Did the Obama administration lie about the embassy attacks?

• stlouiedipalma

  Manhattan Buckeye;1388729 wrote:I love this is the Obama-bootlickers only argument - a complete non-argument. If there was anything positive about the SOTU or the Obama administration's performance, you wouldn't have to rely on this.
  
  The SOTU is lousy, and there is no indication it is going to get better. The speech was pure fluff. We deserve who we elect, and we just re-elected a HLS graduate who never worked a real revenue-producing job in his life despite every door being opened to him. What do we expect? He's like the "idealist" in college or even in HS gunning for student body president, but only provides ideals and empty promises and no results.

  I have been hearing the same old "sky is falling" nonsense from you folks on the right for just over four years now and guess what? You've all been wrong for just over four years. My guess is that you'll continue being wrong about this as long as "your" guy isn't occupying the White House.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  The sky is falling. Quit your job today (my guess is they won't miss you). How long do you think it would take to find an equal compensated job? My guess.....years.
  
  Now take that situation, apply it to the young people under 30 that can't find any type of job that will get them out their parents' basement, and add on personal educational debt along with our federal government's debt owed. The result is a social disaster. We have a generation of arrested development (no pun intended regarding the tv show) that isn't gong to be able to live up to the promises our government made.
  
  It is a social disaster, and we are living it now.
  
  And I'm still waiting for a positive argument about this administration. The speech was terrible. Just more fluff, pandering to the base, etc....which is what we should expect from someone so intellectually lazy he couldn't be bothered to clerk for SCOTUS or the Circuit, or work at a real law firm. He's the Manchurian Candidate, and we're all suffering. But hey, he's "your" guy. He's the worst mistake this country ever made. And we made it twice.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Nick Gillespie has an excellent piece on our screwing of our youth:
  
  http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/12/state-of-the-union-will-obama-tell-young
• BoatShoes

  gut;1388880 wrote:No it's not. It's a tax on productivity (that's Macro 101). And, according to you, if the govt takes money from us and then spends it aggregate demand increases because of that magical multiplier effect :laugh:

  No...you've got it wrong, increased deficits whether by government spending or lower taxes (i.e. cutting the payroll tax which will be spent) increases aggregate demand. Raising a taxes to pay for spending is wrong at the zero bound. The money should be borrowed or pulled out of the treasury/fed's infinite purse but generally not taxed. Worse case scenario, if you must care about deficits as we do in our deficit scold nation, CBO shows you can raise taxes on the very rich to finance a tax cut for lower wage workers who will spend them but that really shouldn't be done.
  
  And, no, you're missing the point on why it is fundamentally a consumption tax. Sure it's a tax on "productivity" but The fundamental difference between a tax on consumption and a tax on income following a Schanz-Haig-Simons definition of income is that an income tax reaches labor income plus additions to savings whereas a consumption tax reaches labor income only. As a consequence a cash flow consumption tax or a payroll tax would qualify as consumption taxes as they reach labor income only.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1388876 wrote:No evidence right this minute, but only a fool believes this is sustainable. Fact of the matter is, most of the deficit is being financed by Fed purchases. And when - not if - the day comes we will have to choose between wicked inflation and the severe austerity you are always railing against. However I would point out while NET inflation may be very low, not all people are affected equally because there has been significant inflation in food and energy - which, again, disproportionately affects the poor. Stagnant to declining wages are also helping keep that number low - so pretending like there is no inflation or no issue is ignoring the structural inequality.
  
  Heck, it would probably be better for the poor and middle class to just give them the money rather than blow it on pork and inefficient gubmit programs.

  I agree it'd be best to give direct cash to the poor and middle class. Eliminating the payroll tax for the time being would be the most efficient stimulus we could ask for.
  
  The deficits are getting smaller every year. The worst is over. When the Fed stopped financing the deficit (when the deficit was larger no less) the bad things you're saying now will happen and the Wall Street Journal was saying would happen then, did not happen. The day you think is coming, is not going to come. The Fed doesn't even have to unwind if it wants as it's set the precedent of paying interest on reserve balances and that was partly because when this day comes when the economy improves they can raise interest rates on reserve balances. True, headline inflation has been slightly higher than core inflation but they've largely tracked one another and you're not taking into account the huge plunge in headline inflation well below core inflation when the economy took the plunge. (hint: that's why Republicans got to blame Obama for the large rise in gas prices).
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1388909 wrote:The sky is falling. Quit your job today (my guess is they won't miss you). How long do you think it would take to find an equal compensated job? My guess.....years.
  
  Now take that situation, apply it to the young people under 30 that can't find any type of job that will get them out their parents' basement, and add on personal educational debt along with our federal government's debt owed. The result is a social disaster. We have a generation of arrested development (no pun intended regarding the tv show) that isn't gong to be able to live up to the promises our government made.
  
  It is a social disaster, and we are living it now.
  .

  You're right, it really is. However, what do you think we should do about it? Trying to reduce the deficit more is only going to make unemployment worse....raising interest rates is only going to make unemployment worse...etc.
• QuakerOats

  stlouiedipalma;1388904 wrote:I have been hearing the same old "sky is falling" nonsense from you folks on the right for just over four years now and guess what? You've all been wrong for just over four years.

  
  What do you call saddling every American with an extra $80,000 in debt --- peaches & cream, I guess.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1389017 wrote: The deficits are getting smaller every year.

  LMAO - still DOUBLE anything previously coming up on 5 years later.
  
  And you continue to miss the point - while increased deficits may increase aggregate demand (as Keynesians believe) in the short-run, there are diminishing returns as the long-run drag piles on (because we never run a surplus). This is why the govt is running bigger deficits than ever and getting results equivalent to pissing into the wind.
  
  We have a huge debt overhang issue. If you ever want to see solid growth again and a return to strong wages and employment we have to stop running huge deficits. We have record spending and nothing to show for it. You have to be intellectually dishonest (or simply ignorant) not to acknowledge we are getting no return on these massive deficits.
• gut

  As for the canary in the coal mine with all this printing of money...inflation was tame throughout Bush's time, too. Have you people learned nothing from the last two recessions? It was not inflation or high rates that caused the last two recessions, it was the popping of asset bubbles. You've taken the fiscal and monetary policy that created the housing bubble and put it on steroids, and you guys simply look at inflation and say "see no evil"?!?
  
  The US debt bubble doesn't even have to pop in the way the housing did to cause even more damage. And there clearly are huge bubbles forming in sovereign and municipal debt, student loans, etc...
• QuakerOats

  Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
  
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/02/ex-white-house-spokesman-downplays-controversy-over-benghazi-talking-points/
  
  
  Inept, naive, liberal twerps running the show, is it any wonder we are where we are.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1611924 wrote:Former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a tense interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, downplayed the revived controversy over the Benghazi talking points, saying he does not remember his own role in the editing process because: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”
  
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/02/ex-white-house-spokesman-downplays-controversy-over-benghazi-talking-points/
  
  
  Inept, naive, liberal twerps running the show, is it any wonder we are where we are.

  There is nothing new in the email. Everything in that email we've known from every other hearing and investigation. What am I missing??
• gut

  BoatShoes;1612007 wrote:There is nothing new in the email. Everything in that email we've known from every other hearing and investigation. What am I missing??

  Direct links to Carney and Clinton...because the story was always "we didn't change the talking points and we don't know who did". What we had before was just a little back-and-forth between junior staffers and the WH denying that senior officials were involved.
  
  We always assumed senior staff were directly involved, but the WH denied that and we couldn't prove otherwise.
• gut

  Jay Carney is dead man walking. He's been up there lying about this dutifully for 2 years....literally the worst name (outside of Obama) to be linked to manufacturing the talking points.
  
  And he knows it - practically begging the press and Congress to move on to something else. Forget the quote, but he had something that was about as desperate of a non-denial as you will ever see. Obama really does need to put him out of his misery - it's been a brutal, brutal 6 months or so for Carney since the liberal media began to sober-up from the kool-aid.
• gut

  
• QuakerOats

  I just listened to the father of Ty Woods, navy seal and Benghazi hero/casualty, and about all I can say is directed directly to barack obama and hillary clinton: GO FUCK YOURSELVES YOU LIARS !!
• HitsRus

  

  reps gut... the $64 dollar question that no one wants to ask....but apparently NOT in the situation room.
• TedSheckler

  

  "DUDE, that was 2 years ago. I don't remember."
• gut

  HitsRus;1612147 wrote:reps gut... the $64 dollar question that no one wants to ask....but apparently NOT in the situation room.

  Can't take credit. Gutfeld actually said that on The Five today....cracked me up.
• believer

  

  gut;1612033 wrote:JObama really does need to put him out of his misery - it's been a brutal, brutal 6 months or so for Carney since the liberal media began to sober-up from the kool-aid.

  But they're coming out of the stupor slowly and meticulously so as not to step on the toes of their Appointed One.