Shrill liberals pushing the Paul Ryan is a liar meme…what fools they are

Spread the love

Loading

John Hayward @ Human Events:

The astonishing power of vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night can be measured by the shrill desperation of liberal “fact checkers” to claim that his performance was packed with “distortions.”  Needless to say, none of these people ever bothered to apply a fraction of the same penchant for hair-splitting accuracy to any of the deceptive speeches delivered by Barack Obama.  They’re happy to believe Obamacare doesn’t cut Medicare just because Obama really, really, really needs people to believe it, but now they’re parsing every period and hyphen in Ryan’s speech to claim he was misleading about some tiny detail.

Typical of the breed is an astoundingly sloppy editorial from Sally Kohn published at Fox News, which really needs to assert some editorial standards and apologize to its readers for running Kohn’s piece without oversight.  It’s basically a nervous breakdown in essay form, in which Kohn accuses Ryan of “lying,” then links to material that proves he’s right and she’s wrong (as in the case of the United States’ credit downgrade, which she claimed it’s a “fact” occurred because “Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling”… accompanied by a link to a PolitiFact article she apparently didn’t bother to read.)

Note to liberals: the trick of putting the words “fact” and a colon in front of tendentious opinions, debatable predictions, and outright lies really isn’t fooling anyone, except the dwindling number of people who already agree with you.

Later Kohn claims it was a “distraction” that Ryan “didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75 percent of American voters.”  Well, he didn’t mention Barack Obama’s support for infanticide either, and that’s out of touch with even more American voters.  Ryan didn’t discuss abortion in his speech at all.  Of course, Kohn knows the Democrats are basing their entire convention on abortion, to squeeze the maximum mileage out of their shiny new 2012 Akinmobile, a remarkable vehicle powered entirely by hot air, with an engine that turbocharges the power of a rampaging jackass.  She’s trying to do them a solid by complaining that Ryan wasn’t courteous enough to play into their convention narrative.

But the centerpiece of Kohn’s ridiculous piece, and much of the liberal caterwauling about Ryan’s potent speech, is the closing of an auto plant in Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin.  Here’s how Kohn puts it: “While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shutdown of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush.  Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.”

The second sentence consists of two non sequiturs – Ryan asking for federal spending to save the plant, and Romney criticizing the auto industry bailout, have nothing whatsoever to do with when the plant closed, or who was ultimately responsible.  As for whether Ryan’s description of the plant closing was accurate, here is the relevant passage from his speech:

“President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two.  Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account.  My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

“A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.”  That’s what he said in 2008.

“Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year.  It is locked up and empty to this day.  And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.”

Sorry, weeping liberals, but this passage is one hundred percent factually accurate.  You’re making utter fools of yourselves – apparently at the urging of Obama’s Orwellian “Truth Team” propaganda operation, which appears to be the source of the “Ryan lied about Janesville” talking point.

Read more

(h/t Brutally Honest)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Also, obama led them to believe he would keep the plant open if elected. He didn’t.

ObamaCare is a mandate.
ObamaCare is a tax.
ObamaCare is whatever gets your support right when Obama needs it.
Same with anything else out of Obama’s mouth.
Now Obama’s media says Obama wasn’t making a promise.
Back then it sure sounded like a promise to those whose support he needed……and got.

Good grief, how can you be honest and blame Obama for an auto plant closure which occured a month BEFORE he took office and months before he had the chance to put the auto bailout in place? Strictly speaking, Ryan didn’t lie. He carefully chose his words. But the clear intention was to charge directly that Obama was at fault for not keeping a campaign pledge. I think that most, objective and fair people would concede that this was a very misleading charge, and it wasn’t an extemporaneous utterance at a campaign stop, it was a carefully scripted highlight from the most important speech of Ryan’s life.

If Ryan has the right to mislead the voters on this issue, then Ryan’s critics have every right to set the record straight.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Good grief, how can you be honest and blame Obama for an auto plant closure which occured a month BEFORE he took office and months before he had the chance to put the auto bailout in place?

Actually, the plant closing occurred four months after the Immaculation.

The plant was not idled until April of 2009. As of September 2001, the plant was still on “stand by status” with no projected date for reactivation:

1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant open: “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.”

4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

6. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised.

Turns out Ryan was dead on accurate.

Sorry that didn’t work out better for you.

@Aye:

So, what you are saying is that not only “strictly speaking” that Ryan didn’t lie, but that Ryan didn’t “mislead” voters on that issue, and that Ryan’s critics don’t have any right to “set the record straight”(meaning, lie about it). Correct?

@johngalt:

Pretty much.

It was really amusing watching these “fact-checkers” rush to dissect Ryan’s speech last night, tripping over one another’s clown shoes in the process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/obama-could-not-have-saved-janesville-gm-plant-it-closed-before-he-took-office/

Let’s break down, then, the exact chronology of the Janesville plant closing; Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner has helpfully posted one here, which I add to below. The basic takeaway, however, is this: by December 2008, the plant had reached a point of no return where the plant would be shut down regardless of federal action. Ryan was faulting Obama for an that was event that was inevitable over a month before he took office.

February 2008: At a campaign stop in Janesville, Obama says, ”I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.” As Politifact writes, “That’s a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open — but not a promise to keep it open.”

June 3, 2008 – GM decides to close the Janesville plant, announcing that production will end by 2010, after months of rumors it might close. The press release declares, “Janesville, Wisconsin, will cease production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and of the Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon in 2010, or sooner.” Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Democrats, and Paul Ryan, whose House district includes Janesville, write the company urging it to reverse the decision.

September 2008 – Paul Ryan flies to Detroit to urge GM to reconsider its decision to close the plant. According to the Los Angeles Times, he pitched “a $224-million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.” Throughout, Ryan frequently speaks with GM chief Rick Wagoner.

Oct. 11, 2008 – Barack Obama comments on the Janesville closing. He does not promise to prevent the closing-in-progress, but instead declares he will “retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville” (emphasis mine) as president. Regardless of one’s views of the auto bailout, it has saved facilities like the Janesville one, if not the Janesville one in particular.

November/December 2008 – Congress weighs a bailout of GM and other automakers. One proposal, backed by Ryan and 31 other House Republicans, but not Mitt Romney, would have provided $15 billion in bridge loans. The bill passed the house but was not picked up by the Senate. The Bush administration declines to use TARP funds to rescue automakers, but approves a bridge loan on Dec.19, too late to save the Janesville plant.

Dec. 23, 2008 – Lacking a bailout, the plant closes. The plant holds a “final goodbye ceremony” as it builds its last SUV. In a statement to MSNBC, GM confirmed that the plant “was idled” in December. But — and this is where it gets confusing — winding down a plant takes time.

April 21, 2009 – The Janesville plant builds its last medium-duty truck and shuts down its last assembly line, completing the shutdown process started in June 2008.

In short, the Janesville shutdown commenced in June 2008. Once it was clear that aid wasn’t forthcoming in November, actual assembly lines were being shut down by December. It is true that Paul Ryan tried to get the Obama administration to save another plant, in Kenosha, which the Obama administration failed to do. Attacking Obama for that is fair. But hitting him for Janesville is dishonest. The first assembly line stopped rolling in December 2008. Workers unfurled banners declaring the “Last Vehicles Off the Janesville Line” at a “final goodbye ceremony,” The plant was closing regardless of what Obama did.

This is a very strange dispute, in a way. Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York Times under the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” and now his campaign is trying hard to fault Obama for not bailing out automakers aggressively enough. Not only that, but after the campaign’s repeated denunciation of the Obama administration for “picking winners,” Ryan is faulting Obama for not “picking a winner” not just among companies, but among plants. He’s attacking Obama for not using the government to micromanage GM’s affairs.

Hi Aye, I’ve tried (twice) to post a response to your last. It just disappeared into netherspace. If you get a chance, can you dig it out? Thanks! – L

Update 2:27 PM PDT: Thank you for recovering and posting my rebuttal link. – L

@Aye, #4:

The main thing that Paul Ryan seemed accurate about was sticking to the republican script.

Indeed, Janesville’s Isuzu line–manned by the plant’s 57 remaining production workers–continued running until April 23, 2009. Just 4 months earlier–December 23, 2008–all other Janesville lines had been closed down, resulting in the lay off of some 2,000 production and support workers. Here’s an article detailing those specifics, dating from April 21, 2009.

Arguments concerning the exact closing date distract from the bigger point that Ryan blew off altogether: Had republicans had their way rather than President Obama, there would have been no GM bailout, and every GM facility would have gone the same way as Janesville. We wouldn’t just be talking about the loss of 2,000 or so GM and support jobs directly related to Janesville. We would be talking about the loss of nearly one million American jobs, consisting of GM itself and all of its related support industries. That’s a somewhat more important issue than when the last guy out at Janesville finally turned out the lights and padlocked the gate.

Ryan also threw out the constantly repeated republican line that Affordable Health Care steals some $700 billion from Medicare funding. Neglecting to mention–as usual–that those savings will be achieved by reducing provider reimbursement levels, not covered services, and that the savings are being utilized to provide expanded health care availability for another segment of the American public. Nor did he mention that his own plan would reduce Medicare funding by a nearly identical $700 billion, with the savings shifted to non-health budget items such as increased defense spending. Republicans would accomplish this reduction not by reining in provider reimbursements, but by simply cutting program funding and handing Medicare recipients vouchers with a pat on the back and advice that they do the best they can in the competitive private health insurance market. No doubt the oldest buyer group at the highest risk for the highest health care costs will have really great luck with that.

I seldom accuse people of being liars. There’s always a chance that they truly believe what they’re saying. I’d put it this way: Ryan is a slick politician and a good salesman. Hopefully people will pay as much attention to the product itself as they do to the sales pitch, because the two things are seldom the same.

@Aye: It’s still on standby status. When a righty says a person lies, they mean that a person’s efforts were not fruitful. When the rest of us think a person is lying, we say that what they say is contrary to fact.

I think I’m finally coming to understand that it’s okay for a journalist—who is traditionally viewed a liberal—to have a valid viewpoint, as long as the right-winger who is judging this view, agrees with it (otherwise they’re an idiot).

@Greg:

Had republicans had their way rather than President Obama, there would have been no GM bailout, and every GM facility would have gone the same way as Janesville.

Ford called, Greg. Although they would have loved for your fantasy to become reality, they call BS on it.

To view all the lies told by Ryan last night, and more, search: ryan’s lies. Disclaimer: Their all from the MSM.

Question: What is exactly the mainstream media (MSM)? Mainstream, to me, connotes ‘most people’—i.e., mainstream thought, mainstream religion, etc. Anything outside mainstream would be something not common to most people—Islam is outside of mainstream religious thought. Mainstream media, therefore, would be something which is published or aired, that in not read or listened to by most people—for example, the Berkeley Barb, I guess, was a non-MSM, when I was in my youth. And we all thought everything it said was the truth. Do you think that might have any reflection of the non-MSM today?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

“Mitt Romney worte an op-ed in the New York Times under the title “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” and now his campaign is trying hard to fault Obama for not bailing out automakers aggressively enough.”

Nice try, Larry, but no cigar. Perhaps you should stick with medicine, you suck at spin.

There is a major difference between letting a company file bankruptcy, allowing them to reorganize without the oppressive boot of the unions on their necks, and closing the doors. Bankruptcy allows companies some breathing room, allows them to renegotiate union contracts (the reason the Obama administration was against GM filing bankruptcy) and puts vendors on hold for payment.

But GM, managed badly, would have been managed by a bankruptcy court had they gone that route, and the unions would have not gotten the sweet deal from the court that they got from Obama.

Instead, Obama appointed Ed Whitaker, former CEO of AT & T and who almost single handedly drove AT & T into disasterous waters, to head GM. That worked out well, didn’t it? Want to tell me what GM’s stock is today and how much money American taxpayers have lost on that deal (which could have been avoided by bankruptcy) and how much the unions workers got even fatter?

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry for someone who is suppose to be smart, you frequently miss the point. Ryan critized Obama promising something he couldn’t deliver! That is the whole point! The point of the article is that you and other lefties are arguing the responses that Ryan would have made in a debate of this subject. Problem is, Ryan was making a speech not debating!

Want to tell me what GM’s stock is today . . .

GM stock closed at 21.3 today. In late 2008 is was down to $2.92 per share (November 11, 2008) and on it’s way to becoming utterly worthless.

Greg: GM stock closed at 21.3 today. In late 2008 is was down to $2.92 per share (November 11, 2008) and on it’s way to becoming utterly worthless.

More parallel universe “truths” again, Greg? Had GM gone thru a traditional bankruptcy restructuring, how do you know that it may not live to profit another day? But let’s leave your parallel universes aside for a moment, and address your bizarre joy at $21.3 compare to $2.92 in Nov ’08. What’s the difference? No taxpayer cash at risk. Those who would either lose via GM going down, or win a bit further down line with a restructuring, would have been willing investors. Key word? *Willing*

The taxpayer had no options or say.

And that $21.3 you’re overjoyed with? The stock needs to be more like $53 per share just to break even for the taxpayer.

So it seems you are applauding the nation taking a bath on a bad stock investment merely because you are happy that some private investors didn’t. The jobs? Well, workers would find other jobs, and if GM were worth saving as a viable entity, it wouldn’t have needed the central government, usurping bankruptcy, laws just to give the UAW a gift.

@Greg: Arguments concerning the exact closing date distracts from the bigger point that Ryan blew off all together: Had republicans had their way rather than President Obama, there would have been no GM bailout, and every GM facility would have gone the same way as Janesville.

WTF??

First of all, Janesville had about 1200 employees, many of whom were moved to other plants, or transferred to Ohio, Texas or Michigan.

Secondly, Obama offered up the nation’s money, seizing it from taxpayers who could not afford it, and usurped federal bankruptcy laws to award ownership to the unions. That’s his “fix”.

Now, go back and read Ryan’s suggested “fix”, per ol’ Ezra himself:

Paul Ryan flies to Detroit to urge GM to reconsider its decision to close the plant. According to the Los Angeles Times, he pitched “a $224-million proposal that included roughly $50 million in state enterprise zone tax credits, local government grants worth $22 million and major contract concessions from the United Auto Workers union local.”

Gee… which would be better for the nation and a better business decision? To allow this to be run via State tax credits and local government grants, plus reigning in the unions that tank these industries, so the business had a chance to start with a clean slate using the funds of those who would best benefit from their investment? Or to throw hand out the taxpayers cash, for a loss, and *still* not give the plant a chance to survive in a normal business envirnment?

uh… lemme think…

Unions and their idiocy at protecting inferior and incompetent workers are a drain on a legitimate business. Case in point? The most recent case of a $2.1 mil tax fraud and the Oregon Dept of Revenue. Krystle Marie Reyes files a Turbo Tax return, falsely claiming $3 mil in income. The Oregon Dept of Revenue employees do not review her tax return… not just once but FOUR times. The State approves a $2.1 mil refund, and Turbo Tax issues Ms. Reyes a prepaid Visa debit card for the full amount.

Ms. Reyes goes shopping…. after spending about $200K, the idiot reports the card lost and she gets caught. And that’s the *only* reason she did.

The four revenue department employees? Three are reprimanded with a slap on the wrist, and one is forced to take a pay cut from $45,396 a year to $41,208. Big whoop…

In the private sector, all four of their tuckuses would have been out on the street and in an unemployment line… as well they should. But no…. and why? The SEIU Local 503 union, of course.

If department director Jim Bucholz had his way, this person would have been fired. However, he said Wednesday the state’s labor lawyers didn’t think it would fly in spite of the harsh accusations leveled against the employee.

“I really did think we were headed to termination on this,” Bucholz told the joint Legislative Revenue Committee.

However, the attorneys told him to count on “almost certain reversal” from the Employee Relations Board. In the end, he said, “I made the decision to do what was legally defensible” and kept the employee.

The bipartisan committee couldn’t believe it. Given the magnitude of the error, they said, and the employee’s own admission that he or she had not even opened the file containing the refund approval document, this should have been an easy decision: The employee should have been let go.

“What does it take to get fired?” asked Rep. Matt Wand, R-Troutdale.

Bucholz explained that under the contract for members of SEIU Local 503 and according to legal precedent, the severity of the error doesn’t matter. He said that in order fire an employee immediately, the department has to prove the employee intended to do something wrong or that they broke the law.

“In order to skip steps in the discipline process, it has to be something any darn fool wouldn’t have done,” Bucholz said. “Inappropriate use of the Internet,” would be one instance, he said. Another would be looking at private tax information without authorization. In short, offenses that are patently obvious to any employee.

In this case, the mishap could be attributed to “poor judgment” and “mistakes,” Bucholz said, but not to an obvious intention to do something wrong. The amount of harm caused was irrelevant, he said.

The SEIU doesn’t care if incompetent employees lose the State $2.1 mil in a single incident – heaven knows how many more are slipping thru the cracks. The contract says you can’t fire ’em.

Moral of the fable? Ryan was right on target with the more feasible suggestion of aid to Janesville via tax credits and State (not federal) grants… and most importantly, getting nanny union agreements out of the way so that the plant could actually function at a profit in the free market.

And that’s what should be the topic of discussion… the poor and risky choices of bailouts made by this economically illiterate POTUS.

Hi Retire,

As both of us know, the auto bailout has been extensively argued (including by me on this blog and, I’m sure, by you, as well).

I’m not going to rehash the entire case, except to state two points that I consider to be the most important, regarding your comments:

1. First, GM is now stronger than it’s been in decades. Long term, the stock prospects are good. It’s currently trading at only 6 times earnings, which is a quite low valuation. The taxpayers are, at minimum, going to recoup all the money that Obama put into the company, following the initial Bush/Cheney “investment.”

2. Secondly, “the unions” are the workers. So it was the workers that actually got a sweetheart deal, for a change, while investors got a haircut. Investors take risks. Sometimes they lose. In this case (i.e. the teeth of the worst recession since the Great Depression), it made more sense to bail out the workers than to bail out the investors, as a cold economic decision.

Just as an aside, couldn’t you have simply made the points you did without the personal digs? I enjoy discussing these things with you; you are smart and informed. But the snarkiness is tedious.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@Liberal1 (objectivity): To view all the lies told by Ryan last night, and more, search: ryan’s lies.

You really are a one trick monkey on a search engine, aren’t you Zero? Wasn’t that your not-so-eloquent search phrase for Romney as well? LOL

@MataHarley, #16:

No doubt companies like Bain could have turned a quick profit from the situation, making their investors quite happy. I suspect, however, that the million or so American workers who didn’t find themselves suddenly looking for jobs that didn’t exist along with the millions who were already doing might have different feelings.

Particularly if republicans had also managed to jerk their unemployment compensation out from under them, and to deprive their state and local governments of any stimulus fund relief.

@Greg: GM stock closed at 21.3 today.

And, pray tell, Greg.
What would GM stock need to sell at for us US TAXPAYERS to break even?
$43/share, that’s what.
And that’s not counting the fact that every BONDHOLDER (think retirees) who was in line ahead of Obama’s butt-buddies, the union, were screwed.

Romney has stated that, if he’s elected, he’ll immediately unload the government’s GM holdings. No doubt that would both maximize the taxpayers’ return, and help any retirees having GM stock in their retirement accounts.

BTW, republicans still haven’t explained exactly how they’re going to increase defense spending, slash everyone’s tax rates, privatize Social Security while still paying current retirees their full benefits (without adding to the demand on general revenues), and simultaneously balance the federal budget. Apparently this will involve Congress changing some of the fundamental rules of arithmetic, because there’s nothing else that will make it all add up.

The jobs? Well, workers would find other jobs, and if GM were worth saving as a viable entity, it wouldn’t have needed the central government, usurping bankruptcy, laws just to give the UAW a gift.

I strongly encourage republicans to express such sentiments as often and as loudly as possible–particularly in Ohio.

@MataHarley: The stock needs to be more like $53 per share just to break even for the taxpayer.

OOPS!
I had written $43/share.
You are correct, however.
It requires $53/share for us unwilling TAXPAYERS to break even!
And that’s after our loses if we happened to have also been investors in GM who were thrown under the Obama bus in favor of his filthy union leaders.

@Nan G: It wasn’t just the investors that were screwed. Salaried employes were really screwed because they are not union and likely would not contribute to Obama. http://kokomotribune.com/local/x20298483/Delphi-salaried-retirees-file-suit This may even open the bankruptcy settlement of GM. This would also allow the investors who were illigally blackmailed out of their priority place. The people of the US deserve justice. Obama did not follow the laws and now the people are seeking justice. Also, the financials are not nearly as good as Larry seems to think! They are expected to be headed towards another bankruptcy within 2-3 years. By then, Mitt will have to deal with it.

@Greg: Greg, the retirees who had GM stock in their portfolio lost it when Obama screwed them during the bankruptcy.

@Randy:

And let’s not forget what happened to GM dealers all over the country whose thriving businesses were selectively closed down based on their political persuasion.

@Randy:
Thanks for that reminder, Randy.
It appears that, had Obama not insisted many Executive Departments update their entire fleets of autos, GM would ALREADY be ”under.”
One federal agency has almost as many fleet autos as they have employees!
Either 9,000 or 11,000…..memory fades.

But links don’t fade.
More here:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/16/gm-could-be-heading-for-bankruptcy-again/

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Please, continue to show your socialist side. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand that without investors in a company, there will be no workers.

Now, Mata has laid it all out for you; GM stock needs to reach $53 in order for taxpayers just to recoup the money they have “invested” in GM. GM stock went public on Nov. 17, 2010 at $33.00. Today it closed at $21.11, and has lost 49% of its Dow value, compared to the DJIA that has risen almost 20% in the same length of time.

Now, let’s take those UAW “workers” that Obama bailed out. They signed a new three year contract in 2011 that gave them a 22% increase in starting pay, from $15.78 to $19.28 at the end of the three years, a $5,000.00 bonus to every employee upon the acceptance of the contract, a $1,000.00/yr bonus for the next three years, even greater health insurance benefits (now one of Obama’s Cadillac plans that the UAW workers could be taxed on), and an additional “$65,000. bonus for skilled trades who retire/voluntarily quite between Nov. 1 and March 31, 2012” (taken from the UAW/GM website).

The GM bailout was nothing more than a union bailout dumped on the taxpayers backs. While other Americans are losing their jobs, or if they are fortunate enough to have a job, not seeing wage increases and are watching as their hours are cut by companies trying to stay viable under this administration, UAW/GM workers are getting fatter. Where is that shared sacrifice that Obama keeps bloviating about?

Yes, GM should have been allowed to file bankruptcy. But if it did, the union would have had to sit by as it took a haircut that it was not willing to take, so all those campaign donations to Obama ’08 paid off, and the taxpayer got the shaft.

Tell me, Larry, since when is the interest of one group, the UAW workers, become more important that the nation as a whole since it is the nation as a whole, and not just UAW workers, that will have to pay off the GM debt?

An artistic individual took Paul Ryan’s words and created a fine picture worth a thousand words.

Hopeless

@Greg:

I strongly encourage republicans to express such sentiments as often and as loudly as possible–particularly in Ohio.

Typical for a liberal/progressive. Everything is about the next election and retaining power, rather than doing what is right.

@Greg: I strongly encourage republicans to express such sentiments as often and as loudly as possible–particularly in Ohio.

Sing along with me here, Greg…

16 Tril, and whaddaya get…
another day older and deeper in debt
St Barry don’t you call me ‘cus I can’t go
I owe my soul to the Congressional floor

The point? Any employee of a business that goes bankrupt due to poor management, and being beaten down by the unions, is going to find another job. Should the GM employees be immune to the fate of the rest of us?

Or are you now admitting that not only did Obama not rescue Janesville as he promised while campaigning, but there are no jobs for anyone to get elsewhere in the private sector? What? After four years and trillions added to the debt for the spending plus the interest on the borrowing for that spending? Tell me it ain’t so…

How wonderful a plan and recovery… let’s do four more years of it, eh? /sarc

Please do explain exactly why one chosen industry and their employees are so sacred as to be protected by taxpayers, falsely keeping their business and jobs afloat over others?

No doubt companies like Bain could have turned a quick profit from the situation, making their investors quite happy.

That’s what venture capital companies do, Greg. They front investor cash for promising businesses, giving them start up opportunities. Or if the business is so irreversibly redeemable, they make the most of liquidation, maximizing the profits for their investors and stockholders. That would be the GM employees, pensioners, firemen, teachers, people with 401Ks and others who had GM shares. And all without saddling the nation with added debt and interest. Amazing concept, eh?

For whatever market demand hole was left by not having their products, another company would have filled that void. That’s the way free enterprise and market demand works. Instead, the taxpayers have gone into further serious and frivolous debt by merely staving off the inevitable… just as paying the State’s payroll with the bailout money was a postponement of the predictable downsizing of government that must happen.

“America has been patient. Americans have supported this president in good faith.”

Who does this guy think he’s kidding? Republicans have resisted everything this president has attempted since the moment he walked into the Oval Office. They’ve even resisted things that they themselves previously suggested.

Does the America we want borrow a trillion dollars from China?

Interesting. With the Bush tax cuts, that’s exactly how we financed the invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. He’s proposing that we cut taxes even further.

Are its schools lagging behind the rest of the developed world?

They are already. It’s been getting worse for a decade. Their solution is to cut education budgets.

And does the America we want succumb to resentment and division?

Refer to item one. For people who don’t want it, they’ve sure been doing a lot to encourage it.

That’s funny, Greg… I think you missed an opportunity that even I caught. This POTUS and his Republican crowd are mimicking your favorite meme… they are “the party of no”. LOL

Frankly, I thought that was a really poor speech all the way around. A couple of good spots, but only mediocre good. But then, he wasn’t addressing the conservatives that he cares nothing about. He was addressing the O’disgruntled, hoping to take their votes away from Obama.

I swear… don’t think I’ve ever seen such a lackluster and unenthusiastic nomination and convention in my lifetime. You have to know it’s a tough room when Condi, Rubio and Mia Love… as well as his own #2 sidekick… get better applause and excitement than the ticket topper.

Sorry. That’s all way off topic. Mr. Romney’s speech has left me in a rather negative state of mind, so I think perhaps I’ll refrain from further comment this evening.

@MataHarley, #34:

Yep. They gave some exceptional speeches. And I really enjoyed Clint Eastwood. He’s got an amazing sense of how he’s being perceived by an audience. He repeatedly made me wonder if he was an old guy on the verge of losing it, and then revealed each instance to be a masterful demonstration of impeccable timing.

Well, maybe we’ll have better speeches from DNC speakers.
There’ll be

Harry Reid:
“My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway, in the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”

John Kerry:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

John Lewis:
…..the system of citizenship checks was “an attempt to take us back to another dark period in our history when people were denied access to the ballot box simply because of their race or nationality.”

Nancy Pelosi:
Every week we don’t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.

Rahm Emanuel:
You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Emanuel Cleaver:
On Biden’s, “put y’all back in chains,” said, “Biden appear [s] to have been throwing out these words in order to somehow attract dumb African-Americans who, if they hear the words ‘chains,’ are going to automatically vote for him and President Obama.”

Judy Chu:
“The ‘c’ word is for Asian Americans like the ‘n’ word is for African Americans.”
(She was referring to: Chink: noun – a crack, cleft, or fissure, a narrow opening. Also used to describe a weak point when used in the term “chink in the armor,” as in an otherwise invulnerable person’s only weakness. See Achilles heel.)

And this is only a partial list of DNC speakers.

This thread has gotten away from the original post. Let me return for a moment. Ryan, in his speech, made the point that Obama made a campaign promise that he didn’t deliver. The old media silly socialist hacks then obfuscated with a distortion of what Ryan actually said and claimed he lied.

This is becoming commonplace. The priests of the progressive religion claim a monopoly on truth and their congregation dutifully comes here to convert the wayward souls. Most often, the priests in the old media churches claim that simple disagreement with them on principle is an untruth. In the case of the auto plant closure portion of Ryan’s speech, it’s more of a direct deception on the part of the church.

Ed Morrissey covers the issue fairly comprehensively here: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/ but I’m sure the true faith worshipers will still call Ryan a liar.

We all learned from the last progressive pope that the truth is dependent on your personal definition of words like “is”.