Thursday, August 30, 2012

.@RepPaulRyan Paul Ryan's Brilliant, Scary, Lying Speech #p2 #tcot

Paul Ryan sent the Wisconsin delegation on the floor of the Republican convention into paroxysms of joy.

Former Governor and Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, who was standing beside me, kept squeezing my arm. "He got to you, didn't he?" Tommy said, leaning over to me after the speech. "Even journalists have a heart. . . . If he got to you, he got to America!"

Ryan was a huge hit. He got off the best, funniest line of the whole convention, when he said twenty-year-olds shouldn't have to live in their childhood bedrooms, staring at fading Obama posters and wondering when their lives were going to start.

He did, in fact, move people to tears with his tribute to his mom, when he choked up as he described her as his role model--how she went back to school and started a new career after her husband's untimely death, transforming herself "from a widow in grief to a small businesswoman whose happiness wasn't just in the past."

But then there was the truly appalling part.

It was breath-taking when Ryan brought up the GM factory that closed in Janesville, and implied that it was all Obama's fault.

Not only did the plant close on George W. Bush's watch, but it did so after union workers pleaded with Ryan to support them and help save their jobs, to no avail.

Ryan's record on trade is a perfect recipe for the destruction of manufacturing in his hard-hit district.

He even opposed extending unemployment insurance, after his constituents lost 30 to 50 percent of the district's manufacturing jobs.

Yet Ryan--a son of privilege and an enemy of labor--painted himself as a working class hero:

"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. 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 100 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 where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

That's a pretty gutsy rhetorical move.

So was Ryan's rhetoric on the Medicare cuts for which he excoriates Obama:

"The biggest, coldest power play of all in Obama Care came at the expense of the elderly," said the architect of Medicare's destruction in the Ryan budget plan.


.@RepPaulRyan Paul Ryan RNC Convention Speech: 5 Things Paul Ryan Got Right #p2 #tcot

Paul Ryan made a huge splash on the USS Wisconsin when he debuted on the presidential campaign a few weeks ago. Unlike his immediate predecessor for VP on a GOP ticket, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Ryan is no stranger to the national stage. After being excoriated in 2010 and 2011 for his serious, yet controversial budget plan, Ryan became a regular villain of the Democrats and the media.

The president himself took some time out of his schedule of driving the country into insane amounts of debt to beat up Paul Ryan for actually wanting to stop the downward spiral. Obama invited Ryan to the front row of a speech, during which he ripped him to shreds in front of the entire nation. Campaign commercials showing a Paul Ryan lookalike tossing granny off the cliff started to pepper the airways. 

Tonight, it was payback time

There were some tough acts to follow. Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Senator Rand Paul all delivered great speeches, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice absolutely brought the house down.

Paul Ryan not only met these expectations, he exceeded them.

Congressman Paul Ryan took the stage at 10:26 to thunderous applause and bass-driven rock music. Knowing that Ann Romney was a tough act to follow, and not wanting to draw comparisons to Sarah Palin's performance four years ago, he took a tone that was authentic and real. After diving right into his speech, he proceeded to drive five solid home runs over the fence.

1) Introduce Himself to the Nation

Paul Ryan may have more experience than Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he is still largely unknown to a majority of the country. Instead of a long, sappy video, there was a quick clip of Romney introducing Ryan a few weeks ago, followed by a few snippets from his mother and wife. Then he came out and immediately attacked.

He briefly introduced his wife and three children, and his mother, who currently lives in Florida. He touted his small town, Midwestern roots, something that Romney has not had since he left Michigan years ago to go to Boston. 


.@RepPaulRyan @gop 6 Worst Lies In Paul Ryan’s Speech #p2 #tcot

from  http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/30/772921/6-worst-lies-in-paul-ryans-speech/


Vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is taking flack on the morning news shows for his keynote address at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night. His speech was riddled with false claims, so much so that even Fox Newswrote, "To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan's speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

Here are the most glaring lies from his speech:

1. "A downgraded America." Ryan blamed the president for the nation's credit downgrade in August 2011 after Republicans threatened to allow the government to default on its debt for the first time in history. But the ratings agency explicitly blamed "Republicans saying that they refuse to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal."

2. "More debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined." Romney has made the almost identical claim, that Obama has amassed more debt "as almost all of the other presidents combined." But their mathdoesn't add up: when Obama took office, the national debt was $10.626 trillion. It has increased to slightly above $15 trillion.

3. Shuttered General Motors plant is "one more broken promise." Ryan described a GM plant that closed down in his hometown, Janesville, Wisconsin, and blamed Obama for breaking his promise to keep the plant open when he visited during his campaign. But Obama never made that promise, and the plant shut down in December 2008, before Obama even took office.

4. Obama "did exactly nothing" on Bowles-Simpson. Ryan said, "He 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." In fact, Ryan was instrumental in sabotaging the commission, leading the other House Republicans in voting against the plan.

5. "$716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama." Ryan's favorite lie is a deliberate distortion of Obamacare's savings from eliminating inefficiencies. Furthermore, Ryan's own plan for Medicare includes these savings. Romney has vowed to restore these cuts, which would render the trust fund insolvent 8 years ahead of schedule.

6. "The greatest of all responsibilities is that of the strong to protect the weak." Ryan closed the speech with an invocation of social responsibility, saying, "The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves." However, numerous clergy members have condemned Ryan's budget plan as "cruel," and "an immoral disaster" because of its devastating cuts in social programs the poor and sick rely on. Meanwhile, Ryan would giveultra-rich individuals and corporations $3 trillion in tax breaks.

.@RepPaulRyan Paul Ryan again blames Obama for GM plant shut down under Bush. Video archives correct the record. proof. #p2 #tcot

from  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/30/1125809/-Paul-Ryan-again-blames-Obama-for-GM-plant-shut-down-under-Bush-Video-archives-correct-the-record

I don't know what's more pathetic: that Paul Ryan used his vice presidential acceptance speech last night to blame President Obama for the closure of General Motors' Janesville, Wisconsin plant even though it stopped production in 2008 under George W. Bush ... or that Ryan didn't do everything he could to save the plant when it was at risk. Either way, he lied about the plant—and not for the first time.

Fortunately, between video archives on the internet and YouTube, we can keep him honest:

There's lies, damn lies, and Romney-Ryan.

.@foxnews @RepPaulRyan paul ryan's speech was laden with numerous falsehoods that Fox chose to ignore #p2 #tcot

from  http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/30/fox-disregarded-numerous-falsehoods-to-lavish-p/189661

Fox cheered Congressman Paul Ryan following his speech at the Republican National Convention, calling it "cogent," "coherent," and a "lethal shot" against President Obama. However, the speech was laden with numerous falsehoods that Fox patently ignored.

Fox Lauded Ryan Speech As "Cogent," "A Tour De Force," "Powerful"

Chris Wallace Called Ryan Speech "Cogent" And "Coherent" By "A Very Brilliant" Man. Fox NewsSunday host Chris Wallace praised Ryan as "a very brilliant and very thoughtful man" and called his speech "as cogent, as coherent, as searing an indictment of the Obama record as you have heard from the critics." Though Wallace failed to rebut several false claims Ryan made in his speech, he did note that Ryan's criticism of Obama over the debt was marred by Ryan's refusal to support the Bowles-Simpson plan, a bipartisan proposal to reduce the deficit:

WALLACE: A lot of people think that Paul Ryan has for some time been the intellectual leader of the Republican Party. And I think you could see that tonight. This was really a tour de force by a very brilliant and very thoughtful man. I want to add to what Brit [Hume] said. This was as cogent, as coherent, as searing an indictment of the Obama record as you have heard from the critics; obviously his supporters are going to disagree. [Fox News, America's Election HQ,8/29/12]

Brit Hume: Ryan Is "A Nice Young Man Who Delivered Nonetheless A Lethal Shot Tonight." Following the speech, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume lauded Ryan as "a nice young man who delivered nonetheless a lethal shot tonight":

HUME: The tricky thing [Ryan] faced was, could he deliver an eloquent speech and a powerful speech in which he came across as a likeable, and trustworthy young man that the American people can have confidence in and still deliver a devastating indictment of President Obama's administration? My sense about it is listening to it and kind of guessing how people out there might react to it is, that he probably did that job pretty well in the eyes of a great many people out across this country.

His speech was interesting, it was compelling, it had humor, and the moment when he mentioned his mother and his pride in her and her being his role model and you get that amazing picture of the little granddaughter snuggling up to her, that was worth a lot, too, in terms in the sense that this is a nice young man -- a nice, young man who delivered nonetheless a lethal shot tonight. [Fox News, America's Election HQ8/29/12]

Karl Rove: Ryan "Made A Pointed, Direct, Sober, But Respectful Critique Of Obama." Fox News contributor Karl Rove applauded Ryan's speech, calling it "pointed, direct, sober" while also "energetically delivered":

ROVE: Tonight he made a pointed, direct, sober, but respectful critique of Obama, not delivered in anger and malice but instead with disappointment and regret and did it expertly. There are two other notes he hit that I want to briefly mention. One is conservative populism. This was an attack on big government and upon the cronyism and the corruption of the current administration. And then there was a big note of optimism and energetically delivered. [Fox News, America's Election HQ, 8/29/12]

Charles Krauthammer: Ryan's Speech Was "Bold, Very Strong, And Very Large." Following the speech, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer lauded Ryan's speech as "bold, very strong and large in the sense that he went way beyond just the attacks which were extremely effective - like stiletto attacks."

KRAUTHAMMER: I thought the speech by Ryan was bold, very strong, and very large in the sense that he went way beyond just the attacks which were extremely effective -- like stiletto attacks. Each one a short jab that left a mark. There was no long elaboration, no wind up, he went point by point. And I agree with Karl, it was sort of more in sorry than in anger. But it cleverly reminded people -- you know that line about the young people with the faded poster of Obama on the wall who don't have a job. It reminded people of the fact that Obama had disappointed them.  [Fox News, America's Election HQ, 8/29/12]

Fox Nation Dubbed Ryan Speech "Powerful." Fox Nation posted a transcript of Paul Ryan's speech using the headline: "Paul Ryan's Powerful RNC Speech: 'Let's Get This Done'":

 Fox Nation on Ryan speech

[Fox Nation, 8/29/12]

Ryan Bashed The Stimulus That He Tapped Into For Local Business

Ryan: "The Stimulus Was A Case Of Political Patronage, Corporate Welfare, And Cronyism At TheirWorst." During his speech, Ryan criticized the stimulus, calling it "the first troubling sign" of the Obama administration.

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.

What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn't just spent and wasted -- it was borrowed, spent, and wasted. [Transcript of Paul Ryan's 2012 Republican National Convention speech, 8/29/12, via Huffington Post]

FACT: Ryan Sought And Received Stimulus Funds For Businesses In His District. The Boston Globereported that Ryan sought stimulus funds for local businesses even while he was criticizing the stimulus as wasteful in 2009:

In 2009, as Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package as a "wasteful spending spree," he wrote at least four letters to Obama's secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by the Globe.

The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds -- one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show.

Ryan's letters to the energy secretary praising the energy initiatives as he sought a portion of the funding are in sharp contrast to the House Budget Committee chairman's image as a Tea Party favorite adamantly opposed to federal spending on such programs. [Boston Globe,8/13/12]

FACT: Ryan Forced To Acknowledge Stimulus Requests After Denying He Sent Them. ABC News reported that Ryan was forced to acknowledge requesting stimulus funds for businesses in his district after repeatedly denying that he sought the funding:

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC's Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.

[...]

In 2009, Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis asking for stimulus money to cover costs on two energy conservation projects in his home state of Wisconsin. In the letter, Ryan said the funds would help create jobs and reduce "energy consumption" in the state. At least one of the companies received the requested cash.

[...]

But as we've now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds. [ABC News, Political Punch, 8/16/12]

Ryan Blamed Obama For Janesville Auto Plant Closing That Occurred Under Bush

Ryan Falsely Suggested Obama Is At Fault For Hometown Plant Closure. During his speech, 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, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight. [Transcript of Paul Ryan's 2012 Republican National Convention speech, 8/29/12, via Huffington Post]

FACT: Janesville Plant Closed Before Obama's Inauguration. An August 16 Detroit News article reported that Ryan had inaccurately attacked Obama for failing to keep the Janesville plant open and noted that the plant's closure predated Obama's presidency:

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan inaccurately said Thursday that President Barack Obama "broke his promise" by failing to keep a General Motors plant open that closed in 2008 -- before the Democrat took office.

Ryan, the House Budget committee chairman, recounted the decision by GM to shutter the Janesville Assembly plant in his hometown in June 2008. The last SUV rolled off the line in December 2008.

"I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open," Ryan said at a campaign stop in Ohio Thursday, recounting the fact that his high school friends worked at the GM assembly plant. "One more broken promise. We used to build Tahoes and Suburbans. One of the reasons that plant got shut down was $4 gasoline. You see, this costs jobs. The president's terrible energy policies are costing us jobs."

In fact, Obama made no such promise and the plant halted production in December 2008, when President George W. Bush was in office. [Detroit News8/16/12]

FACT: Obama Never Promised To Keep The Plant Open. Moments after Ryan's speech, Politifact-Wisconsin rated Ryan's statement as false, noting the President had never promised to keep the plant open:

"And 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.  The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it's where it will thrive.  I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that's the future I'll fight for as your president."

That's a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open -- but not a promise to keep it open.

Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office.

We rate Ryan's statement False. [PolitiFact, 8/29/12]

FACT: Center For Automotive Research: By 2010, The Auto Rescue Saved Nearly 1.5 Million Jobs. In November 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that a study from the Center for Automotive Research found that the auto rescue saved well over 1 million jobs:

No matter what happens with Government Motors, the taxpayer intervention in the auto business appears to be a win for Americans, a new research report asserts.

The Center for Automotive Research said today the government's bailouts of the U.S. auto industry spared more than 1.14 million jobs last year alone, and prevented "additional personal income losses" of nearly $97 billion combined for this year and last.

Another 314,400 jobs were saved this year thanks to the $80 billion in taxpayer lifelines extended to GM, Chrysler, and the GMAC and Chrysler Financial financing businesses, CAR said. [The Wall Street Journal11/17/10]

Ryan Blamed Obama For Bowles-Simpson Plan That He Helped Kill

Ryan Touted Commission's "Urgent Report" Before Criticizing Obama For Doing "Exactly Nothing." In Rep. Paul Ryan's RNC speech he attacked President Obama over the debt, claiming the Simpson-Bowles commission "came back with an urgent report" but that Obama "did exactly nothing" with the plan. From Ryan's speech:

Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.

He 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. [Transcript of Paul Ryan's 2012 Republican National Convention speech, 8/29/12, via Huffington Post]

FACT: Ryan "Was A Pivotal Figure In Killing" The Bowles-Simpson Plan. An August 14 Bloomberg article noted that Ryan "was a pivotal figure in killing the 2010 Bowles-Simpson agreement," pointing out that "Ryan led a bloc of three House Republicans who denied the additional votes needed" to send the plan to Congress for a vote. From Bloomberg:

Representative Paul Ryan was a pivotal figure in killing the 2010 Bowles-Simpson agreement, which Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney now points to as a model for putting America's fiscal house in order.

The 18-member panel needed 14 votes to send a 10-year plan for trimming the debt to the U.S. Congress for a vote. As his party's top member on the House Budget Committee, Ryan led a bloc of three House Republicans who denied the additional votes needed.

All three Senate Republicans on the panel backed the plan and one of them, former New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, said he thinks the House Republicans who rejected it were beholden to an anti-tax-increase pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who opposes the plan's tax blueprint that raises revenue by ending popular expenditures. [Bloomberg, 8/14/12]

FACT: Ryan "Ended Up As An Energetic Participant In The Ideological Stalemate That Doomed"Bowles-Simpson. In an August 15 article, Politico called Ryan "an energetic participant in the ideological stalemate that doomed [the Bowles-Simpson commission's] work to failure." From Politico:

He was enthusiastic, earnest, courteous and well-informed. Rep. Paul Ryan, in other words, certainly knew how to play the role of a sleeves-rolled-up, problem-solving deficit hawk as a member of the high-profile Bowles-Simpson budget commission.

In the end, however, that was not the role Ryan chose to play -- he was more of a loyal GOP partisan who wasn't willing to step out on his own.

After beginning as an energetic participant on the Bowles-Simpson commission, he finished up as an energetic participant in the ideological stalemate that doomed its work to failure. [Politico8/15/12]

Economist: Ryan's Opposition To Plan "More Or Less Guaranteed The Plan Would Die." In a January 7, 2011 blog post, The Economist noted that Romney opposed the Bowles-Simpson plan which, along with opposition from other House Republicans "more or less guaranteed the plan would die." From The Economist:

Like Mr Conrad, Mr Ryan was a member of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Unlike Mr Conrad, he voted against its plan to stabilise the debt despite calling it "serious and credible". He opposed it because it left Mr Obama's health-care reform intact, and because it relied too much on tax increases, even though these were smaller than the plan's spending cuts. The opposition by Mr Ryan and his two fellow House Republicans more or less guaranteed the plan would die.

A few days later Mr Ryan congratulated Mr Obama for acting "responsibly" in capitulating to Republicans and agreeing to an $800 billion-plus package that extends all of George Bush's tax cuts and implements new temporary stimulus composed overwhelmingly of tax cuts. Whatever its merits as stimulus, its complete absence of any linkage to long-term deficit reduction is antithetical to the principals behind the Fiscy. [The Economist1/7/11]

Ryan Dishonestly Blamed Obama For U.S. Credit Downgrade

Ryan: "It Began With A Perfect Triple-A Credit Rating For The United States; It Ends With ADowngraded America."  During his speech, Ryan stated Obama's presidency had begun with a "triple-A credit rating" and ends with a "downgraded America":

Obamacare, as much as anything else, explains why a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close.

It began with a financial crisis; it ends with a job crisis.

It began with a housing crisis they alone didn't cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn't correct.

It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America. [Transcript of Paul Ryan's 2012 Republican National Convention speech, 8/29/12, via Huffington Post]

FACT: The Economy Obama Inherited Was Hemorrhaging Jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy lost hundreds of thousands of jobs per month throughout 2008, The employment decline peaked at 820,000 jobs lost in January 2009:

St. Louis Fed Employment Chart 

[Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2/6/09]

FACT: At The Beginning Of Obama's Term, The Economy Had Been Contracting Rapidly From theRecession. The Associated Press Reported:

The 2007-2009 recession, already in the record books as the worst in the 66 years since the end of World War II, was even worse than previously thought.

From the start of the recession at the end of 2007 to the end in June of 2009, the U.S. economy shrank 5.1 percent. That is 1 percentage point worse than the previous estimate that the recession reduced total output during that period by 4.1 percent. [Associated Press,7/29/11]

Fact: The Rating Agency That Downgraded The U.S. Was A "Key Enabler Of The FinancialMeltdown." A Congressional Commission concluded in a January 2011 Financial Crisis Inquiry Report that the credit rating agencies were "essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction" and "were key enablers of the financial meltdown." From the report:

We conclude the failures of credit rating agencies were essential cogs in the wheelof financial destruction. The three credit rating agencies [Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch Ratings] were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval. Investors relied on them, often blindly. In some cases, they were obligated to use them, or regulatory capital standards were hinged on them. This crisis could not have happened without the rating agencies. Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, January 2011, emphasis in original]

... And Was Not Qualified to "Pass Judgment" On U.S. Economic Policies. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman argued "It's hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the Rating Agencies":

[I]t's hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies. The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?

Just to make it perfect, it turns out that S&P got the math wrong by $2 trillion, and after much discussion conceded the point -- then went ahead with the downgrade.

More than that, everything I've heard about S&P's demands suggests that it's talking nonsense about the US fiscal situation. The agency has suggested that the downgrade depended on the size of agreed deficit reduction over the next decade, with $4 trillion apparently the magic number. Yet US solvency depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term: an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to future interest costs, so a couple of trillion more or less barely signifies in the long term. What matters is the longer-term prospect, which in turn mainly depends on health care costs.

So what was S&P even talking about? Presumably they had some theory that restraint now is an indicator of the future -- but there's no good reason to believe that theory, and for sure S&P has no authority to make that kind of vague political judgment.

In short, S&P is just making stuff up -- and after the mortgage debacle, they really don't have that right.

So this is an outrage -- not because America is A-OK, but because these people are in no position to pass judgment. [The New York Times8/5/11]

China Is Buying U.S. Companies at Record Pace

from  http://knowledgetoday.wharton.upenn.edu/2012/08/china-is-buying-u-s-companies-at-record-pace/ 

Chinese companies are buying up U.S. companies and other assets at a record pace in 2012. The country is spending some of its huge dollar holdings before they depreciate, while acquiring — in addition to hard assets in the U.S. — the market share, technological know-how, talent and training expertise that often come with them.

In the past, China's designs on acquiring U.S. companies have hit strong resistance on national security grounds. Last year, for example, China's largest telecommunications equipment company — Huawei – voluntarily walked away from its acquisition of 3Leaf, a U.S. server technology company, under pressure from the U.S. government. The U.S was concerned about Huawei's connections with Chinese security services (the company was founded by a People's Liberation Army soldier), though Huawei said it had no connections with the Chinese government. Earlier attempts by Huawei to buy a network company — 3Com Inc. — and to sign a contract with Sprint Nextel worth billions of dollars were also turned aside over national security concerns in the U.S. In 2005, the U.S. nixed efforts by the Chinese oil giant CNOOC to buy up UNOCAL, a U.S. oil company.

To shed some light on the latest run at U.S. companies by Chinese firms, Knowledge@Wharton asked two Wharton management professors to offer their thoughts on Chinese acquisitions and the potential for a U.S. backlash. They are as follows:

Marshall Meyer:  

I view the [potential U.S.] backlash (as in UNOCAL-CNOOC) as idiosyncratic and unpredictable. Step back from particular acquisitions — or the number of acquisitions — and ask how the U.S. public views Chinese economic strength.

First, the public believes that China is stronger economically than the U.S. (we used to believe Japan was stronger).

Second, U.S. public opinion is not particularly apprehensive about growing Chinese economic strength — we're more apprehensive about growing Chinese military strength.)

Third, there is little or no partisan divide on attitudes toward Chinese investment in the U.S.  Democrats are prone to bash China on jobs, of course; Republicans will bash China on national security issues. Within the parties, especially the GOP, there are deep fissures on China. The Cato Institute, for example, wants open markets, while The Heritage Foundation tends to see "other-than-market" considerations driving Chinese acquisitions in the U.S. Rick Perry embraced the Hauwei investment as part of his "Texas miracle" program, and was bashed by the far, far right for his stance on Hauwei.

China rebuilt the port of Boston and no one peeped. But when a Chinese company proposed to acquire a U.S. petro firm whose assets were mainly in Asia, Congress reacted. The difference is public relations: COSCO (the Chinese shipping company that built the port) had deep experience lobbying the Congress, while CNOOC (the Chinese oil company) at the time did not. CNOOC has since gotten wiser and is utilizing top lobbyists in its current push to acquire the Canadian energy giant Nexen. But Canada's right wing is pushing back on China, and it isn't clear where this will end up.

China needs to spend their foreign reserves before they depreciate. But they cannot spend these reserves domestically without pushing the renminbi upward. Hence, China's investment goes outward. The reaction [in the U.S. and elsewhere] is driven by whether the motive is interpreted as financial or "other than market."

There are some U.S. companies starved for cash who turn to China, for example, in auto parts where Wanxiang (China's largest auto parts maker) is buying a lot.  Equally important, there are Chinese companies wanting to diversify outside of China due to the inherent risks at a time of government transition, and that will pay premium prices for the privilege. (I cannot find another explanation for Beijing Oceanwide Realty's investment in Lenovo's parent company, Legend Holdings.) But don't imagine that all Chinese companies go out from strength. Often it is from weakness. Or fear. It's a complicated story.

 Mauro Guillen:

China holds a large proportion of outstanding U.S. government bonds. [This is] because they have a large amount of foreign currency reserves. Chinese companies would also like to buy other types of assets, especially those [that provide] access to market share, technology or other resources in the U.S.

There are several policy issues here. First, the U.S. is committed to free capital flows, so curtailing foreign investment in the form of M&As carries costs.

Second, having said that, the U.S. should be concerned if the acquirers are foreign state-controlled companies, no matter the country of origin. This is especially true for "national security" industries.

Third, we should get used to this type of headline. More and more Chinese firms, and firms from emerging economies in general, will engage in M&As in Europe and the U.S.

The Apple-Samsung Case: What It Means for Patents -- and Innovation

In what some are calling "the patent trial of the century," a federal grand jury in California last week decided in favor of Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung. In addition to awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages, the jury found that Samsung violated several iPhone utility and design patents when it created phones such as the Galaxy S II and the Fascinate.

Following the verdict, Apple requested that eight Samsung phones be banned from sale in the U.S. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for December. In the meantime, Samsung has said it will appeal the case. Many observers believe Friday's verdict could open the door to Apple pursuing litigation against other companies -- including Google, maker of the Android operating system used in Samsung phones and tablets.

To discuss the key issues of the case, Knowledge@Wharton turned to Wharton management professor David Hsu and Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Andrea Matwyshyn.

Edited versions of both transcripts appear below.

In the first conversation, Hsu talked about the case's impact on innovation as it relates to design and creativity.

Knowledge@Wharton: David, first of all, could you tell us some of the winners and losers as a result of the jury's decision?

David Hsu: Apple is the clear winner here, and the device makers on the Android system are the ones that are going to be scrambling and trying to figure out in what areas they're going to have to retrofit, or even redesign, their products. Of course, Google is kind of the company lurking in the background -- it isn't being attacked directly, but it's getting closer [to being directly impacted]. My interpretation of why Apple leadership was so insistent on pursuing this case to the end is because they feel strongly that the design elements in conjunction with the functional elements of their products really make the user experience, and they want to protect that. As a result, the likes of Samsung, HTC, Motorola Mobility (owned by Google) and the other large handset makers on the Android platform are the ones that will be trying to figure out their next moves.

Knowledge@Wharton: Are there other winners besides Apple? I know there's been some discussion that Microsoft, which makes the Windows mobile operating system used in Nokia devices, could get a boost from this decision because their product is so different from Apple/Android.

Hsu: I think that may be true in that this opens up the landscape of competition beyond just the functionality. Maybe it would be useful to take one step back and to analyze the patents that were under dispute here. A number of them were on the design side, so it's not protecting the functionality of the innovation, but rather the packaging of it. And then a few of the others did not go to the core of the operating system, but were about some of the more design-oriented aspects, [such as] the [feature in which pages viewed on Apple's iOS operating system "bounce back" into place when a user reaches the top or bottom] or the array of the icons on the grid.

I interpret it as a strengthening of design-related patents. Previously, it was the case that if you were a furniture designer and came up with an innovative design, that did not necessarily stop competitors from coming in and marketing say, an "Eames-like" chair, so long as they were clear that it was not the genuine product. [The Apple/Samsung case indicates] that there seems to be a broadening of the protection of design elements. And so this, I think, broadens the landscape for how companies -- including electronics companies or fashion design companies -- will seek protection of their creative efforts, their intellectual property.

For the direct competitors in the handset space, [the implications] will play out in terms of acquiring patents, as we've already seen over the last two years or so. There has been lots of interest in trying to acquire whole "patent portfolios" that surround smartphones. Obviously, the smartphone is going to be the Swiss Army knife of the 21st century -- it already is, and is becoming more so. And as a result, there is almost a land grab for the various kinds of more elemental patents in intellectual property that undergird that platform.

So to summarize my answer, I think that this case will broaden the landscape of competition. It may open the landscape a little bit more. You mentioned Nokia and Microsoft, and clearly they have their own operating systems for the smartphone hardware, and they may be kind of waiting on the edges. But it is pretty clear that the dominant competition, at least right now, is the Android versus the Apple operating system. So this is why the case was billed "the [patent] trial of the century," as a result of the two large manufacturers going head-to-head in this battle.

Knowledge@Wharton: So you don't think that one impact will be Nokia and Microsoft immediately elbowing out Samsung, HTC, Google and the rest of the Android-based phones? It would be for the number one space, since Apple phones are really number two in the U.S. market.

Hsu: No, I don't think that this is going to radically reconfigure the landscape because in this kind of platform-oriented competitive space, there tend to be tipping points. And there has to be enough of a critical mass of users, a developer community and support by the companies to really enable the critical mass because people are not necessarily just looking at today's functionality: They're trying to anticipate the functionality down the road as they decide to adopt one platform or another.

While I think that there's going to have to be some redesign [as a result of this case] -- not only in the smartphone market but also in the tablet market, where these operating systems naturally share a common code -- what we're going to see if anything, is perhaps more of a creative or innovative effort by the manufacturers of the Android platform to try to differentiate themselves.

But I do think that there's a window now, a little bit of a window of opportunity for Microsoft and Nokia to take advantage of this particular event. Whether or not they'll be able to successfully navigate that obviously remains to be seen.

rest at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3069

.@mittromney Matt Taibbi: 'Mitt Romney Is One Of The Greatest And Most Irresponsible Debt Creators Of All Time' #p2 #tcot

According to Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi, Mitt Romney made his fortune exploiting two strategies that the Republican presidential candidate now decries: creating massive amounts of debt and milking federal government handouts.

"Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time," Taibbi wrote in a Rolling Stonearticle published online Wednesday. He also slammed the hypocrisy of what he considers Romney's scare tactics about the national debt: "By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions."

While Romney -- whom Taibbi describes as a "new and improved" Gordon Gekko -- ran Bain Capital, he would saddle acquired companies with the same debt he used to buy those companies, as well as steep management fees. This burden forced many Bain-run companies to fire workers and cut employees' pay and benefits. It amounted to "raping and pillaging," Taibbi wrote.

Moreover, according to Taibbi, Romney's Bain Capital was able to "loot" so many companies because it could deduct taxes on the interest on the debt used for the takeovers.

"Romney is the frontman and apostle of an economic revolution, in which transactions are manufactured instead of products, wealth is generated without accompanying prosperity, and Cayman Islands partnerships are lovingly erected and nurtured while American communities fall apart," Taibbi concluded. "It seems a little early to vote for that kind of wholesale surrender."

You can read Matt Taibbi's full takedown of Mitt Romney in Rolling Stone here.


In 2010 46 million Americans were living in poverty. Fact: Record numbers of Americans living in "extreme poverty" are women.

Fact: In 2010 46 million Americans were living in poverty. Fact: Record numbers of Americans living in "extreme poverty" are women.

During the Republican National Convention this week and the Democratic National Convention next week, The Huffington Post is hosting three online Shadow Conventions highlighting issues that seem to fall off both parties' radars too easily. Sections across HuffPost are tackling the Drug War, poverty and the seemingly ever-expanding role that money plays in political campaigns. Today we're focusing on poverty in the United States -- an issue that disproportionately impacts households led by women.

Women are more likely to fall below the poverty line than men are for a variety of reasons, some of which you hear discussed more than others. We could say more, but today, we'll let the facts speak for themselves. Here is the reality of women and poverty in America:

LOOK: 18 Facts About Women And Poverty In The United States


Paralympics 2012: Disabled Vets Inspire Record U.S. Media Coverage: Experts

Though U.S. coverage of the Paralympics still vastly pales in comparison to other countries', supporters say the amped up airtime is a welcome improvement likely inspired by the veterans who are competing.

A record 2.2 million tickets were sold for the Games that begin Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, and media outlets across the world have responded to the demand. Britain's Channel 4 will show 150 hours of programming (and about 350 hours more online) and the Australian Broadcasting Corp. will feature about 100 hours of coverage. NBC, which drew 31 million viewers during the Olympics, is featuring the Paralympic Games for the first time and showing four one-hour long highlights programs, according to PBS.

While the coverage is certainly relatively sparse, some advocates for adaptive athletics feel emboldened by the network's decision and partly credit the military presence for the change.

"The veterans are having a huge impact," Christine Tinberg, founder of Bicycling Blind Los Angeles, told the Guardian. "It pulls people's hearts. And the government is putting a lot of money into sports facilities for them."

This year, the United States' 227-member Paralympic team includes 20 military veterans and active-duty service members, some of whom were injured in combat, according to Team USA.

One such athlete includes Brad Snyder who lost his eyesight when an IED exploded in his face in Afghanistan in September 2011, NBC reports. The former Navy swim captain returned to the pool soon after becoming blind and will compete on the one-year anniversary of the devastating explosion.


Homeless People Speak Out on What They Want From Politicians (VIDEO) #p2 #tcot

"The young couple I met on Skid Row today, who was kind enough to be in this video, looked exhausted and broken. They had been walking from mission to mission trying to find a place to stay. Most homeless services just offer referrals that do not show availability. This couple was given phone numbers to places that were full so now they were walking until their feet were blistered trying to find help.

The other big issue is many homeless people are not informed. Street homeless obviously have less availability to the internet and television. Sheltered homeless have more access, but computers have time limits and many shelters restrict computer use just to job searches. Normally in a shelter there is one group TV for everyone. Usually movies are played. Television news is rare so forget any political convention coverage.

Not sure about you but the more I thought about homeless people not voting the more it upset me. The very people who desperately need change the most are not speaking up. From what I see there is very little effort by any political party to empower those of us close to or in poverty.

All the focus is on the rich and the middle class, when the people at the bottom are ignored. I'm not saying this is on purpose. But I would bet things at the top would change fast if the people at the bottom actually had a voice, which is the theory behind this video project.

Being a person who believes the glass is half full, I want to believe we'll soon see a change. Hopefully by the next election. We already have reduced landline services but who the heck uses a landline anymore. We need to break the generational curse of poverty with educational programs when families are placed in transitional housing. We need to fix homeless services and start treating our homeless friends with dignity. We need more help for school-aged kids experiencing homelessness. There is a lot we can do, and should be doing!

And greater access to information is empowering -- more free public WiFi and the lower cost of laptop and tablets, technology and access to the internet will help educate people experiencing poverty. There is a movement to bring free cellphone service to low and no-income people.

I think the man I met on Skid Row today sums it up with his last comment on the video:

"After you finish with homelessness and you're dealing with their conditions and their problems, then you can meet the community and say I'm the guy to elect". If you don't meet those issues I don't think it's proper for you to talk about that you need to be elected if you're not helping the people that's trying to elect you." 

rest at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-horvath/homeless-speaks-out-missing-conventions_b_1838468.html?utm_campaign=082912&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-impact&utm_content=FullStory

.@RepPaulRyan NINE Paul Ryan Facts : A Misguided and Dangerous Vision for America #p2 #tcot




Problems viewing this email? View it in your web browser.

The Progress Report Banner

NINE Paul Ryan Facts

Aug 29, 2012 | By ThinkProgress War Room

Paul Ryan: A Misguided and Dangerous Vision for America

Tonight is the biggest moment of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) political life. He'll take the stage at the Republican National Convention to accept the GOP's nomination for vice president.

Fortunately, Paul Ryan has a long and detailed record and his policy positions on key issues are well-known. Unfortunately, his views are misguided and dangerous. Instead of creating an economy that works everyone, Paul Ryan wants the middle class to pay more so the wealthiest Americans and huge corporations can pay less. And his views on women's issues are more suitable for the 1950s than 2012.

Here's the top 9 facts on Paul Ryan that you should know before he takes the stage tonight:

  1. Ryan wants to end Medicare, replace it with a voucher system. Ryan's latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a "premium support" system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiaries enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare's age of eligibility to 67. A newer version of his plan could leave current and future seniors paying thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more for their health care.
  2. Ryan wants to raises taxes on the middle class, cut them for millionaires. Paul Ryan's infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces "the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent." Federal tax collections would fall "by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade" as a result and to avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and "special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code." But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That's because while Ryan "would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama's tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time." Households "earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually."


  3. Ryan co-sponsored a "personhood" amendment, an extreme anti-abortion measure. Ryan joined 62 other Republicans, including the now infamous Rep. Todd Akin, in co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which declares that a fertilized egg "shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood." This would outlaw abortion, some forms of contraception and in-vitro fertilization.
  4. Ryan tried to pass bills to redefine rape — more than once. Last year, Ryan joined with Akin as two of the original co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term "forcible rape." But Ryan also worked without success even earlier, some three years ago, to try and redefine rape but was rebuffed by the then-Democratically-controlled House. In the midst of the growing controversy over Ryan's views, he said that rape is just another "method of conception." While Ryan said he was "very proud" of his record on abortion issues, he claimed that the "forcible rape" language he pioneered was just "stock language."
  5. Ryan thinks Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry's characterization of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. His 2005 plan to privatize Social Security was so extreme that even the Bush administration called it "irresponsible."
  6. Ryan's budget would result in 4.1 million lost jobs in 2 years. Ryan's budget, which Romney embraced, calls for massive reductions in government spending. He has proposed cutting discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, which, the Economic Policy Institute estimates, would suck demand out of the economy and "reduce employment by 1.3 million jobs in fiscal 2013 and 2.8 million jobs in fiscal 2014, relative to current budget policies."
  7. Ryan wants to eliminate Pell Grants for more more than 1 million students. Ryan's budget claims both that rising financial aid is driving college tuition costs upward, and that Pell Grants, which help cover tuition costs for low-income Americans, don't go to the "truly needy." So he cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could "ultimately knock more than one million students off" the program over the next 10 years.
  8. Ryan supports $40 billion in subsidies for big oil. In 2011, Ryan joined all House Republicans and 13 Democrats in his vote to keep Big Oil tax loopholes as part of the FY 2011 spending bill. His budget would retain a decade's worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while cutting "billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil." For instance, it "calls for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone" and would spend only $150 million over five years — or 20 percent of what was invested in 2012 — on energy programs.
  9. Ryan's budget expanded incentives for outsourcing American jobs. In addition to protecting current tax giveaways for companies that ship American jobs overseas, Ryan's budget would also create new incentives for companies to move jobs to countries like China and India. Indeed, as many as 800,000 jobs could be created in foreign countries as a result of tax changes included in his budget. These changes would also further encourage to stash their profits in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You May Have Missed

Why (and how) Romney is playing the race card.

Condi Rice can't name a single specific Obama foreign policy failure.

Two attendees were thrown out of the RNC after throwing peanuts at a black camerawoman while saying, "this is how we feed animals."

GOP governor acknowledges that Romney's welfare attack ads are false.

The author of South Carolina's voter suppression law admits enjoying racist emails.

Romney megadonors at the RNC partied on a Cayman Islands-flagged yacht.

A Romney adviser admits that the GOP budget "probably doesn't" have support "most places."

Romney is viewed more unfavorably than any presidential nominee in decades.

Ann Romney: Hispanics need to "get past some of their biases" in order to support Republicans.

 


THINKPROGRESS | Center for American Progress Action Fund
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20005