I realize it’s an old poll, but the GOP doesn’t actually have to make a case that the stimulus was wasted:
It’s up to Democrats to make the case that it wasn’t.
Here is Erskine Bowles, Clinton’s former chief of staff, talking about the real Paul Ryan:
And the longer version:
Yeah. I get the impression that greenslime thinks that “liar” and hypocrite" mean the same thing; for his information: they don’t.
Or the President’s lack of a budget. Otherwise we’re being liberal hypocrites.
A politician a hypocrite and liar? This is shocking news indeed.
False impression, of course: I realize that the two concepts are different. But in political discourse–for example, the title of this thread–they are often used together. The flaw in the terms’ usual usage is that if a candidate states a position, that isn’t a lie until his actions prove otherwise. So calling Ryan a hypocrite then is incorrect (he may have indeed been misrepresenting his position, but perhaps not–we had no way of telling). Someone is neither a hypocrite nor a liar if he simply changes his mind between stating a position and acting on it. Even politicians–even Republicans–are allowed to do that (and since one of the supposedly horrible things about Republicans is that they never change their hidebound minds, you’d think their critics would welcome a change of position on their part).
Consider what a living hell your life would be if everyone you knew held you to every position you’ve ever stated in your life. Or, if everyone you knew called you a hypocrite and a liar every time you said or did something that contradicted something you’d said earlier. And please don’t say that we hold politicians to a higher standard. Nowadays, there’s some doodlebrain with a Razzleberry (or whatever it’s called) standing in the audience of every politician’s speech, googling every phrase he uses and comparing it to every recorded thing he’s ever said, looking for a “contradiction.” If the googler actually finds something he can fasten on, well, then, Twitter post! OOOOOOO!
The facts are also at your fingertips, so I’m not going to do the work for you: go out there on the net and prove to me that every stimulus-funded project started in a Democratic congressman’s district was justified on an economic basis. I’ll be here when you get back.
Well, the problem with the way you characterized things in your previous post (and in the one above, btw), is that Ryan is, in fact, a liar. And not only that, he got caught out.
Again you attempt to conflate the two terms. Paul Ryan has been proven to be a liar. He may also be a hypocrite, although the evidence is (just barely) inconclusive on that count.
We’d rather sweat it out, though the suspense might kill us.
I do. It’s a lazy and stupid position. If you think the government shouldn’t spend the money, have the courage of your convictions and don’t take the money. If you’re opposed to the spending and take the cash anyway, you’ve shown your opposition to spending is just empty rhetoric. At most, you’re opposed to federal spending by other people. At the moment, Ryan’s much-touted credibility policy chops are not standing up to scrutiny.
:rolleyes: Either Paul Ryan requested the stimulus money or he didn’t. And in fact he did. You can’t change your mind on facts. He did not say, yes I made that request, but now I regret it. He flat out lied and said it never happened, when we have proof to the contrary.
And you, my friend, “have been proven” to be a liar. As have I. As has everyone who has learned to speak. There is no person on this earth over the age of one who has never lied–so calling someone a “liar” is like calling them a “breather.”
You must not understand what “conflation” is–I’ve been trying to explain to you what is the distinction between lying and hypocrisy.
The fact of the matter is that rabid partisans will call members of the other side every name they can possibly think of. The idea of tracking down something the other guy said, proving it wrong, then chanting “LIAR LIAR LIAR” is as old as human history, from our cave days to grade school recess yards, to the political arenas which are a distillation of everything you would find in those two places.
You are missing something here: at the point that the money has been allocated, it isn’t the representative’s money to accept or refuse. Ryan didn’t vote on whether his district should receive the stimulus money; he voted on the stimulus package in general. He doesn’t have the authority to intercept (or to authorize) the distribution of federal benefits.
It would be a similar situation if Congress voted to build an airbase in Ryan’s district and Ryan attempted to mobilze the local police to stop it. He would be exceeding his authority.
You may not like Ryan, but it’s kind of silly to criticize him for not doing something he wasn’t, in fact, able to do. Whether or not he approved of it ideologically, he was presented with a fait accompli when the stimulus bill was passed and the money was sent to his state. Of course he made a big deal about how he would use the money to best advantage. Why not? There’s a difference between opposing the stimulus in the first place and wanting to use the money to best advantage once it’s there.
I’m aware of how the system works and I stand by the broader point even if the wording could’ve been better. We hear this stuff a lot: Republican Gov./Rep. so-and-so opposes the this or that program, but happily takes the money and then goes home to bash the wasteful federal program while continuing to benefit from it and not having to actually do anything to back up his rhetoric.
Ryan didn’t just “accept” the funds. He asked for them. He didn’t do so despite thinking the stimulus was a bad idea, he thought it was a great idea. And he was right.
The thing he did to “back up his rhetoric” was cast the vote against the stimulus in the first place. That’s all he could do. You say you’re “aware of how the system works,” but then you seem to disprove that by saying that he “happily takes the money.” He doesn’t take the money, because he’s not the one who receives it. You also say that “he” benefits from the money? How, exactly, since he can’t take credit for its being available, having voted against it? What could he do at that point “to back up his rhetoric”–run around snatching government checks out of people’s mailboxes and tearing them up? Or would it perhaps be the most responsible thing to do to make sure that the money is used in the most beneficial way possible?
Is this at all any clearer to you?
Politifact doesn’t have a ruling on this as yet, but they in their fact checker Ryan scores
It isn’t as passive as greenslime suggests. Ryan specifically asked for stimulus money. Or his staff did. Or his dog ate his homework while riding on top of Romney’s station wagon.
He could have not lied about asking for the money.
He benefits because the money goes to his district and his constituents benefit as it’s spent, and happy constituents are good for the incumbent. He could (as some stimulus-bashing Republicans did) then go around and happily do photo ops for projects that were paid for with stimulus funding, although I don’t know if Ryan did that.
The most beneficial way for Paul Ryan, that is.
Yes, it’s very clear to me that you’re trying to handwave away the issue.
It’s not encouraging that roughly 1/4 of the things that Obama says are judged “Half True” and another 1/4 are judged “Mostly False” or worse. It means, mathematically, that you can believe him 62.5% of the time. That’s a “D-minus” in school.
Though, I’m not aware of any constitutional amendment mandating Politifact as the sole arbiter of what constitutes truth and falsehood.
Certainly, one could use the Politifact reckoning as a perfectly reasonable basis for calling Obama a “hypocrite and a liar” as well. Not that doing so would serve any more constructive purpose than calling Ryan that does.