Sometimes, debating with the Left gets rather boring. After Ryan's speech, the Left went nuts. Here is a rebuttal to their thoughtless claims as presented in 5 points, taken from The New Republic.

<<<<  Best rebuttal to "Ryan lies about the GM plant."   The Marxist socialists could not be more wrong and here is absolute proof.

From the New Republic:  I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.

At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.

Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:

1) About the GM plant in Janesville.

But it shut down in 2008—beforeObama became president. 

By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.

Editor’s notes:  more than 60,000 net jobs were lost with the closing of GM and an Obama managed bankruptcy that stripped hundreds of thousands of union retirees of their pension funds and the  protected equities in those trusts.  He raped his own people,  to give the AFL-CIO’s pension and legacy funds,  new life.  That is a fact. 

More than this,  here is the end result of the Washington Examiner’s research on this closing,  and it turns out that Ryan was more “right” than he might have suspected: 

The Washington Post, and a host of other liberal media outlets, are calling this passage “misleading” because the Janesville plant “closed before the president was inaugurated.” The Post is dead wrong. Here are the facts:

1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant open: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinelit would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

6. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised. 
Source: Washington Examiner. 

This was aired in April of 2009.  

2) About Medicare.

Editor's notes:  The New Republic article is more complicated a charge than the others.   You may need to read the New Republic article at this point. 

Suffice it to say that the Left continually refers to the “Ryan Plan”  as if the Romney Plan does not exist or is of no consequence or is identical.  

Understand that you cannot cut future expenditures without cutting benefits.  And the $716 trillion in Obama's Medicare  “cuts”  were,  indeed,  cuts,  intended by the Administration to be used to balance the expenditures replete in ObamaCare. If they are not "cuts,"  they balance nothing.  

Here are those cuts,  as per the CBO.  ………………………

A  new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report updated the amount of money Obamacare robs out of Medicare from $500 billion to a whopping $716 billion between 2013 and 2022.   According to the CBO, the payment cuts in Medicare include:

• A $260 billion payment cut for hospital services affecting the aged and disabled, exclusively.
• A $39 billion payment cut for skilled nursing services effecting  private care facilities, nurses in mental health facilities,  and in-home care for the elderly and needy. 
• A $17 billion payment cut for hospice services  --  the poor who are near death are the ones affected by this cut (part of Palin's 'death panels'). 
• A $66 billion payment cut for home health services. Again,  it is the poor and needy most affected by this deduct. 
• A $33 billion payment cut for all other services.
• A $156 billion cut in payment rates in Medicare Advantage (MA); $156 billion is before considering interactions with other provisions. The House Ways and Means Committee was able to include interactions with other provisions, estimating the cuts to MA to be even higher, coming in at $308 billion.

The New Republic article says this:  By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.

More notes:  Interesting.  Where is this unqualified statement of agreement from the hospitals, the nursing associations,  hospice,  and special care facilities?  As unqualified and unanimous in opinion,  such does not exist . 

And about this business of “full national coverage?”  After all is said and done, more than 23 Americans will remain without coverage. 

3) About the credit rating downgrade.

From the New Repulic’s article:  Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands. 

Here is the truth,  directly from S & P:  

S&P made the stunning move despite the recent congressional deal to raise the country's debt ceiling and heavy lobbying last night from Obama-administration officials, who said S&P's calculations were off by $2 trillion. . . . . . . "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal-consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said. 

The debt-ceiling deal was projected to lop off about $2 trillion from America's deficit over the next decade, but S&P had previously warned it would downgrade the credit rating if the cut didn't reach $4 trillion.

Read more at the New York Post.  

Editor’s notes:  well,  that was an easy rebuttal !

4) About the deficit.

From the New Republic article:  “Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan. “

Editor’s notes:  Does this author not know that the deficits – since the Bush tax cuts – averaged $450 billion,  not 1.3 trillion as we see in the Obama years?  THAT is a fact. 

Does this author not know that  TARP funding was not appropriated until end of 2008,  that nearly all of the TARP funding was Administered by Barack Obama and his minions?  That “TARP” continues until this day,  when it was originally intended to be a short term solution;  that Obama redirected the TARP funds away from toxic asset relieve,  in total  --  not spending a single dime of TARP on that for which was designed? 

Also, as a final point, here,  the reader should be reminded of Obama’s three failed budget proposals,  each put up for congressional vote,  each failing to secure a single vote from anyone  --  97 to Nothing,  99 to Nothing (both Senate votes  - I assume the gutless Harry Reid “abstained”),  and 414 to Nothing in the House.  Why?  Because his proposals added 11 trillion dollars to the national debt over a ten year period and no one wanted their name tied to such idiocy.   

5) About protecting the weak.

Editor’s notes:  If this report was a true review of the facts,  the author would have taken the time to presents Ryan’s comments in view of the article’s claim.  It is so easy to criticize a proposed plan when the other side has no plan,  when the critics offer no plan,  and when the author’s partisan conclusion are,  well,  his own partisan conclusion. 

This is what I know  -  no thinking and caring people within the Conservative movement and the GOP believe in the “you are on your own”  doctrine when applied to the weak,  the very poor,  the uneducated and the indent.  No one.  Such a claim,  as echoed on MSNBC , CNN,  and the three primetime television networks, want their viewers to believe.