Politics

[DSully1995]

Just got home from traveling for work. I was able to catch up on some reading while on the plane and thought this would b e a good place to put this.

Chris Edwards is Cato’s director of tax policy. In the May/June 2012 Cato Policy Report, Chris documented how Canada, in 2012, is expecting to collect 1.9% of GDP in federal corporate income taxes at a 15% corporate tax rate. The United States is expecting to collect 1.6% of GDP at a 35% corporate tax rate.

Discuss.

Can someone explain this to me? How is this possible?

 

[magogian]

Can someone explain this to me? How is this possible?

See my explanation.

 

[phgreek]

U.S. Firms Move Abroad to Cut Taxes - WSJ.com

So if both sides agree that corporate tax reform should include eliminating deductions and lowering the rate to something globally competitive, why hasn't Obama pushed it through?

...cause I mean we all know he'll use an executive order for Dominos Pizza delivery...so WTF gives here?

He'll break standing law with an EO on immigration policy...but can't figure out how to bring himself to do it in a manner that is universally beneficial to the country.

 

[DSully1995]

See my explanation.

Ahh, Im entering my first year in economics this year, give me 4 years and I might be able to doublecheck your reasoning!

 

[Bluto]

I'm a bit confused, shouldn't Congress be setting tax policy? Anyhow, interesting piece from The Economist.

The presidential campaign: Another fine mess | The Economist

 

[pkt77242]

Obama couldn't pull a SINGLE Republican vote, not even notorious moderates like the Maine senators. Obama held strong majorities and repeatedly indicated that Republicans had no seat at the table because, as he put it, "elections have consequences."

Even then Obamacare had significant opposition from WITHIN the Democratic party and numerous members of Congress had to be bought off with exceptions, funding for pet projects in their districts/States etc.

So, when you can't get a single Republican to come along and you face significant opposition within your own party that somehow = you reaching across the aisle and trying to meaningfully compromise with the political opposition? I don't think so.

I think the most of the moderate Republicans got strong armed (or large donations) to vote against it. Here is a good article about Olympia Snowe's vote (I generally like Olympia) Olympia Snowe Will Vote Against Health Care Reform

Also according to one article I found Olympia Snowe helped write the original version.

Funny how lots of Democrats during the healthcare debate thought that Obama was to appeasing to the Republicans (Sahil Kapur: Olympia Snowe's Mysterious Role in Health Care Reform ) and a few other articles.

Oddly the most crazy part of the Republicans being against the bill is that they pretty much wrote it back in 1993. The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

So lets see, Chuck Grassly, Richard Lugar and Orrin Hatch supported it back then but not when Obama endorses it? Also there was such names as Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, and John Chafee. Plus good old Newt Gingrinch even supported it back then but now it is socialism.

So it looks like Republicans wouldn't support it because it was Obama's signature domestic issue and they wanted to make him a one term President.

So try again.

 

[Bluto]

I think the most of the moderate Republicans got strong armed (or large donations) to vote against it. Here is a good article about Olympia Snowe's vote (I generally like Olympia) Olympia Snowe Will Vote Against Health Care Reform

Also according to one article I found Olympia Snowe helped write the original version.

Funny how lots of Democrats during the healthcare debate thought that Obama was to appeasing to the Republicans (Sahil Kapur: Olympia Snowe's Mysterious Role in Health Care Reform ) and a few other articles.

Oddly the most crazy part of the Republicans being against the bill is that they pretty much wrote it back in 1993. The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

So lets see, Chuck Grassly, Richard Lugar and Orrin Hatch supported it back then but not when Obama endorses it? Also there was such names as Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, and John Chafee. Plus good old Newt Gingrinch even supported it back then but now it is socialism.

So it looks like Republicans wouldn't support it because it was Obama's signature domestic issue and they wanted to make him a one term President.

So try again.

Good one dude. Anyhow, serious question. What is the source of all this irrational animosity? I'm not a big fan of the current president given all his policies are kind of middle of the road GOP stuff from 10 years ago. I do happen to think a President Romney would be a complete disaster for the country. So what gives? Why the hate of the basically middle of the road Republican (based on policy) who sits in the White House now? Is it because he's....

 

[Rhode Irish]

I haven't studied this (just an alert so I don't get a 10 paragraph response from BGIF about what an idiot I am), but intuitively lower tax rates for individuals and corporations with no deductions seems to me definitely the way to go. The whole system right now just smacks me as unfair. A large swath of americans don't pay any taxes. Then another large group get to use deductions - whether because they own their own businesses, are so rich they can hire an accountant to create tax loopholes, in the right industry (like Mitt). This leaves a huge burden on those that make a decent wage but work for someone else. And corporate deductions are endless.

1.6% of GDP seems quite small though. Is this accurate? Just looking at this link (List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), according to the Heritage Foundation, America collects taxes at all levels about 27% of total GDP. Could federal corp taxes only contribute a small fraction of the total? If true, makes you wonder who is paying the taxes.

Lowering rates and broadening the base has pretty wide appeal on both sides of the political aisle among serious policy people, as well as among tax policy scholars. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. Even if we all agree generally that lower rates and a broader base are desirable because it achieves horizontal equity in the tax code, there is still a lot for people to disagree over. The real disagreement on tax policy in this country relates to vertical equity and how progressive we want the tax rates to be, and those issues will make tax reform difficult despite the wide support for lower rates and a wider base.

Also, politically, this isn't quite as easy of a sell as you'd assume. Closing corporate tax loopholes is obviously popular, but as you'd imagine there is quite a bit of resistance to the idea in the corporate community (and you may have heard they spend a lot of money lobbying congress). Also, opponents of the change will be to play up the "lower corporate rates" angle as a way to stir up public sentiment against reform (a slight-of-hand political trick, since the people that oppose the reform really oppose the closing of loopholes and not the lower rates). Obviously, with respect to personal income tax, closing "loopholes" would be incredibly unpopular. People depend on deductions for mortgage and student loan interest and such. (Obviously there are philosophical arguments that interest paid is not properly counted as income at all, and there are far more controversial credits and deductions in the code. I'm just giving a for instance.)

I am a person who does believe that government can and should play a role, although not as big of a role as conservatives think liberals want government to play. However, I am not totally comfortable with tax incentives as a device to implement government policy. I subscribe to the school of thought that direct government expenditures could possibly be more effective, but I am nervous about the political viability of going that route in the current climate.

Lots of complicated issues at play when we talk about tax reform.

 

[phgreek]

I'm a bit confused, shouldn't Congress be setting tax policy? Anyhow, interesting piece from The Economist.

The presidential campaign: Another fine mess | The Economist

...me too

budget would be nice, some new, sound tax policy would be pretty cool too, and some updated immigration policy...man, its like there are so many things to do that have an impact on the big fish...the economy...

some you do an EO to **** on standing law...some you ignore...

 

[pkt77242]

Good one dude. Anyhow, serious question. What is the source of all this irrational animosity? I'm not a big fan of the current president given all his policies are kind of middle of the road GOP stuff from 10 years ago. I do happen to think a President Romney would be a complete disaster for the country. So what gives? Why the hate of the basically middle of the road Republican (based on policy) who sits in the White House now? Is it because he's....

To make your point about Obama being conservative here is an article by an advisor to Ronald Reagan Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

I think the problem is that politics have become so corosive. It is an us vs them mentality with no room to compromise or work together to solve problems.

 

[phgreek]

Oddly the most crazy part of the Republicans being against the bill is that they pretty much wrote it back in 1993. The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

So lets see, Chuck Grassly, Richard Lugar and Orrin Hatch supported it back then but not when Obama endorses it? Also there was such names as Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, and John Chafee. Plus good old Newt Gingrinch even supported it back then but now it is socialism.

So it looks like Republicans wouldn't support it because it was Obama's signature domestic issue and they wanted to make him a one term President.

So try again.

This came out of your article...it is where I think everyone who isn't insanely partisan resides on this issue...

"However, the liberal critics, like Ezra Klein, overstate the degree of political opportunism, and understate the degree of genuine change-of-heart, that has accompanied the evolution of conservative thinking on the individual mandate. Stuart Butler’s op-ed is emblematic of this evolution."

 

[Bluto]

To make your point about Obama being conservative here is an article by an advisor to Ronald Reagan Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

I think the problem is that politics have become so corosive. It is an us vs them mentality with no room to compromise or work together to solve problems.

Great article there. Very insightful.

 

[pkt77242]

This came out of your article...it is where I think everyone who isn't insanely partisan resides on this issue...

"However, the liberal critics, like Ezra Klein, overstate the degree of political opportunism, and understate the degree of genuine change-of-heart, that has accompanied the evolution of conservative thinking on the individual mandate. Stuart Butler’s op-ed is emblematic of this evolution."

If it was only the individual mandate I might give a pass but as "liberal critic" Ezra Klein points out, it isn't the only thing they flipped on recently http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/19/the-individual-mandate-what-happened/

I will give them a pass on tarp as that was Bush's baby, but Mccain also supported comprehensive immigration reform back in 2007 and is now against it.

Also if it is a change of heart about policy and not just being against Obama, then why did it become socialism all of a sudden? I would understand if they just thought there was a better way of doing it (which I have yet to hear anything of substance from them on how to control costs and get people insured) but for it to go from a conservative idea to socialism (when it isn't even close to socialism)?

 

[phgreek]

If it was only the individual mandate I might give a pass but as "liberal critic" Ezra Klein points out, it isn't the only thing they flipped on recently The individual mandate: What happened?

I will give them a pass on tarp as that was Bush's baby, but Mccain also supported comprehensive immigration reform back in 2007 and is now against it.

Also if it is a change of heart about policy and not just being against Obama, then why did it become socialism all of a sudden? I would understand if they just thought there was a better way of doing it (which I have yet to hear anything of substance from them on how to control costs and get people insured) but for it to go from a conservative idea to socialism (when it isn't even close to socialism)?

ah...so we villify the side who determines a course, then uses buzz words to get their constituencies to buy in...pretty general approach once it moves from policy to the ground game...to point to it and say it is any more disingenuopus than how we got Obamacare in the first place is simply not credible.

I'm glad they (conservatives) came around to rational thought...anytime the government is involved in damned near anything outside a very narrow scope....it sucks...thats it...thats all. Label it what you will...but its simply all trying to warn people of imminent and epic failure....I'm ok with however thats gotta happen...just like you are ok with Reid and Pelosi doing everything they could to get this boat anchor passed.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think that once people get past the idea that Obama is in fact not a socialist but a Clinton Era Republican, these discussions could move forward better.... Everything everyone of us have been "debating" has been a rehashed idea from earlier in history and/or rebranded as something else to change the direction of the argument being made.

The political spectrum constantly shifts and now we are so far right politically, but center left socially, that no one can remember what or where the "center" is anymore on any subject. This corrosive and divisive political environment will only make things worse.

We know what works from history. We know what causes debt, how to balanace the budget, etc..We are all just refusing to do it on political grounds, and face the reality that everyone of us needs to sacrfice


JMO.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think that once people get past the idea that Obama is in fact not a socialist but a Clinton Era Republican

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

 

[RDU Irish]

So I thought Paul Ryan did pretty well last night. Thinking he might have had a pig in his pocket with all the grunting into the mic.

Watched a brutal exchange on CNBC after the speech where they are all yelling in Scott Walker's ear during an on the floor interview. What a bunch of unprofessional hacks?

Thoughts on the Janesville GM plant closing comments? It apparently closed after the election but before Obama took office. I don't have the direct quote but Obama campaigned there promising to keep it open.

 

[Cackalacky]

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

you must not remember the 1990s or at least the politcal portion of it.

Obama: Moderate 90s Republican?

But you will believe what you want.... I have seen that in your previous posts.

 

[RDU Irish]

http://www.antolin-davies.com/conventionalwisdom/income.pdf

RE- earlier tax discussion

This graph does not capture more recent data but proportionately incomes are down and profits are up. Corporations spend way more on wages than they earn in profits. People act like every dollar of wages leads to two dollars of profit which is absurd. That is why corporate tax collections are so much lower than individual income tax and payroll tax collections. In 2007 you are talking about $12 trillion of total personal incomes and $6 trillion of wages/salaries versus maybe $1.5 trillion total corporate profits.

Why the discrepancy b/w personal income and wages? Self employed income (including S Corps) falls under personal income not corporate, even though they account for a huge portion of employment.

So since total GDP is around $15 trillion and corporate profits are around $2 trillion, how exactly are corporations expected to pay for a $4 trillion federal budget? The current net federal collections from corporations is maybe 15%, so I would think a flat 15% tax on all corporate profits would both collect more today and more tomorrow as such a low rate, simple structure would spur growth and incentivize companies to domicile here.

But won't all that personal income in S corps be at risk of changing to C corp to pay less taxes? Maybe, revision of the dividend tax treatment would be necessary to avoid going C corp and paying everything out in dividends which would currently be 15% corp and 15% on the dividend for 28% compounded, much less than the 35% top income tax rate (then again simplifying the personal tax code and making 28% the top rate would solve most of that problem).

 

[RDU Irish]

you must not remember the 1990s or at least the politcal portion of it.

Obama: Moderate 90s Republican?

But you will believe what you want.... I have seen that in your previous posts.

Maybe that is why I voted for Ross Perot? I love this assumption that anyone supporting Romney over Obama is 100% behind all Republicans ever.

 

[Cackalacky]

Maybe that is why I voted for Ross Perot? I love this assumption that anyone supporting Romney over Obama is 100% behind all Republicans ever.

There is no assumption at all like that in my post. Buster has shown his disdain for Obama numerous times in this thread. I am not quite sure how you percieved that from my post. I don't know what Buster thinks of Romney nor in any way did I claim he was 100% behind Romney. I am well aware of his dislike of Obama though.

I am still waiting an answer on my Laffer curve questions though RDU.....

 

[RDU Irish]

What was the question? Sorry, too lazy to review thirty pages....

 

[Cackalacky]

What was the question? Sorry, too lazy to review thirty pages....

Then it is not worth discussing.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

So I thought Paul Ryan did pretty well last night. Thinking he might have had a pig in his pocket with all the grunting into the mic.

Watched a brutal exchange on CNBC after the speech where they are all yelling in Scott Walker's ear during an on the floor interview. What a bunch of unprofessional hacks?

Thoughts on the Janesville GM plant closing comments? It apparently closed after the election but before Obama took office. I don't have the direct quote but Obama campaigned there promising to keep it open.

Couldn't have said it better myself:

FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech

By JACK GILLUM and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press – 2 hrs 3 mins ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laying out the first plans for his party's presidential ticket, GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took some factual shortcuts Wednesday night when he attacked President Barack Obama's policies on Medicare, the economic stimulus and the budget deficit.

Sen. Rob Portman, a former U.S. trade representative, glossed over his own problems when critiquing Obama's trade dealings with China. A day earlier, the convention's keynote speaker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, bucked reality in promising that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will lay out for the American people the painful budget cuts it will take to wrestle the government's debt and deficit woes under control.

And former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum stretched the truth in taking Obama to task over his administration supposedly waiving work requirements in the nation's landmark welfare-to-work law.

A closer look at some of the words spoken at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla.:

___

RYAN: "And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. ... So they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."

THE FACTS: Ryan's claim ignores the fact that Ryan himself incorporated the same cuts into budgets he steered through the House in the past two years as chairman of its Budget Committee, using the money for deficit reduction. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers.

In addition, Ryan's own plan to remake Medicare would squeeze the program's spending even more than the changes Obama made, shifting future retirees into a system in which they would get a fixed payment to shop for coverage among private insurance plans. Critics charge that would expose the elderly to more out-of-pocket costs.

___

RYAN: "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."

THE FACTS: Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies.

One of them, the nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp., received $20.3 million from the Energy Department to help homes and businesses improve energy efficiency, according to federal records. That company, he said in his letter, would build "sustainable demand for green jobs." Another eventual recipient, the Energy Center of Wisconsin, received about $365,000.

___

RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year."

THE FACTS: The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants — though not the Janesville facility — to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler.

___

RYAN: Obama "created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing."

THE FACTS: It's true that Obama hasn't heeded his commission's recommendations, but Ryan's not the best one to complain. He was a member of the commission and voted against its final report.

___

CHRISTIE: "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths we need to hear to end the torrent of debt that is compromising our future and burying our economy. ... Tonight, our duty is to tell the American people the truth. Our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. We all must share in the sacrifice. Any leader that tells us differently is simply not telling the truth."

THE FACTS: Romney has made a core promise to cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget by 2016 to bring spending below 20 percent of the U.S. economy, and to balance it entirely by 2020.

His campaign manifesto, however, is almost completely devoid of the "hard truths" Christie promises. In fact, Romney is promising to reverse $716 billion in Medicare savings achieved by Obama over the coming decade and promises big increases in military spending as well, along with extending tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthiest.

The few specifics Romney offers include repealing Obama's health care law, cutting federal payrolls, weaning Amtrak from subsidies, cutting foreign aid and curbing the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

But it'll take a lot more than those steps for Romney to keep his vague promises, which are unrealistic if he's unwilling to touch Medicare and Social Security in the coming decade. Even the controversial budget plan of his vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., largely endorsed by Romney, leaves Medicare virtually untouched over the next 10 years.

What's left for Romney to cut is benefit programs other than Medicare and Social Security, which include food stamps, welfare, farm subsidies and retirement benefits for federal workers. The remaining pot of money includes the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies, which have already borne cuts under last year's budget deal. There's also widespread congressional aversion to cutting most of what remains on the chopping block, which includes health research, NASA, transportation, air traffic control, homeland security, education, food inspection, housing and heating subsidies for the poor, food aid for pregnant women, the FBI, grants to local governments, national parks and veterans' health care.

___

PORTMAN: "Take trade with China. China manipulates its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage. So why doesn't the president do something about it? I'll tell you one reason. President Obama could not run up his record trillion-dollar deficits if the Chinese didn't buy our bonds to finance them. Folks, we are as beholden to China for bonds as we are to the Middle East for oil. This will end under Mitt Romney."

THE FACTS: Portman is an expert on commerce, having served as President George W. Bush's trade representative from May 2005 to May 2006. But he didn't fare particularly well in stemming China's trade advantage, either.

Under Portman's watch, the U.S. trade deficit with China soared by 25 percent in 2005, and the next year it climbed more than 15 percent. By contrast, the deficit rose 10 percent over the first three years of Obama's presidency, according to U.S. government figures.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have launched unfair trade cases against China at the World Trade Organization, but neither has been able to rebalance the relationship.

___

SANTORUM: "This summer (Obama) showed us once again he believes in government handouts and dependency by waiving the work requirement for welfare. Now, I helped write the welfare reform bill. We made a lot crystal clear. No president can waive the work requirement, but as with his refusal to enforce our immigration laws, President Obama rules like he is above the law."

THE FACTS: The administration did not waive the work requirement. Instead, it invited governors to apply on behalf of their states for waivers of administrative requirements in the 1996 law. Some states have complained those rules tie up caseworkers who could be helping clients directly.

In a July 18 letter to congressional leaders, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that to be eligible for a waiver, governors must commit that their plans will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work. Moreover, states must show clear progress toward the goal within a year, or lose the waiver.

"We will not accept any changes that undercut employment-focused welfare reforms that were signed into law fifteen years ago," Sebelius wrote.

Ron Haskins, a former senior Republican House aide who helped write the welfare-to-work law, has said "there is merit" to the administration's proposal and "I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform and it eliminates the work requirement."

Haskins, now co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families, says the administration was wrong to roll out its proposal without first getting Republicans to sign off on it. But he said the idea itself is one both parties should be able to agree on, were it not for the bitter political divisions that rule Washington.

___

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Andrew Taylor, Henry C. Jackson and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at claims made in political campaigns and how they adhere to the facts.

 

[Cackalacky]

DANG!!!!!

 

[95NDAlumNM]

you must not remember the 1990s or at least the politcal portion of it.

Obama: Moderate 90s Republican?

But you will believe what you want.... I have seen that in your previous posts.

He is only in his early 20s. He probably does not even remember the early 2000s.

 

[Cackalacky]

He is only in his early 20s. He probably does not even remember the early 2000s.

I could give him a pass, but .....the lesson must be learned. NO! I request a full redaction of his laughter!

 

[potownhero]

Looks Like Ryan was accurate... and another broken Obama promise.

Looks Like Ryan was accurate... and another broken Obama promise.

Couldn't have said it better myself:

FACT CHECK: Obama promised and failed to keep Janesville GM plant open

Last night, in his Republican National Convention speech, Paul Ryan said:

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

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-Sentinel it 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.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Couldn't have said it better myself:

Here is the problem with that article. Did Ryan say anything that wasn't factual? I would say no, he didn't lie.

I could see some people saying what he was bemoaning Obama for Ryan has done some things that others would deem a contradiction. But, to say he took a factual shortcut is a factual shortcut.

 

[Cackalacky]

FACT CHECK: Obama promised and failed to keep Janesville GM plant open

Last night, in his Republican National Convention speech, Paul Ryan said:

President Barack Obama came to office during an economic crisis, as he has reminded us a time or two. Those were very tough days, and any fair measure of his record has to take that into account. My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.

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-Sentinel it 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.

It is my understanding, these were decisions made by GM, not Obama. Plus the republicans and blue dog dems have repeatedly filibustered jobs bills by the Obama Admin that would allow plants like janesville to retool and reopen because. But I am surprised we have an auto industry remaining at all.