"Face the Nation" transcripts, September 9, 2012: Obama, Ryan, Plouffe

So the problem, Norah, is we've led. We wanted to have a bipartisan agreement. We got that. And the president hasn't fulfilled his end of the bipartisan agreement.

The goal was never that these defense cuts actually occur, the goal is that we get to work and cut spending so that we prevent those defense cuts. We've done that. The president hasn't.

O'DONNELL: Congressman, it's my understanding that as part of the Budget Control Act there was not just the sequestration, the defense sequestration, but there is also $1 trillion in immediate spending cuts, which included the defense cuts, almost $400 billion that were proposed by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Mr. Dempsey, as well as Secretary Panetta. And you also voted for those.

And now you're saying that you didn't vote for them?

RYAN: We can get into this nomenclature. I voted for the Budget Control Act but the Obama administration proposed $470 billion in defense cuts. We don't agree with that. Our budget rejected that. And then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts.

O'DONNELL: Right, it's a trillion in defense spending. And you voted for it.

RYAN: No, Norah, I voted for the Budget Control Act.

O'DONNELL: That included defense spending.

RYAN: Norah, you're mistaken.

I do not support the Obama budget. I do not support the Obama $478 billion in cuts. So, number one, that's half of the trillion we don't support. Our budget reflected that.

Number two, we passed legislation to reflect what we want as part of the Budget Control Act, which is to cut spending in other areas of government instead of the Pentagon, that bill is sitting in the senate right now.

President Obama has done nothing to support it, to oppose it. He hasn't even shown us how he's going to implement this sequester. And if you go back and read the tape. If you go back and read Bob Woodward's book, the reason the defense cuts are in the sequester as they are, was that the insistence of the Obama administration. O'DONNELL: Let's turn now to foreign policy.

President Obama said in his convention speech you may have heard. He talked about you and Governor Romney as newcomers to foreign policy to subscribe to a blustering and blundering approach. Do you have a response to that?

RYAN: I think this is what people do when they have nothing else to offer. I think these are the kind of name calling you're going to get from the president. I have more foreign policy experience coming into this job than President Obama did coming into his.

Mitt Romney and I share the view that we need peace through strength, that we need to have a strong national defense. I wrote the bill to prevent the sequester from happening because we think those devastating defense cuts will dramatically weaken our national security. We think the president's been wrong on Iran. And we think he's dragged his feet on Iran, and as a result of his poor Iran policy, they're that much closer to a nuclear weapon.

Now, the president has had some success. Osama bin Laden is a perfect example. But by and large, I think what the president is doing here is he can't run on his record. So he's going to be offering us this kind of rhetoric.

O'DONNELL: Can you explain how do you have more foreign policy experience than Senator Obama did? He was on the foreign relations committee. What is your foreign policy experience?

RYAN: I've been in congress for 14 years. He was in the senate for far, far less time that that. I voted-- you know, Norah, I voted to send men and women to war. I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I've met with our troops to get their perspectives. I've been to the funerals. I've talked to the widows. I've talked to the wives, the moms and dads. That's something. That matters.

I take this very seriously. I've done doing this for 14 years.

O'DONNELL: Who do you America's number one enemy is?

RYAN: Well, I think a nuclear Iran is our biggest foreign policy threat today.

O'DONNELL The reason I ask you that is Mitt Romney was criticized during the Democratic National Convention for saying Russia is without question our number one geopolitical foe. So do you disagree with Mitt Romney?

RYAN: No, I think what he was saying was among the other powers -- China and Russia -- that Russia stands a great threat.

Look, I think sending our foreign policy decisions to be cleared through the U.N. security council where we're giving Iran and China -- excuse me, Russia and China, veto clout over us, that's not good policy. So what we have done through our foreign policy for the Obama administration is we've increase the clout in the card of Russia and China. I think that was a mistake.

O'DONNELL: Finally, let me ask you about the time that you gave in terms of when you were asked about running a marathon and you said you had run a two hour and 50-something marathon. It turned out of course it was over four hours. You know, when I first heard that, I thought he must have misspoke or perhaps he didn't remember, but a lot of people-- this keeps coming up. I mean, you are a fitness buff. You are a numbers guy. How did you make that mistake?

RYAN: It was an honest mistake. I was 20 years old. I hurt my back when I was about 23 or 24 and I had to quit running. I herniated a disk in my back. So I just lost perspective on what normal times are.

I ran an ordinary race and I thought the answer I gave was an ordinary time. Obviously, it wasn't. It was 22 years ago. You know, I think that's happening here is the president doesn't have a positive story to say, so they're trying to use this kind of rhetoric. My brother's been busting my chops ever since I said that because he is an actual marathon runner and he's been saying, "are you crazy? That's crazy fast."

Look, it was just an honest mistake.

O'DONNELL: All right. But remember, everybody was criticizing Al Gore when he said he invented the Internet whether fairly or unfairly.

RYAN: 22 years ago -- I stopped running a long time ago because I had these back issues and I lost perspective of what ordinary times are.

O'DONNELL: All right, Congressman Ryan who has run, to be clear, an over four hour marathon. Thank you, congressman. Good to see you. We appreciate it.

RYAN: You too, Norah. Have a good one.

O'DONNELL: And we'll be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'DONNELL: Joining us now from the campaign trail in Orlando, White House senior adviser David Plouffe.

David, good morning.

DAVID PLOUFFE, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Good morning, Norah.

O'DONNELL: You heard the Congressman Paul Ryan. He says it's the president's job to prevent these devastating cuts to defense that are part of sequestration. Your response.

PLOUFFE: Well, it was interesting to hear Congressman Ryan. I mean, you asked him questions. He voted for the sequester. He voted for the Budget Control Act. He was running away from them with the kind of pace I guess he ran in that fictional marathon you asked him about.

Getting our fiscal house in order, dealing with sequester, is very simple: we need compromise. President Clinton spoke about this, I thought, very eloquently at our convention Wednesday that Barack Obama, President Obama is the one person in Washington who is very committed to compromise. And I think if we can have a balanced approach here, where we cut more spending, we can reform entitlements in a safe way, not by voucherizing Medicare, but getting savings out of the system, and ask a little bit more from the wealthy, we can not only deal with the sequester, we can have a long-term fiscal package here that will really help our economy grow.

O'DONNELL: You heard Paul Ryan mention the new Bob Woodward book called, "The Price of Politics" that the defense cuts, the defense sequestration was put in place at the insistence of the Obama administration. Is that incorrect?

PLOUFFE: Well, first of all, you know, Congressman Ryan, you know, Mitt Romney's running mate, voted for this sequester. As you said he put out a statement praising it. So, you know, they're acting as if they had nothing to do with this. They voted for this.

And this sequester, the way it was dealt with was to make sure that both defense spending as well as domestic programs were part of the sequester is common. It's been used through the years in congressional action. So this is something that was done to force action. Now, Congress is trying -- Republicans in Congress are trying to run away from the responsibility they signed up for.

So, again, at the end of the day, you have got to step back, everyone, whether it's the Simpson-Bowles Commission, other independent analysts who have looked at our fiscal situation, say the only way we're going to solve our deficit challenges is to take a balanced approach.

And so the barrier to solving our fiscal challenges, the barrier to the sequester, is Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and too many Republicans in Congress, not all, but too many refuse to ask anything of the very wealthy.

They want to put all the burden on the middle class, all the burden on seniors, and that's not the right way forward for our country.

O'DONNELL: David, I'm sure a lot of Americans are sitting at home scratching their heads and saying, boy, this is deja vu all over again, didn't we just have this discussion about the debt ceiling? And the president and Republicans decided to hold hands and jump off this cliff together.

Everybody agreed on these defense cuts, the sequestration, in order to -- as an enforcement mechanism so both sides, the president and the Republicans in Congress, would come back to the table. And, yet, neither side has done that. Where is the president's leadership on this so that this country does not get stuck with another downgrade or something like that that could lead to another recession?

PLOUFFE: Well, you know, you have to step back. Obviously the debt ceiling was not a pleasant situation. One thing that did emerge out of it was we cooperated with the Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress to cut over $1 trillion in spending. It's a very significant down payment.

The president has a plan to reduce the deficit by a total of $4 trillion, a balanced approach. You know, we have some deadlines coming up, obviously, after the election. You have got a sequester deadline. You have got tax cuts expiring. Those tend to be forcing actions in Washington.

And I do think one of the messages that is going to come through in this election is the American people want us to compromise and they want a balanced approach. I don't think anybody -- this president has been -- you know, we've taken some heat from our own party for our willingness to compromise.

• « Previous Page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next Page »

[littlehouse18]

Paul Ryan knocked it out of the park! He did a fantastic job shooting down the obviously partisan and misleading questions from O'Donnell, and explaining what is really going on. We need this man as our leader! After gaining experience as VP he would be a truly great president. A rarity in politics - both brilliant and sincere.

[sjc_1]

OMG, are you brain damaged? Ryan contradicted himself over and over. He thinks talking in circles will get him elected. He is NOT the person to be in public office at the national level.

[theZengerite]

Wow! The biggest story in the country is the minuscule job growth for August, and there isn't one mention of it in sixty minutes of Face The Nation. 96,000 jobs added to the economy for the month is the payoff for the Keynesian policies of the Obama administation.
The DNC claims that 4.5 million jobs have been added to the economy in the last 29 months. If that number is put up against the population growth in the U.S., which will excede 9 million by election day (bls.gov statistics), that 4.5 million is puny. This comparison, of course, leaves out the about 8 million jobs that were lost during the Great Recession; left out the way that the lackey liberal media is leaving them out. The plight of the unemployed is being ignored by America's mainstream media.
Americans aren't buying their slanted "news" stories anymore (literally), and they are quickly becoming "old news".

[runnerbp]

Wow! A news person asking for a candidate to explain why he is lying about his voting record. You're complaining Sir??? So what would Paul Ryan say about creating jobs? He'd tell you a fantasy number like 12 million new jobs but will NEVER tell you what pain and sacrifice would be required using any thing that looks like a number.

[sjc_1]

The only way Romney could create jobs is to get President Obama's jobs proposal from September 2011 passed by Congress. Economists say it would create 2 million new jobs.

[TRV2009]

"Both ends of the Republican ticket defended the math underlying their economic proposals in interviews aired Sunday, insisting that cutting taxes for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes will spur economic growth" is unreal. Here is my analysis:

Ryan-Romney can't answer to this question: Name any part of deduction which should be eliminated, and where is the evidence that Ryan-Romney's tax loopholes for the rich would cut the deficit?

It's funny that Ryan- Romney said that some people from Harvard, Columbia,...said that. The fact is that any university has decent people and also has crooked politicians.

As an independent I can't believe in what they said.

[Rabbitofthehighplains]

The most critical issue facing the the US and the West today is the ongoing program of genocide being carried out against White people. This program is being carried out as follows:

1) Immigrants from the "developing world" are flooded into the West.

2) These immigrants and any national minorities are then forced integrated with the White populations, communities, and institutions. This is made law by removing freedom of association, creating affirmative action and requiring racial quotas. Whites who wish to move from these dangerous, integrated communities are forced to live in expensive suburban or exurban areas (which will be forced integrated over time anyway) which makes having large families difficult. Anyone who objects to this is denied economic opportunities, status, and in some cases freedom itself.

3) An information campaign is implemented which demonizes Western culture and history. The old myths that helped form the identities of the West are replaced with new mythologies that make Whites into enemies of humanity and non-whites (like MLK) as morally superior heroes. People who oppose mass immigration and forced integration are portrayed as mentally ill, evil, and lacking positive human qualities. Miscegenation is encouraged and glorified. The people of the West are constantly reminded of the inevitable brown future and that anything short of celebrating this makes you a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

This system leads to the end of the White-European people.

Article 2 of the UN convention on Genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All other issues are subordinate to the biggest program of genocide ever carried out.

So called "anti-racism" is really just a code word for anti-White.

[TRV2009]

Sixth, the Obama Administration's average national debt is $1.4 trillion, which is exactly the what the patriot millionaires and billionaires can take of under Obama's plan. Moreover, taxes on the middle class and more generally those with income less than $1 million, corporate taxes, sale taxes. and fraud prevention may contribute about $1 trillion to the government revenues. Furthermore, the war in the Middle East may recently cost about $ 300 billion per year. Under Obama's troop withdrawal the government may have savings in the neighborhood of $ 300 billion per year.
It's indeed a feasible economic solution for the agenda of balancing the budget and gradually paying off the debt.

Seventh, due to the increasing government, the Obama Administration will be able to provide more stimulus plans to boost the economy. As soon as the economy is boosted, unemployment will be reduced, and millionaires will enjoy the increases in their income as well as their safety from crimes.

Eight, Obama's tax plan prevents the dangerous scenario of Congress's austerity agenda. The IMF's Christine Lagarde, the World Bank's Robert Zoellick, and the WTO's Pascal Lamy have the same economic viewpoint: Focus on policies which strengthen growth, employment, and the quality of life in every part of the world. Extreme austerity leads to a lack of demand and hence less supply; consequently more unemployment and slow growth. Austerity also means less quality of life. The economic austerity in Greece is a good lesson. Recently in Europe, spending is now preferred to austerity.
The greatest concern of austerity is a reversal of the current trend of economic recovery, which could result in an economic "Armageddon."

Indeed Obama's tax plan will work the best for the country, there is no question about it.

Perhaps Ryan has no clue about what he was talking about.

Here is my analysis: Romney-Ryan's taxing plan will increase tax burden on 98% of Americans-middle class and low income class. Why? Romney wants to increase military budget but reducing the government revenues by his income taxing plan. This contradicts with the mathematical equation. Romney's Governor Record will reveal what he will do to raise the government revenue if he would be the President.

"In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as loophole closures, totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe reports. However, the Bay State's liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase.

Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney, Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in Jan. 6, 2008's Boston Herald. Also, from 5.3 to 9.8 percent, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts, an 85 percent hike. Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations, the Council on State Taxation's Joseph Crosby complained.

Romney also created or increased fees by $432 million. He was not dragooned into this by greedy Democratic lawmakers; Romney himself proposed these items. In 2003 alone, Romney concocted or boosted 88 fees. Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney's $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness. Romney also billed blind people $15 each for discount-travel ID cards.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120106/OPINION02/701069993

Do not believe in what one says but believe in what one has done.

[TRV2009]

Second, it is true that 'Increasing the income tax rate on millionaires would hurt the economy because they are job creators' ?
The fact is that millionaires froze billions of dollars in banks from 2008 to now, but the economy has recovered gradually and the rate of national unemployment has been reduced significantly from 12.5% on Dec, 2008 to 8.2% today.

Third, there is a strong possibility that the rate of unemployment could be as low as 7% had the Obama administration not been faced with at least five factors to impede Obama's economic agenda: It took almost three years to stop the free falling of the severe economic recession in 2008, the economic and political ideology of Congress, the economic turmoil in Europe - the largest economic domain in the world- economic competition with the second economic power, China, and the limitations of presidential economic budget power due to Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States and Article I, section 5, clause 2: Congress is the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures.

Fourth, the basic principles for a balanced budget and the gradual repayment of debt are that the government's revenue must be greater than its expenditures and we must have a strategy for economic growth. Indeed, the goal of raising the tax bracket for those with income over $250,000 is to raise government revenue, a critical agenda to boost the economy; as long as the economy strengthens, there is a chance to balance the budget, pay off the debt gradually, reduce unemployment, protect our national security, and continue to maintain our position in the world. Obama's plan is clear, a combination of reducing taxes for those with income below $250,000, reducing spending, and raising taxes for wealthy people. Romney and Ryan think that reducing taxes will result in economic growth and increase the government revenue due to tax payers. The reality check can't back up Ryan's, Rublicans's and Romney's stance, based on facts from the IRS. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or poor people. The bottom 20 percent paid no taxes and the government had to pay to them, the next bracket from 21% to 40% ($16,961 to $33,870) paid only 2.8% of the total government income tax revenue, the next bracket from 41% to 60% ($33,871 to $59,154) paid only 9.9%, the next tax bracket from 61% to 80% ($59,155 to $103,428) paid a modest 18.7%, finally the top 20 percent of tax payers contributed a whopping 68 percent to the total revenues.

Assume that the US has approximately 236,882 millionaires and billionaires. Assume that their average gross income is 20 million US$, the highest tax rate for millionaires is 40% and at least they have to pay 30% of their adjusted gross income, then they will contribute the significant amount of $1.4 trillion for the government revenues. Ninety nine percent of Americans must salute and appreciate all millionaires and billionaires - they are good for the country.

Fifth, ironically on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Pawlenty said "Romney has provided some specifics: "He called for a 20 percent reduction across the board on individual income tax rates and for small businesses. He's been specific about his tax cuts for corporate tax rates now in America, some of the highest in the world."

According the nonpartisan Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, the cumulative decrease in income tax rates will be reduced to 20% with Romney's income tax plan:
The current rate of 10% will be reduced to 8%, 15% will be reduced to 12%, 25% will be reduced to 20%, 28% will be reduced to 22.4%, 33% will be reduced to 26.4%, and 35% will be reduced to 28% . Is it a feasible solution to reducing the deficit? Is it questionable to decrease the tax rate for millionaires? http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm .

Based on Romney's and Ryan's tax cut plan for millionaires, a billionaire with annual income of $1 billion may save $150 million per year with the assumption he or she only pays a 20% tax rate after many loophole deductions. It sounds good to billionaires and therefore it could be a catalyst for the wealthy to financially support the Romne-Ryan campaign.

[TRV2009]

Taxing Issue

"With tax fairness and regulatory reform, we'll put government back on the side of the men and women who create jobs, and the men and women who need jobs. ", Ryan claimed.

Fact check:

President Obama wants to extend current, lower rates for 98 percent of Americans — individuals earning $200,000 a year or less and families making $250,000 or less (this encompasses the middle class and the poor), but increasing the tax rate on incomes above $ 250,000. On the other hand, the Republicans, Ryan and Mr. Romney want to extend tax cuts for everybody - including millionaires. Perhaps they even want to decrease the tax rate for millionaires.

Which idea is feasible in terms of boosting the economy, balancing the budget and reducing the national debt?

First, the basis of our tax system is Progressive Tax Theory; the more one earns, the higher their tax bracket is. The basic concept of Laffer Curve Theory is if the tax bracket is too high or too low, then government revenue will be two low . Therefore the optimum tax bracket is simply the maximum of the Laffer curve. Unfortunately the Laffer Curve cannot define the optimum point. Indeed the Laffer Curve is a very poor and undefined mathematical model - it would never stand up to serious mathematical analysis. Therefore it is very controversial. For instance, people have come up with many different curves, and many different optimal points.

Actually Reagan, Bushes and current Republican Congressmen have used this theory to try to boost the economy when they thought that the optimum tax rate is about 30% or 35%. In fact, the Laffer Curve may have the optimum point at 50% if the Laffer curve is a parabola. President Dwight Eisenhower's highest tax rate is 91% and the economy did not stop growing. From 1954 to 1963, the top tax rate is 91%, then it was reduced from 77% to 70% from 1964 to 1980. President Reagan reduced it further from 50% in 1982 to the lowest tax rate of 28%.

Today the US has the lowest top tax rate -35%- compared with many developed countries where the top tax rate varies from 40% to Denmark's 62.28%. Perhaps the top rate of the world is France's 75%, which Hollande proposed the following during his campaign. History of the national debt may prove that the optimum tax bracket is higher than 50%. Consequently, President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) inherited roughly 908 billion US$ in debt and took it up to 2.6 trillion US$ after 8 years; an increase of 186%. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001): Took Bush's 4.2 trillion US$ up to 5.7 trillion US$, a 36% increase. President George W. Bush (2001-2009) inherited Clinton's 5.7 trillion US$ and ended with 10.6 trillion US$, an 86% increase. Recently, President Barack Obama (2009-2012): So far, has taken Bush's 10.6 trillion US$ up to 16.2 trillion US$ at the end of 2012 (as projected) an increase of 53%.

[TRV2009]

Third, "It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal. ", Ryan claimed.

Fact check:

Obama invested 40 billion in cleaning energy in 2009. The truth is we lost $535 million dollar from Solyndra bankruptcy in 2011, that is only 1.3% of $40 billion.
Many countries invested in cleaning energy more that one decade ago. China invested more than $40 billion with cheap labor and sold the product with cheaper. That is the the critical reason for Solyndra' bankruptcy. Another reason clean energy project is based on the assumption that the price of natural gas may come to rise; it's not true.

It is not the matter of picking winners or losers but making strategic investments for the country "on behalf of the American people. President Bush, Congress and business company knew that; Goldman financed $4.8 billion and co-invested more than $500 million in 2011.

Did Obama have any political motive? Republicans have pounced on the Solyndra bankruptcy, raising questions about President Obama's green agenda and alleging that politics played a role in the approval of the loan guarantee. The committee's investigation — which has uncovered more than 80,000 pages of administration documents — has found no evidence that the decisions to approve the loan guarantee and restructure the financing in February were influenced by politics.
The Obama administration on Thursday May 21, 2012 ordered tariffs of 31 percent and higher on solar panels imported from China following a determination that China is flooding the U.S. market with underpriced panels.Those measures follow the U.S. Commerce Department's duties of 2.9 to 4.7 percent imposed in March on Chinese solar panel imports for illegal subsidies.

Fourth, "We need to stop spending money we don't have. " Ryan claimed.

Fact check

Ryan needs to know that due to the economic policy of Republican Congress and Ryan, the Obama Administration has been cutting the 2011 budget to the bone. Ryan should read this blog of Paul Krugman, an economic Nobel Prize winner:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12066975-giving-new-meaning-to-reckless-spending
That is the reason the unemployment rate is decreasing slowly; a justification for Obama's stance that further spending cuts without steps to increase tax revenues will hurt consumers. Moreover, the 2011 Budget Control Act which includes across-the-board spending cuts, to all federal departments in 2013 is a possible national economic disaster if Congress can't design and pass a budget that more specifically outlines spending cuts totalling $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

Fifth, Can Ryan deal with this critique?

"...In short, Mr. Ryan's plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn't pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation's fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/14/687561/reagan-ryan-budget-fairy-tale/

[TRV2009]

Economy Issue

First, "The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama's first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion - the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government. ", Ryan claimed

Fact check:

Obama's stimulus plan:

- The funds were disbursed as follows: $288 billion in tax cuts; $224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care; $275 billion for job creation, States received $54 billion to avoid teacher layoffs, $54 billion went to small businesses in the form of tax deductions, credits and loan guarantees.

- The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 8,000 at the beginning of 2009. By the time most of the stimulus funds had been spent, the Dow had climbed to 11,600 in 2009. Of course there are many other factors.

-The Obama Administration has added about 4.2 million jobs which were lost on his watch in just over two years. Unfortunately, this was was not enough because so many jobs were lost in a severe recession starting in 2008. Furthermore, starting in 2008, companies started to send jobs over-seas and still received tax breaks. The ironic fact is few voters know these facts, instead they rely on false political slogans during the 2012 Presidential campaign.

-General Motors earned a record $7.6 billion profit last year, the highest profit in the company's 103-year history. It sold 640,000 more cars and trucks in 2011 than it did in 2010 and took in a total of $105 billion.

-Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of Edmunds.com, said while he is buying GM's immediate success, he is not sold on the company's future.

-To date, GM has paid back $26 billion of the $49.5 billion bailout and U.S. taxpayers still own 30 percent of the company in stock.

-For the workers at GM's plant in Lake Orion, Mich., this GM is much better than the GM that halted production there in 2009. Today, the plant is up and running, turning out 800 cars a day and employing 2,200 people.

-GM says 47,500 blue collar workers, many of whom took pay cuts of up to 40 percent and cuts in benefits as part of the bailout, learned today that they are receiving profit-sharing checks of up to $7,000.

-GM employee Doreen Stover said her check is already spent.

"We get caught up on some bills - and get my new GM vehicle," she said.

Second, " Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. Twenty-three million people, unemployed or underemployed." is just Ryan's political slogan.

Fact check:

There are many factors contributing to 8.1% unemployment in August: There are about 3 million high school graduates and about 3 million college graduates this year, honorable military discharges, political deadlock, ....

There are at least five factors to impede Obama's economic agenda: It took almost three years to stop the free falling of the severe economic recession in 2008, the economic and political ideology of Congress, the economic turmoil in Europe - the largest economic domain in the world- economic competition with the second economic power, China, and the limitations of presidential economic budget power due to Article I, section 9, clause 7 of The Constitution of the United States and Article I, section 5, clause 2: Congress is the authority to determine the rules governing its procedures.

Many more critical factors which explain the Obama deficit number, such as the cost of funding wars and anti-terror operations, the burden of debt interest-about $300 billion per year-, the international financial crisis, $100 billion per year from Bush tax cuts, the top tax rate is low -35%- compared with high tax rates during the first five years of Reagan's Administration -from 69.13% to 50%

The fact is the Bush Administration did not deal with current complex economic situations such as the economic turmoil in Europe and our economic strategic competitor, China. Specifically, it is a logical fallacy to use historical facts to make a negative judgement about the current slow economic recovery. This assertion also somewhat justifies increasing the debt about 5.4 trillion US$ from 2009 to 2012; perhaps the cost of war would be close to $1.2 trillion during 4 years, the Obama burden of debt interest per year is about $300 billion, the Bush Tax Cuts resulted a reduction of the government revenue from about $60 billion per year to about $100 billion, and Obama's burden of about $750 billion in 2009 to deal with the Bush housing bubble.

Finally, where is Obama's Job Act in 2011? Why did Ryan and Republican Congress still hold it on their desk?

[TRV2009]

Comment about Ryan's Speech on 08-29-2012


Health care issue
First, there are more compelling facts to prove that Ryan and Romney are wrong on the health care issue when he said "we can repeal Obamacare. Ryan's claim "no one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way" contradicts the principle of Medicare law and confirms Ryan's limited knowledge of the real law: "Medicare is a national insurance administrated by the U.S. federal government since 1965. As a social insurance program, Medicare spreads the financial risk associated with illness across society to protect everyone, and thus has a somewhat different social role from private insurers, which must manage their risk portfolio to guarantee their own solvency" ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

Moreover, it also shows Ryan's limited knowledge of macroeconomics. The first essential principle of Medicare is that the insured pool of all workers and employers have an obligation to contribute to it. The Medicare trust fund pays to retired seniors. The principle of a balanced Medicare pool is that the contributions must be greater than or equal to the expenses. If anyone under 55 years old does not participate in this insured pool, then the insured Medicare pool will be unbalanced, resulting in a lack of premium contributions and full of unhealthy insurers; that will be a killer for our current lawful Medicare system.

Consequently the Seniors may loose the Medicare benefits. Indeed, Ryan's plan of "turning Medicare into a voucher program." justifies what the President said: The poor and Middle class seniors would lose the Medicare benefits.

Some narrow minded conservatives were excited with Ryan's arguments because they forget the nature of Medicare law and the principle of management.

Second, Romney and Ryan do not consider many variables when stating their beliefs " the combination of competition and consumer cost-sharing will help hold down the cost of the program.". The true nature of our free-enterprise system is a combination of market competition, business behaviors, doctor fees, the efficiency of the hospital,... One more critical variable is the difference between the goal of business and the goal of government. The goal of business is to maximize its profit, while the government's goal is to maximize benefits to citizens and to facilitate fair and honest competition; Obamacare is one example.

On several occasions during the health care reform debate, President Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." . This is the truth about Obamacare, a universal health care system which balances government regulation and free enterprise, as private insurance companies can participate and compete in the free market.

People will have many choices to choose their medical insurance, through business or through the government, but the government organized Medicare program prevents businesses from unjustified increases in premiums which could hurt citizens. The big problem is that Ryan's plan disbands the legitimate government Medicare program, so citizens would only have businesses to chose from. That is the main reason for the President's claim that the Romney-Ryan plan would cost seniors an additional $6,600.

Third, the true fact is that the Medicare trust fund is the safest way to guarantee health care for seniors. On the other hand, relying on private insured companies is risky due to the nature of our free-enterprise system. Who will take care of people who put the Medicare premium in private insurance when they lose their premium due to the free market risk?
The government has an obligation to take care of them in that scenario; this would be a disaster for our economy and our national security.