parsing of the facts aside, Ryan’s attack here is just weak. Not only are voters more likely to blame the Congressman who’s spent his whole life in the town than the president of the United States for not saving the plant, this is a ticket that opposes government bailouts of auto plants! “Let Detroit go bankrupt” and all that. And, it should be noted, both President Bush and President Obama gave GM billions of dollars to stave off collapse.

Claim: We will protect Medicare! Truth: Ryan banks more savings from Medicare than Obama does and throws out all the cost control experiments that might – just might – bend the cost curve downward. Claim: We will balance the budget! Truth: by slashing taxes and revenues and by boosting defense, they won’t, by their own accounting, for another two decades. If we really cannot wait, how do two decades of more debt accumulation help? Claim: we protected the auto industry. Truth: they wanted Detroit to go bankrupt. Claim: the only thing the stimulus did was add debt. Truth: yes it added debt, but it did so in large part by tax cuts that Ryan approves of. And so you have an alternative empirical universe in which a deeply radical platform that would transform Medicare for the young, while retaining it in full for the biggest generation, and increase the debt for two more decades, is portrayed as a multicultural rescue of Medicare and the economy.

Even Fox News tackled Ryan’s “blatant lies and misrepresentations.” Tomasky outlines the challenge for Democrats:

Democrats have to raise their game. They’ve never had to encounter this kind of buttery demagoguery before. Their campaign is going to have to be almost as much against Ryan as against Romney. (Does anyone think Romney’s speech is going to be more effective to the intended audience? I’d be awfully surprised if it is.) They have to rebut his lies, and they have to do it without sounding bitter or afraid or superior or haughty. That’s not easy to do. But it’s the challenge of this campaign. If they can’t win the Ryan war, they’re done.

Scott Galupo’s verdict:

Paul Ryan is a talented, well-intentioned man who has been groomed by, and cultivated in the eco-system of, Washington’s conservative intelligentsia. His speech, for all its many fine qualities, is an emblem of the superficial attractiveness and substantive bankruptcy of this intelligentsia.

Lizza’s bottom line:

Ryan started this race with a reputation for honesty. He’s on his way to losing it.

When a Randian is speaking of a priority for the poor and weak, you know you have a world-class bullshitter.

[notice]Michael Tomasky on Paul Ryan’s Convention Speech and His Web of Lies[/notice]


Paul Ryan pushed American politics into new territory with his convention speech, effectively daring Democrats and the media to call him out on his string of blatant falsehoods.

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. Or for taking $716 billion out of Medicare that Ryan’s own budget also removes from Medicare. Or try to blame him for the closing of a GM plant that actually closed while George W. Bush was president. Those three lies are just the beginning of a cavalcade that followed. I can’t in clear conscience call such a speech “good” or “effective.” But I will acknowledge that Ryan can spin the goods like nobody’s business, and that his presence on the stage Wednesday night and on the ticket going forward does put new pressure on the Democrats, because Republicans have never really fought on quite this terrain in quite this way.

Paul Ryan’s Convention Speech

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan delivers the key note address during during the third day of the 2012 Republican national Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum August 29, 2012 in Tampa, Florida (Brendan Smialowski / AP Photo)

For many decades, the parties basically sort of ceded certain matters to each other. Democrats argued with Republicans about defense spending, for example; but with a few exceptions they rarely tried to say that they were the people you should really trust on defense. They knew they’d lose that argument, and they changed the subject. Republicans did the same on many social issues, or the idea of compassion. They knew they couldn’t compete. Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich changed this a little. They went around saying that their plans for poor people were superior. No one really bought it, but it did become a standard GOP talking point. Ryan is Kemp on steroids. (It was no accident that he invoked Kemp tonight). No Republican has ever tried to take it to Democrats on the issues they’ve owned for, in the case of Medicare, nearly 50 years.

Analysis of the fact that Ryan can lie the way he does requires the skills of a psychologist. All I can say is that we’re in new territory—a Republican trying to own a Democratic issue, and doing so on the basis of a couple of lies so blatant that he’s practically saying to the Democrats and the media: “Fuck you, come and get me. You can’t touch me.”

Ryan is glib and smooth and has a certain charm. He delivers one-liners very well. He really knows how to package, and where to go and where not to go. He talked a lot about spending, but he didn’t talk much about taxes, because he knows that he can’t really defend his position on taxes, which is slash them for the rich, so don’t even open that door. Open only the doors that lead to free shots at Obama. Many of those too are lies. He’s done far more to add to the debt than Obama has—voting for Bush’s tax cuts and wars and Medicare expansion as a congressman. This is true. But he can make it sound as if no sane person could possibly believe it.

I don’t know how well Ryan came across in this speech with undecided voters, if they watched. My guess would be very well indeed with men, rather less well but still respectably with women. It was mostly a speech for the hall, the red-meaters, but that bit toward the end, about the faded Obama posters in the kids’ bedrooms, and where he looked right into the camera and said, “If you’re feeling left out or passed by, you have not failed, your leaders have failed you,” was aimed at swing voters and probably reached them. And I’m sure that to old people who don’t know any better, he looks like a nice young man.

The Democrats have to raise their game. They’ve never had to encounter this kind of buttery demagoguery before.

So the Democrats have to raise their game. They’ve never had to encounter this kind of buttery demagoguery before. Their campaign is going to have to be almost as much against Ryan as against Romney. (Does anyone think Romney’s speech is going to be more effective to the intended audience? I’d be awfully surprised if it is.) They have to rebut his lies, and they have to do it without sounding bitter or afraid or superior or haughty. That’s not easy to do. But it’s the challenge of this campaign. If they can’t win the Ryan war, they’re done.

[notice]Convention: Lies and Dog Whistles[/notice]

GOP: A party dedicated to five ideas, all reprehensible.

Well, here we go. The week has begun in Tampa, report Adele Stan and Peter Montgomery, with Ralph Reed, that great Christian casino gambling enthusiast, rallying the troops, advocating that the fall election be dedicated to “the Lord.” This invocation comes in advance of what promises to be a toxic waste dump of hate and lies and race-baiting for the next four days.
Just the Facts

Tom Edsall said it without quite saying it this morning in the Times, that this Romney-Ryan campaign is becoming among the most racist we’ve ever seen. The two key lies so far are totally about race–that Obama is soft on welfare recipients, and that he’s “robbing” $716 billion from Medicare (77 percent of recipients are white) to “pay for Obamacare” (that is, to extend health care to black and brown people who don’t deserve it, haven’t earned it, etc.).

Commenter Omegadon asked last week: “Michael: Is there any element of the GOP that you don’t consider loathesome?” I’ve been thinking about this over the weekend. Having trouble coming up with much.
Let me answer this way. I may not have much good to say about today’s conservatism and Republican Party, but I do have criticisms of Democrats and contemporary liberalism. As I’ve written many times over the years, they are too fixated on rights without enough corresponding emphasis on responsibility. But when I say responsibility I mean civic responsibility (behavior in the public sphere) more than personal responsibility (behavior in the private sphere). That is, I mean citizens behaving in a way that nurtures and sustains the common good.
Honest conservatism can be valuable. It can provide that counter-balance. But we don’t have honest conservatism today. We have a radical party that is dedicated in essence to three propositions: the financial liberation of the top 2 percent; the need to start more wars as the way to exercise moral authority in the world; and the peddling of oogedy-boogedy nonsense that’s a step or two removed from bloodletting and alchemy.
Actually, now that I think about it, it’s dedicated to two other propositions, too: the idea that Democrats aren’t Americans who have different and worse ideas but are in fact un-American, which leads to this politics as perpetual warfare business; and the idea that black people shouldn’t really have the right to vote in the same way white people do.
As I’ve said many times going back to the Guardian days, I’d be delighted to have a more-or-less honest, moderate-to-conservative Republican Party. Democrats and Republicans could then talk with each other. They could work together on outcomes like structuring a sensible carbon tax, an idea so socialistic and radical that Exxon’s CEO supports it. But that isn’t what we have.
So no, Omegadon, not much to admire. And as for the rest of your question, the “both sides” part, I’ve written it dozens of times–sure, the Democrats aren’t blameless. They lie sometimes. But it’s not part of their portfolio in the same way because their positions, taken one by one, are more popular. To take a timely example, Social Security and Medicare are popular. Majorities want them preserved, and strongly so. Democrats want to preserve them, so they have the benefit of being able to speak the truth on that point.
Republicans, however, have wanted to destroy Social Security since 1935 and Medicare since 1965. But the programs are popular, so they can’t say that. Most government programs are in fact fairly popular, so the party that supports those programs just has to say “we support those programs,” while the party that’s against them has to lie.
We’re going to be hearing a lot of those lies this week, and a lot of quasi-racist dog-whistling about how Obama doesn’t feel the same way about America as “we” do. So no–still not sure what I should find non-loathsome about that.

[error]Fast Fact Check: Has Obama really gutted Medicare of $700 billion?[/error]

Aug. 28, 2012 – The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, takes a look at the GOP claim that President Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare. But there is a lot less to that fact than it appears.

[error]Romney’s likability problem: Three numbers that show he could be in trouble[/error]

Aug. 29, 2012 – New polling data from ABC News and The Washington Post show that likability could be a real problem for Romney. (The Washington Post)

[error]Fast Fact Check: Did Obama really eliminate work requirement for welfare?[/error]

Aug. 29, 2012 – Find out how many Pinocchios Rick Santorum gets after hammering President Obama on welfare. Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, tells the truth about claims Obama work requirements for welfare recipients.

 [notice]Headlines from MSNBC[/notice]

How Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital investments benefited from the tax code

Fact checkers, media spend the day ripping Paul Ryan’s ‘dishonest’ speech

Romney twice as rich as past eight presidents combined

Republicans really really really want to convince you they came from nothing

Sharpton: GOP‘s diversity push an ‘optical illusion’

DLU Related Posts:

Leave a Reply


Democratic Liberal Umbrella © 2013

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.

View Robert Gallimore's profile on LinkedIn

WP Like Button Plugin by Free WordPress Templates