Ryan Talking Out His Arse?

[ERICOPOLY]

Mr Ryan claims to have run a 2:50 marathon.

 

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-sub-300-marathon/

 

 

[Myth465]

One has to admit its pretty bad when even Fox News calls something deceiving.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

[meiroy]

One has to admit its pretty bad when even Fox News calls something deceiving.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

 

The writer of the piece is their "not-republican contributor of the day." Fox is still Fox :)

[Tim Eriksen]

One has to admit its pretty bad when even Fox News calls something deceiving.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

 

The article is as poorly written and fallacious as the original article.  It doesn't address how fact checkers have disproved each of the points.  The items under the third point are especially ridiculous.  It is a convention speech. Why would he mention those things.  Four years ago, did Biden state why his positions were far out of the mainstream?  No.  Did he mention how he was wrong on every major foreign policy decision of the last thirty years?  No.     

[Myth465]

I have no dog in this fight, but as Bill Maher said, whats really frustrating about today's politics is we cant even agree on the facts anymore. Most sources and logic shows that Ryan is a bit loose on the fact and details. I dont have time to cross reference everything, but I am going with those sources and my own logic. The debt ceiling which most followed closely is probably the best example of this.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19427111

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/paul-ryan-speech-filled-economic-inaccuracies-yahoo-jeff-150011000.html

http://www.rttnews.com/1956911/ryan-s-convention-speech-singled-out-for-inaccuracies.aspx?type=pn&Node=B1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/paul-ryans-speech-audacious-untruths

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-speech-fact-check-on-aaa-credit-rating-2012-8

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/paul-ryan-speech-filled-economic-inaccuracies-yahoo-jeff-150011000.html

 

Look at who the S&P blames in its statement:

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

S&P downgraded the U.S., in part, because of a revised expectation that the Bush tax cuts would remain in place. They assumed this because of Republicans' unwillingness to enact any measures raising revenue, and they completely slammed House Republicans — including Paul Ryan — for doing so.

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-speech-fact-check-on-aaa-credit-rating-2012-8#ixzz25ORsKcqo

 

---

 

There was once a time when lying in a political speech--and getting called out on it by the media--was shameful or embarrassing.

Not anymore.

 

Jeff Greenfield says that none of this will matter to voters, who will just blame the media and its silly "fact-checkers." And he's presumably right.

 

None of this really matters to me, but I tend to call a spade a spade, and Ryan is a bit fast and loose like most politicians.

 

---

But perhaps Ryan has an awesome marathon time, and everyone is wrong but Ryan about everything. Even on simple things like the date of a plant closing or the reason given by a rating agency for a downgrade.

[moore_capital54]

Must say I am sick to my stomach from the Marathon time incident. I completely disagree on the other topics but the Marathon time just keeps jumping into my head. If I were Romney I would let him go based on that.. OR I want a transparent and honest discussion about wtf was going through his head. If he fudged the number accidentally I would like to see a discussion about that. As a Marathon runner I can tell you that your best time is something you never forget!

[ERICOPOLY]

Must say I am sick to my stomach from the Marathon time incident. I completely disagree on the other topics but the Marathon time just keeps jumping into my head. If I were Romney I would let him go based on that.. OR I want a transparent and honest discussion about wtf was going through his head. If he fudged the number accidentally I would like to see a discussion about that. As a Marathon runner I can tell you that your best time is something you never forget!

 

 

It sounds like his brother knows to call a spade a spade:

 

In a statement issued to Runner's World by a spokesman Friday night, Ryan said of his marathon experience:

 

"The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight."

 

[Tim Eriksen]

 

Look at who the S&P blames in its statement:

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

S&P downgraded the U.S., in part, because of a revised expectation that the Bush tax cuts would remain in place. They assumed this because of Republicans' unwillingness to enact any measures raising revenue, and they completely slammed House Republicans — including Paul Ryan — for doing so.

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-speech-fact-check-on-aaa-credit-rating-2012-8#ixzz25ORsKcqo

 

---

 

 

You cannot pick out one paragraph which refers to S&P changing their baseline revenue assumption and use it to say they are blaming Republicans for the downgrade.  That is factually incorrect, misleading, and thus a lie.  No wonder people cannot agree on the facts.  If you are going to use just one paragraph to summarize what they said, it should be one actually talking about why they downgraded not why they changed their baseline revenue assumptions, which is a related but different issue. 

 

This is what they said - "We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade."

 

Reasons given by S&P (and my comments):

1. Lack of progress on containing growth in public spending, especially on entitlements.  (The blame would certainly fall on Obama and the Democrats since Ryan and the Republicans have shown the courage to produce a plan that reduces the growth rate to below nominal GDP growth.)

2. Lack of progress on reaching an agreement on raising revenues.  (This certainly falls on Republicans.  It shouldn't be a surprise since that is what many campaigned on (compromise is difficult when it forces one to renege on your campaign promises).  I would also note that all Obama has proposed is increasing taxes on the rich which would reduce the deficit by less than 10%.  Not particularly bold.)

 

Sounds to me like S&P is clearly blaming both sides. 

 

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Perhaps peddling balogne is literally on his resume:

 

(One of his summer jobs in college was as an Oscar Mayer salesman in Minnesota, peddling turkey bacon and a new line called "Lunchables" to supermarkets. He drove the Wienermobile once.)

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43705747.html

[Packer16]

Another intresting observation is sampling for the current set of polls.  All of the pollsters (except Rassumutan) are sampling the ratio of Dems/Repubs at or greater than the margin by which Obama beat McCain.  Based upon the latest polling from Ras the current party ID numbers are closer to 37 R/33 D. Using the same methodology in 2008, the numbers were 41 D/ 34 R.  Since we have a polarized electorate, this would imply a bias in the non-Ras polls of about 5% for Mr. Obama.  Surprised no one has picked up on this. 

 

As for marathon runners, George W Bush was the fastest followed by Sarah Palin.  Interesting.

 

Packer

[Rabbitisrich]

 

Reasons given by S&P (and my comments):

1. Lack of progress on containing growth in public spending, especially on entitlements.  (The blame would certainly fall on Obama and the Democrats since Ryan and the Republicans have shown the courage to produce a plan that reduces the growth rate to below nominal GDP growth.)

2. Lack of progress on reaching an agreement on raising revenues.  (This certainly falls on Republicans.  It shouldn't be a surprise since that is what many campaigned on (compromise is difficult when it forces one to renege on your campaign promises).  I would also note that all Obama has proposed is increasing taxes on the rich which would reduce the deficit by less than 10%.  Not particularly bold.)

 

Sounds to me like S&P is clearly blaming both sides.

 

I found S&P's message to be difficult to discern. They seemed to be making a mathematical argument about America's capacity to service debt in nominal terms. But then they would say something like this:

[pre]Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.[/pre]

 

So the explanation is perhaps better understood as a statement on federal character. Why did S&P spend so much time on capacity arguments without explicitly contextualizing bearish scenarios with character arguments? It leaves too much ambiguity and allows for pundits to make silly arguments over which "side" caused the downgrade.

[SouthernYankee]

I say the government should just pass another budget which spends 40% more than it brings in, and then we all head for the beach. Jerry Brown says don't worry about the sharks!

 

(I don't understand why political threads keep getting posted. I thought this was an investing blog.)

[ERICOPOLY]

I say the government should just pass another budget which spends 40% more than it brings in, and then we all head for the beach. Jerry Brown says don't worry about the sharks!

 

(I don't understand why political threads keep getting posted. I thought this was an investing blog.)

 

 

To quote Parsad from Feb 23rd:

 

Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..."

[Parsad]

I say the government should just pass another budget which spends 40% more than it brings in, and then we all head for the beach. Jerry Brown says don't worry about the sharks!

 

(I don't understand why political threads keep getting posted. I thought this was an investing blog.)

 

 

To quote Parsad from Feb 23rd:

 

Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..."

 

Actually, it wasn't me who said that.  I believe Myth said that.  It was in the quote frame that I excerpted...you've got to go back to page 6 of that thread to see who said it originally.  Cheers!

[SouthernYankee]

First Ericopoly:

 

To quote Parsad from Feb 23rd:

 

Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..."

 

 

Then this from Parsad:

 

Actually, it wasn't me who said that.  I believe Myth said that.  It was in the quote frame that I excerpted...you've got to go back to page 6 of that thread to see who said it originally.  Cheers!

 

 

 

Ericopoly,

I am very happy that you are better at investing than at fact-checking. Your reply sums up this whole post. Different fact-checkers backing up supposed fact-checkers, but it still does not change the equation of this election: MATH DON'T LIE! Obama's worst nightmare!

 

Cheers, and Happy Investing!