# The Principal Themes of the RNC Convention are Built on Lies and Misrepresentations **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037 "2012-08-29T15:44:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/81 "2012-08-30T14:27:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > First of all, it is based on non-partisan analysis. > > But second, so what? Your claim is that he was arguing for higher taxes. The context makes clear that he was saying that further cutting taxes would necessarily gut investment, which is important. > > You were factually incorrect about his argument. No, I disagree, both with the claim that refusing to raise taxes would necessarily gut investment, and with the claim that infrastructure investment was what Obama was talking about. He was absolutely alluding to the proposed tax hike on the upper income earners. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/82 "2012-08-30T14:28:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You can claim to be self-made if: > > You didn’t attend public K-12 schools. > You didn’t attend a public university. > You didn’t get scholarships funded with public money. > You didn’t take out federal student loans. > The person paying for your education did not work for the government or a government contractor. > You do not work for the government in any capacity nor take any government money. > Your employer did not start his business with the help of government-provided infrastructure, federal loans, or tax breaks. > Your employees were not educated in public K-12 schools or public universities. > > If you can honestly say the above are true in your case, then I’ll say congratulations on being a true self-made person. If you can’t, then the only difference between you and a welfare mom is degree of reliance on public money. No, no, no, no, no no, yes, no. Damn, so close. If I quit my job and get all 8, do I win a prize? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/83 "2012-08-30T14:30:57Z")
> [@johnpost](#): > > article on Ryan’s speech. > > [Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More](http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html) Perhaps you could quote the portions of that article that you believe are relevant to the current discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/84 "2012-08-30T14:31:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m sorry, but Obama’s comments arose in an effort to justify his efforts to raise taxes on the “1%” that are the top of the earners who actually create wealth. And then his comments were taken completely out of context so the right could accuse him of shitting on small business – which is what I thought this thread was about in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/85 "2012-08-30T14:34:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > If you can’t, then the only difference between you and a welfare mom is degree of reliance on public money. This is, I believe, pretty much the claim Obama himself would make. It’s certainly the general tune I hear from the left. Before I comment on it, though, I’d ask if my primary interlocutor agrees with, or rejects, this thesis from **BobLibDem**. What say you, **Richard Parker**? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/86 "2012-08-30T14:34:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you cite that analysis? Even before Ryan was selected as VP, Romney’s surrogates have said he would sign the Ryan budget if it came to his desk. He has also said that he will increase defense spending and not cut Medicare. When you add those premises together (and this isn’t including Romney’s preposterous tax proposals which every nonpartisan expert has said will massively cut revenue), you get a complete elimination of federal spending on infrastructure and research. > **[03-20-Ryan\_Specified\_Paths\_2.pdf](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf)** > > 656.23 KB [http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708) [http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan’s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details](http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details) But, again, whether Obama is right or wrong is beside the point for this particular discussion. You understand that, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/87 "2012-08-30T14:38:15Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And then his comments were taken completely out of context so the right could accuse him of shitting on small business – which is what I thought this thread was about in the first place. But my point is that they are not completely out of context. My point is that, much as **BobLibDem** has helpfully illustrated, the underlying thesis of Obama’s comments is precisely that the presence of infrastructure creates or justifies an obligation on the part of businesses – small, medium, and large – to somehow “pay back” society for that infrastructure. I, and the Republican party, disagree. We all paid for that infrastructure when it was built. The fact that someone was able to use his own intelligence, talent, and initiative to wrest greater profits from the business world does not create some larger obligation to pay more back. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/88 "2012-08-30T14:38:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I disagree, both with the claim that refusing to raise taxes would necessarily gut investment, and with the claim that infrastructure investment was what Obama was talking about. He was absolutely alluding to the proposed tax hike on the upper income earners. Well, that’s fine. But you’re just obviously wrong on both points based on the actual transcript. If there’s nothing more to debate here, what do you think about their other pillar of attack, welfare? ETA: I misread your first point. You’re attacking a straw man on that one. No one is saying “refusing to raise taxes would necessarily gut investment.” > [@Bricker](#): > > This is, I believe, pretty much the claim Obama himself would make. It’s certainly the general tune I hear from the left. > > Before I comment on it, though, I’d ask if my primary interlocutor agrees with, or rejects, this thesis from **BobLibDem**. What say you, **Richard Parker**? I reject his thesis. I understand why you would believe Obama thinks that, because it is a stereotype of liberals that some liberals actually believe. But there is absolutely no evidence that Obama agrees with the hyperbole in BobLibDem’s post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/89 "2012-08-30T14:40:11Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Even before Ryan was selected as VP, Romney’s surrogates have said he would sign the Ryan budget if it came to his desk. He has also said that he will increase defense spending and not cut Medicare. When you add those premises together (and this isn’t including Romney’s preposterous tax proposals which every nonpartisan expert has said will massively cut revenue), you get a complete elimination of federal spending on infrastructure and research. > > [http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan\_Specified\_Paths\_2.pdf](http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf) > > [http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708) > > [http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan’s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details](http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details) Sorry, I should have also asked you to quote the part that proves it will “gut” infrastructure. Those are some very long documents. > [@](#): > > But, again, whether Obama is right or wrong is beside the point for this particular discussion. You understand that, right? Yes and no. Yes to the discussion you are trying to have, no to the one **Bricker** is trying to have. You might suggest that he start his own thread, but it is a valid discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/90 "2012-08-30T14:41:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. > > But it does indicate that Obama’s awareness was largely focused on the taxation issue – he even mentions raising taxes on the middle class in the section you quote. > > I’m sorry, but Obama’s comments arose in an effort to justify his efforts to raise taxes on the “1%” that are the top of the earners who actually create wealth. He’s talking about Romney raising those taxes! Seriously Bricker, re-read it carefully. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/91 "2012-08-30T14:44:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sorry, I should have also asked you to quote the part that proves it will “gut” infrastructure. Those are some very long documents. I’m not going to do that for you. The very first page of each document describes how the Ryan budget would cut discretionary spending down to a level below what we currently spend on defense alone. They aren’t very long, and this is a very important topic. You should read them. > [@John Mace](#): > > Yes and no. Yes to the discussion you are trying to have, no to the one **Bricker** is trying to have. You might suggest that he start his own thread, but it is a valid discussion. No, it is relevant to both. Bricker’s argument is that Obama must have been trying to justify raising taxes. He obviously was not doing so, as he was clearly explaining why further cutting taxes while endorsing a budget that cuts spending has the effect of gutting infrastructure. Whether Obama is correct or not has nothing to do with whether Obama was talking about raising taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/92 "2012-08-30T14:45:20Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s a fine argument. Here you are arguing that infrastructure and institutions are necessary, but not sufficient. That individual merit and initiative is the prime mover, and the but-for cause of success. > > There are two problems with this. First, again, it isn’t what Romney is saying. That’s exactly what Romney is saying… > [@Romney](#): > > The president does, in fact, believe that people who build enterprises like this really aren’t responsible for it, that in fact it’s a collective success of the whole society that somehow builds enterprises like this. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/93 "2012-08-30T14:46:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > With all due respect for the President, I am unwilling to accept as definitive his analysis of what would need to be cut if a Romney/Ryan budget were imposed, both as to raw dollars and the decisions on how to spend those dollars. > > I do not believe that he is inclined to analyze the effects of his opponents’ budget plans dispassionately. [Math is pretty dispassionate.](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658) Romney has promised to cut spending to 20% of GDP without raising taxes by eliminating tax loopholes. But there aren’t enough loopholes to do the job, so basically, after promising to increase defense spending and not touch SS, well, from the report: > [@](#): > > Although Governor Romney has not proposed specific Medicare policies, it would be virtually impossible to achieve his budgetary objectives while sparing Medicare from substantial cuts. If Medicare as well as Social Security were protected, all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022, just to limit federal spending to 20 percent of GDP. If the budget also had to be balanced, all government programs other than defense, Social Security, and Medicare would have to be nearly eliminated: six out of every seven dollars going for them would disappear. It’s pretty obvious that if you cut 40 - 60% from Federal discretionary spending, that infrastructure is going to take a pretty big hit. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/94 "2012-08-30T14:47:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > That’s exactly what Romney is saying… I have a hard time believing you can’t understand the difference in the two passages. But, once more with feeling: “[P]eople who build enterprises like this really aren’t responsible for it” is not the same as “people who build enterprises like this are not solely responsible for their success.” ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/95 "2012-08-30T14:48:42Z")
some more on Ryan’s speech > **[Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words](https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/paul-ryans-speech-in-3-words)** > > Paul Ryan's speech was three things: dazzling, deceiving and distracting.  ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/96 "2012-08-30T14:50:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here, I think Obama’s – and the Democrats as a whole – have clearly advanced the line of thinking that there is value in the model that achievements are a matter of group effort. This is a trivial truth, but by emphasizing it, they send the signal that they intend to treat it as more than simply trivially true. They intend to form public policy around it – to justify requirements that the successful “give back” in some way. And this is alluded to, in advertising shorthand, by “You didn’t build that,” because that phrase goes to the heart of the matter – for the purposes of crafting public policy, whose achievements matter when considering a successful business – the entrepreneur or the ditch diggers that made sure there was a culvert by the side of the road so the loading dock of the entrepreneur’s shipping facility was accessible? Both are necessary – no argument. But why are we talking about it, if not to suggest that the ditches have some significance beyond the obvious necessity? Quoted for truth. It amazes me that so many on the left truly think this is a line taken out of context and that’s all it is. It’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/97 "2012-08-30T14:54:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > “[P]eople who build enterprises like this really aren’t responsible for it” is not the same as “people who build enterprises like this are not solely responsible for their success.” Tomato to-mA-to. There’s no substantive difference between the two. Obama’s quote is no better in full context then it is when you play just the “you didn’t build that” line. Any normal American who hears him making those statements in full context will disagree with them. It’s unfortunate that the SDMB has become such an echo chamber of the left that people here can’t even understand something so basic. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/98 "2012-08-30T14:55:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I have a hard time believing you can’t understand the difference in the two passages. But, once more with feeling: > > “[P]eople who build enterprises like this really aren’t responsible for it” is not the same as “people who build enterprises like this are not solely responsible for their success.” On reflection, maybe conservatives really don’t understand the difference because of fundamental differences in the way both sides conceive of what it means to be responsible for something. **Debaser** , do you acknowledge the difference in the above two quotes, and just think Obama said the first one. Or do you not see a difference? ETA: Aha! Now we’re getting somewhere. And just as we are, I’ve got to run. But this is very interesting to me that you don’t understand the difference. I want to flesh that out. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/99 "2012-08-30T14:57:26Z")
I simul-posted an answer right above, **Richard**. Just to make sure you don’t miss it. It’s taken weeks, but I think some of you are starting to get it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037/100 "2012-08-30T15:03:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There is a link where you can read the full polling results. It says absolutely nothing about “the employer would have to prove it”, it says that the majority of Americans believe that employers with religious or moral objections should not have to cover contraception. It’s traditional to insert sufficient filler between mutually exclusive statements to maintain a pretense, however thin, of respect for the reader’s intelligence. The difference between “employers should not have to cover contraception” and “employers with religious or moral objections should not have to cover contraception” is that the latter requires proof that the alleged “religious or moral objections” are genuine, just as (to cite my example again) the difference between “the draft should be abolished” and “persons with religious or moral pacifist scruples should be exempt from the draft” is that the latter requires a presentation of evidence. For obvious reasons, the latter statement in each case is _de facto_ equivalent to the former in the absence of an evidentiary requirement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-principal-themes-of-the-rnc-convention-are-built-on-lies-and-misrepresentations/633037.md?page=6)