This isn't analysis, it's superficial summarizing without any critique or in depth look at what was actually said. What is the matter with the major media that you are so timid and wishy washy. Our future is at stake and you are glossing over important issues and not providing the guidance and analysis the country needs. Please! Give us the facts and the truth.

"In October 2008, GM announced Janesville Assembly would be largely idled December 23, 2008 when production of SUVs would end. A skeleton crew continued to work at Janesville Assembly through June, 2009, completing the Janesville/Isuzu light truck contract."

Unless Ryan wears a Truth Meter strapped to his forehead, most people will never know he lies through his teeth. Call him out on it, Meet The Press. Don't enable these guys; they have Fox News for that.

Much of the mainstream media commentary has been pretty lame, but Gregory did hold Ryan to account for a fair amount of "ideological amnesia," and also pointed out that RIce had little to say about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that occurred on her watch. I would grade him above average, but a bit below Wolf Blitzer.

Paul Ryan's Congressional Record: During more than 13 years in Congress, Ryan has passed just two of his bills into law. After a year and a half on the job, Ryan reached a milestone: He passed his first bill. It renamed a post office. Four years later, Ryan got another bill passed. It lowered the excise tax on the parts used to make arrows. This is the "visionary" that the GOP want?

EXPOSING PAUL RYAN'S MEDICARE LIES
OBAMA REMOVED $700+ BILLION WORTH OF WASTEFUL SPENDING FROM MEDICARE; DOES NOT CUT PAYMENTS/BENEFITS

No Medicare benefits were or will be cut under Obamacare
Under Obamacare, Medicare's life was extended by 8 years
Medicare beneficiaries are enjoying more benefits than ever
The Romney-endorsed Ryan Plan would "essentially end Medicare"
Obamacare removes $700 billion worth of wasteful spending from Medicare; DOES NOT CUT PAYMENTS OR BENEFITS
Dear Friend,
Medicare has vaulted to the national stage over the past week, and Mitt Romney's giant ad buys continue to tell the wrong story. Let's set the record straight.
Romney's Medicare plan would essentially end Medicare as we know it, while President Obama's plan works to save it. Romney wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program while Obamacare increased benefits for seniors and extended Medicare's life by 8 years. What's not to understand here?
Most people are buying into the falsehoods, but you need to know the truth. Will you check out 5 truths about how Obama has actually extended the life of Medicare?

We need to continue to separate fact from fiction. We can't let Romney's corporate funded machine spread more lies. We need to continue exposing his plan to hurt seniors.
Thanks,

Five myths about Paul Ryan’s budget
Washington Post, By Peter Orszag, Thursday, August 23, 11:25 AM

I’ve worked closely with Rep. Paul Ryan. He’s an honest and amiable guy. In part because of his winning personality, Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate in the presidential election, has convinced many in Washington that his budget blueprint is a serious proposal for solving our long-term fiscal problems. Unfortunately, it’s not. Let’s dig into the asterisks of Ryan’s plan and unearth the fine print.

1. Paul Ryan’s budget would reduce the deficit.
The Ryan budget is a Potemkin village: It looks good from afar but is just a facade. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the plan would cut the public debt almost in half as a share of the economy by 2040. Sounds good, right? Take a closer look, and you’ll see that the Ryan budget rests on three pillars that rely on capping and punting — limiting spending to a certain level but providing no specifics on how to achieve that number. Federal Medicaid spending is currently forecast to double by 2040, from 2 percent of gross domestic product to 4 percent. Under Ryan’s budget, it is projected to be cut in half over that period. This dramatic turnaround will supposedly occur by turning Medicaid over to the states through block grants. Anyone want to bet that will work? If states can’t find huge efficiencies in Medicaid, expect them to pressure the federal government to avoid the fanciful reductions in federal support assumed in the Ryan budget. The Wisconsin congressman has specified $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, counting on massive rollbacks of tax breaks — such as the mortgage interest deduction — to pay for them. But he offers no details as to how to achieve such reductions, and most serious tax analysts don’t think such changes are politically feasible. Ryan assumes that nondefense discretionary spending, including education and basic government services, will fall from more than 12 percent of GDP last year to less than 5 percent by 2040. Again, he provides scant details on how to get there.
If you take out everything Ryan is assuming and look at his concrete proposals, his budget is not fiscally conservative. Without the magical reductions in Medicaid, other spending and tax breaks, his plan would expand the deficit in 2040, not reduce it.

2. The Ryan budget would help the middle class.
Ryan says he would cut tax rates for all families, but that doesn’t mean the middle class would be any better off. Even after the Bush tax cuts, Ryan’s reductions would amount to about $1,000 a year for families with annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000— compared with a cut of more than $250,000 a year for those with incomes above $1 million. Ryan says he would pay for these cuts by broadening the tax base, which means scaling back tax breaks. But he is also committed to maintaining low taxes on capital gains, a bigger source of income for wealthier people. Most of the other big tax breaks — such as the mortgage interest deduction, state and local tax deductibility, and pension and health tax benefits — help the middle class. So any attempt to broaden the tax base without raising taxes on capital income would almost inevitably place a higher burden on middle-class families. And if those middle-class tax breaks were not slashed to pay for Ryan’s high-income tax cuts, other spending would have to be reduced further or the deficit would spiral — either of which would also hurt the middle class. Furthermore, unlike the proposal from the nonpartisan Domenici-Rivlin deficit-reduction commission, the Ryan budget does not include any provisions to create jobs immediately. With unemployment above 8 percent, we should couple any long-term deficit reduction with additional support for the economy today. That would help the middle class more than promises of a tax cut that will likely turn out to be a mirage.

3. Ryan’s proposal would cut health-care spending by reforming Medicare.
Ryan says his plan would reduce health-care spending by increasing competition, but reality doesn’t remotely match his rhetoric. The CBO analyzed Ryan’s 2011 budget proposal, which would over time move Medicare entirely to private plans, and found that it would significantly increase total health-care spending (that is, spending by the government and Medicare beneficiaries). “Both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to [non-government] providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare,” the report said. That effect, according to the CBO, would outweigh any savings achieved by people choosing less costly health care.
Ryan’s supporters argue that the most recent version of his proposal, which would retain traditional Medicare but expand the role of private plans, would have different results. But how could moving entirely to private plans be hugely costly, while moving partially to private plans would save lots of money?
Besides, the plan is similar to what we already have: Almost 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are also enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which offers private plans alongside the federal program. The evidence suggests that these plans cost more than traditional Medicare, once you take into account the ability of plans to skim off the least costly beneficiaries. So much for Ryan’s health-care-competition tooth fairy.

4. Ryan’s plan would provide certainty to the markets and the economy.
Ryan likes to highlight the job-killing effects of uncertainty, but his budget would exacerbate increase it. Corporate executives hold back on investment and hiring when they don’t know what will happen next in terms of government policy. From that perspective, uncertainty is created when specifics are unknown — just like in Ryan’s plan.
How would tax deductions be rolled back? How would the block-granting of Medicaid work, and what happens if it doesn’t? What programs would be cut to hit Ryan’s spending targets? All of these are huge questions. Leaving them unanswered does nothing to reduce uncertainty.
5. If Romney wins, Ryan’s budget will be his fiscal blueprint.
Differences between Romney’s budget proposal and Ryan’s are already emerging, most prominently the fact that Ryan’s plan would retain the Medicare savings included in the Affordable Care Act, but Romney’s would not.
More fundamentally, if the Romney-Ryan ticket wins, their administration would probably have to choose one or two of the big three items: tax reform, Medicare changes or block-granting Medicaid.
Among the three, I’d bet on Medicaid, given how difficult the other two goals are. The fact that the harm from block-granting would be concentrated on the poor, and that Congress would get to leave it to governors to impose the pain, sadly makes that change more politically viable than the others.
outlook@washpost.com
Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2009 to 2010, is vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup and a columnist at Bloomberg View.

I did a lot of sneezing during Ryan's speech; only because I'm allergic to lies and BS. It amazes me how this can continue as long as it has. The media is during an awful job on this character. I simply can't stand liars.

Deceitful! I sneezed often during this speech because I'm totally allergic to lies and BS. I feel if you have to lie or directly mislead the American public there should be repercussions. These ball face lies this Romney team is spreading is shameful. This country has too many issues to allow these lies to take over. Do something media for the country's sake.

Some excellent comments so far but....I would like to acknowledge a great "political" speech from Ryan that "will" temporarily move the needle as will Romney's speech tonight. The one thing I haven't heard adequately addressed was what seems to be the Republicans secondary theme exhibited primarily by Christie, Martinez and Ryan; that being bi-partisanship as a key, to in Christie and Martinez's case current success and Ryan's thoughts that leadership and bi-partisanship necessary to achieve fiscal responsibilty. Okay, so where were they when the Republican leadership whose list is legend but primarily McConnell and Cantor, who blantly called for a boycott on any democratic legislation that could help the President get a second term. Also not address in any detail Ryan's willingness to spend like a drunken sailor and disregard the defeceit during GW's tenure which they now claim ancient history. Rebuttals are a bitch, and while the president may have some weakness, rebuttlas will not be included.

Republicans say President Obama owns the economy, and he does...what they don't want to say is they were the ones that planted it.

When are you going to start calling the GOP out on their B.S.? You are showing your bias towards them more and more each week (almost as much as you laughing and clapping on stage with Karl Rove while he tries to dance). You are disrespecting Tim's memory, he stood up and called BS when it was thrown around. We need to replace you with Chris M., He's at least not afraid to stand up to liars.