Fact checks.....

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-slips-vice-presidents-debate-023354584--election.html

BIDEN: "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view."
RYAN: "There were requests for more security."
THE FACTS: Ryan is right, judging by testimony from Obama administration officials at the hearing a day earlier.


BIDEN: "We went out and rescued General Motors."
THE FACTS: Actually, the auto bailout of General Motors and Chrysler began under President George W. Bush. The Obama administration continued and expanded it.

BIDEN, when asked who would pay more taxes in Obama's second term: "People making a million dollars or more."
THE FACTS: Obama's proposed tax increase reaches farther down the income ladder than millionaires. He wants to roll back Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.


RYAN: "What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals."
THE FACTS: The requirement under the health care law that most employers cover birth control free of charge to female employees does not apply to churches, houses of worship, or other institutions directly involved in propagating a religious faith. It does apply to church-affiliated institutions such as hospitals and charities that serve the general public.


BIDEN: "Romney said 'No, let Detroit go bankrupt.'"
THE FACTS: GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has gotten endless grief through the campaign for the headline put on his November 2008 opinion essay that he wrote for The New York Times. But his point was never that he wanted the auto industry to go down the tubes.
Romney opposed using government money to bail out Chrysler and General Motors, instead favoring privately financed bankruptcy restructuring.

RYAN: "We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people.
THE FACTS: Neither President Barack Obama nor anyone else in his administration ever considered the Syrian leader a "reformer." The oft-repeated charge stems from an interview Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave in March 2011 noting that "many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer." She did not endorse that view. The comment was widely perceived to be a knock at senators such as John Kerry of Massachusetts who maintained cordial relations with Assad in the months leading up to his crackdown on protesters.
 
Oh, but Biden was just being Biden, didn't you hear?

Like Romney was being Romney by dismissing 47% of the electorate and believing in magic stones and underpants.
Funny how he doesn't say much about that, don't you think? Maybe he thinks it might lose him votes!

Wrong again Romney. Your followers would vote for a spaceman... oh... they are...lol. What a bunch of idiots.
Have you any idea how the rest of the world views the American right wing? No, and why should you? You have no bloody idea where the rest of the world is.

Tell you what Dix, if Romney was black you would be well and truly fucked wouldn't you?
 
Woodward is a bit of a hack. His "fact checking" is suspect and speculative. But again, you guys are cherry picking him same as you did last time. For instance...

BIDEN: "Romney said 'No, let Detroit go bankrupt.'"

THE FACTS: GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has gotten endless grief through the campaign for the headline put on his November 2008 opinion essay that he wrote for The New York Times. But his point was never that he wanted the auto industry to go down the tubes.

Romney opposed using government money to bail out Chrysler and General Motors, instead favoring privately financed bankruptcy restructuring. His prescription seemed improbable. Automakers were hemorrhaging cash and the banking system was in crisis, so private money wasn't available. Without the government money, it's likely both companies would have gone out of business. Romney did propose government-guaranteed private loans for both companies after bankruptcy.


You left out the text in red. I am not sure what the hell Woodward's point is anyway. Apparently, Romney said what Biden claimed and so it is factual. Most of the rest is just Woodward's opinion and apparently he is concerned about whether it causes Romney any grief. He says, Romney's "point was never that he wanted the auto industry to go down the tubes." So it is Biden's fault that many don't know what "go bankrupt" implies? I just don't get this one.
 
ryan-bubble-4.jpg
 
Why would Romney propose government-guaranteed private loans for both companies after bankruptcy if he wanted the auto industry to 'down the tubes'...?
 
More fact checks...

9:50 — Tax plan adds up? Asked by the moderator if he can “guarantee” that Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds up, Ryan says, “Six studies have verified this plan adds up.” Among the “studies” included in that figure are two Op-Eds and white papers written by the campaign or economists connected to the campaign. The most comprehensive and well-respected study done so far from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center finds that the numbers do not add up. Not by a long shot.

9:45 — Social Security and Medicare are not going broke:
“Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts,” Ryan says. Actually both are disputable and neither are facts. People have been saying Social Security is going to go bankrupt for decades, it hasn’t yet, and it’s not going to. It’s currently projected to be fine for at least 40 years. Medicare is in more peril, but it is still nowhere close to anywhere near going bankrupt anytime soon. And Obamacare actually extended the life of the Medicare trust fund.

9:40 — Ryan’s healthcare plan is bipartisan?
Ryan claimed that his Medicare proposal was co-sponsored by a Democrat. He was referring to Sen. Rod Wyden of Oregon, who did create a plan to change Medicare, but once Republicans adapted it, he distanced himself from the bill this summer. In response to Romney’s continued claims on the campaign trail that the bill was bipartisan, Wyden told the Oregonian in August, “Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’”

9:35 — What about in your own district?
Ryan attacked Biden because the unemployment rate has gone up in his hometown of Scranton, Pa., under Obama and Biden. But the unemployment rate has gone up in Paul Ryan’s home district as well during his tenure in Congress. It was 3.8 percent when Ryan first took office in 1999 and was at 9.2 percent this August.

9: 30 — Paul Ryan requested stimulus money:
Joe Biden calls out Ryan for sending two letters requesting stimulus funds for his district, despite attacking the program. “We do that. We advocate for constituents’ interests,” Ryan said in response. That’s a new answer for Ryan, who previously blamed his staff. It’s actually his third answer. First, he said, “I never asked for stimulus.” Then, after being caught, he blamed his staff for allegedly mishandling the economy. “After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled. This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently,” he said in a statement. So his defending of the requests tonight is a bit of a departure. It’s also worth noting that Ryan supported the 2002 stimulus package proposed by George W. Bush.

9:25 — Cars:
“Mitt Romney is a car guy,” Ryan says earnestly. Mitt Romney also wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

9:10 — Marines:
Paul Ryan, noting that there’s a Marine detachment at the U.S. Embassy in Paris asks, “Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment?” in Libya. The infatuation with the Marines belies a deep misunderstanding of the role the service members play in foreign embassies. The Corps actually protects information, not personnel. And with only a little over 1,000 Marines serving as guards around the world, there are very few in any diplomatic post.

9:05 — Diplomatic security:
The debate opened up with a discussion of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in Libya, with Paul Ryan attacking Biden for the Obama administration supposedly not doing enough to protect diplomats. But Ryan’s budget plan would cut diplomatic security and House Republicans have already tried to do so. “For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration,” the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank reported. In 2009, Ryan was one of 156 Republicans members to voted for an amendment to “reduce funding for Diplomatic and Consular Programs by $1.2 billion,” as the official record states. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who has been leading the charge on Libya in Congress, admitted on CNN this week that he “absolutely” voted to cut the diplomatic security budget.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/live_fact_check_vp_debate/
 
More fact checks...

9:45 — Social Security and Medicare are not going broke:[/B] “Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts,” Ryan says. Actually both are disputable and neither are facts. People have been saying Social Security is going to go bankrupt for decades, it hasn’t yet, and it’s not going to. It’s currently projected to be fine for at least 40 years. Medicare is in more peril, but it is still nowhere close to anywhere near going bankrupt anytime soon. And Obamacare actually extended the life of the Medicare trust fund.


How can you say Social Security, and Medicare aren't going broke when we have a more than $16 trillion debt? If we were forced to pay up today, some real truths/crap would hit the fan.
 
How can you say Social Security, and Medicare aren't going broke when we have a more than $16 trillion debt? If we were forced to pay up today, some real truths/crap would hit the fan.

Hell, the moderator said Social Security and Medicare are going broke.
 
How can you say Social Security, and Medicare aren't going broke when we have a more than $16 trillion debt? If we were forced to pay up today, some real truths/crap would hit the fan.

There is suppose to be 2.6 Triliion in the SS fund...
 
There is suppose to be 2.6 Triliion in the SS fund...

They spent that when they were trying to convince people that a projected "surplus" existed, even though we borrowed money to pay interest. (Not a surplus if you have to borrow money to pay the bills, no matter how much you project it is). The funds in SS are now just IOUs and the money has long been spent in the General Funds. To be fair this "funny business" began under Reagan, it just was fully completed under Clinton.

It was the reason for the "lockbox" you heard about with Gore.
 
Hell, the moderator said Social Security and Medicare are going broke.


Which itself is problematic. Neither is going "broke" and cannot go broke unless there are no people working. The trust funds will be exhausted at certain periods but the programs themselves will not "go broke." With relatively minor modifications, SS will be fine. Medicare and Meidcaid (which wasn't even discussed last night or in the first debate -- I guess it's just a poor people issue or something) are in bigger trouble, but the "going broke" frame is inaccurate.
 
Which itself is problematic. Neither is going "broke" and cannot go broke unless there are no people working. The trust funds will be exhausted at certain periods but the programs themselves will not "go broke." With relatively minor modifications, SS will be fine. Medicare and Meidcaid (which wasn't even discussed last night or in the first debate -- I guess it's just a poor people issue or something) are in bigger trouble, but the "going broke" frame is inaccurate.

That's called "going broke" dumbass. If there is no money in the trust fund, the benefits can't be paid, there are nowhere near enough people currently working to do that. You're going to have 70 million Baby Boomers retired and around 150 million working, that's 2 workers for every retiree... how do you pay their benefits without the trust fund?
 
That's called "going broke" dumbass. If there is no money in the trust fund, the benefits can't be paid, there are nowhere near enough people currently working to do that. You're going to have 70 million Baby Boomers retired and around 150 million working, that's 2 workers for every retiree... how do you pay their benefits without the trust fund?

Maybe you need to define what the "going broke" means to you. I don't consider paying 80% of scheduled benefits into perpetuity "going broke."
 
Which itself is problematic. Neither is going "broke" and cannot go broke unless there are no people working. The trust funds will be exhausted at certain periods but the programs themselves will not "go broke." With relatively minor modifications, SS will be fine. Medicare and Meidcaid (which wasn't even discussed last night or in the first debate -- I guess it's just a poor people issue or something) are in bigger trouble, but the "going broke" frame is inaccurate.

Not only hasn't SS gone broke or is 'going broke' but it never contributed to our national debt...EVER....it's a very good program and people like it. The right has hated it from it's inception and want to get it's hand on the money for their own gains...
 
Maybe you need to define what the "going broke" means to you. I don't consider paying 80% of scheduled benefits into perpetuity "going broke."

When all the Baby Boomers are retired, you won't be able to pay 80% of benefits into perpetuity. And if current workers are only paying the current retirees pensions, where is their own retirement going to come from? At some point, the pyramid scheme collapses, and someone is left with no retirement pension. The system is going broke, and if it's not reformed, it will tank. We are at a crucial point, we can currently fix the problems and make it solvent, but time is running out for that option. As of now, current retirees will be paid, but we're going to get to the point where that won't be possible.
 
Back
Top