asanta - 20 October 2012 02:43 PM

What scares me most about Romney is the opportunity to make several Supreme Court picks that could set women’s rights back to the stone ages…or at least to the 19th century….for decades.

Indeed, that is the most obvious scary thing about another Republican Presidency, right now. His appointments to the Supreme Court will also solidify the most dastardly and damaging Court decisions to our democracy (Citizens United) as well as the decision re: Corporations having the same rights as people. But I also fear the mess that a man such as Romney, whose word means nothing, can make with international relations. I also fear his making a mess of the small progress made in healthcare.  I also fear his identification with the uber-wealthy and lack of connection with all the rest.  We know that Romney desperately wants to become President.  What we don’t know is why.  Is it just another leveraged buy out for him, this time to make obscene amounts of money by selling out a nation, instead of some poor business that is in trouble?

I’ve also seen the video Capt Jack and Obama clearly states that we as a nation will not tolerate acts of terror such as 9/11 - I saw nothing in that video that was Benghazi specific, did you ?

didn’t the State Department report to Congress last week that they had sufficient funds for additional personnel where and as needed ?

As to your first statement, he may not have specifically used the word Benghazi but that’s indeed what he meant. Why else would he have called a press conference to discuss terrorism? Just a coincidence? I think not. And there was specific mention made of the events of the preceding night (paraphrase).

And if I’m not mistaken the problem didn’t lie with additional personnel for protection, but funds to beef up the intel to uncover plots in the area. However, this may be made moot when the full report is made available to the public.

Cap’t Jack

Here’s an additional site to check sources:

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/gop-blames-obama-for-libya-embassy-deaths-forget-they-cut-funding-for-embassy-security/#axzz29tgffu2l

Cap’t Javk

gBob - 20 October 2012 05:02 PM

I’ve also seen the video Capt Jack and Obama clearly states that we as a nation will not tolerate acts of terror such as 9/11 - I saw nothing in that video that was Benghazi specific, did you ?

didn’t the State Department report to Congress last week that they had sufficient funds for additional personnel where and as needed ?

Did you want him to do the same thing Bush did after 9/11, sit on the stool for 7 minutes and then disappear into his plane for the next 24 hours?

gBob - 20 October 2012 05:02 PM

I’ve also seen the video Capt Jack and Obama clearly states that we as a nation will not tolerate acts of terror such as 9/11 - I saw nothing in that video that was Benghazi specific, did you ?

No, it was an “inclusive” statement. He was conveying the message that any act of terrorism, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, will be investigated, prosecuted, and brought to a conclusion (with extreme prejudice if necessary).

If I compare this statement with Romney’s pledge that the first thing he would do, on his second day in office, is to lay-off several thousand people who perform an incalculable service to the citizenry by providing free radio and television programs on a variety of familiy friendly subjects and topics, not the least of which, “education”.

I could clearly recognize the Bain leveraging mentality in that stunning strategy statement, explaining the method of raising revenue to fill the necessity of a tax reduction which mostly benefit the wealthy.  If my taxes go somewhere I want them to go to PBS, not Mr. CEO.

Write4U - 21 October 2012 01:34 AM

If I compare this statement with Romney’s pledge that the first thing he would do, on his second day in office, is to lay-off several thousand people who perform an incalculable service to the citizenry by providing free radio and television programs on a variety of familiy friendly subjects and topics, not the least of which, “education”.

Effectively 0.001% of the budget. Imagine the HUGE savings that would be. I’m not sure I put enough zeros there. I might be missing a few…any way, the savings would turn around the economy….obviously.

asanta - 21 October 2012 01:50 AM

Write4U - 21 October 2012 01:34 AM

If I compare this statement with Romney’s pledge that the first thing he would do, on his second day in office, is to lay-off several thousand people who perform an incalculable service to the citizenry by providing free radio and television programs on a variety of familiy friendly subjects and topics, not the least of which, “education”.

Effectively 0.001% of the budget. Imagine the HUGE savings that would be. I’m not sure I put enough zeros there. I might be missing a few…any way, the savings would turn around the economy….obviously.

And provide us with a better method of producing “well informed citizenry”......

Thevillageatheist - 20 October 2012 07:34 PM

As to your first statement, he may not have specifically used the word Benghazi but that’s indeed what he meant. Why else would he have called a press conference to discuss terrorism? Just a coincidence? I think not. And there was specific mention made of the events of the preceding night (paraphrase).

And if I’m not mistaken the problem didn’t lie with additional personnel for protection, but funds to beef up the intel to uncover plots in the area. However, this may be made moot when the full report is made available to the public.

Cap’t Jack

that is the crux of my question sir, why then did they send Rice out a week later to declare it was a result of the video ? plus the Obama / Hillary video for Pakistan and Obama’s it was the video speech to the UN several weeks later ?

Write4U - 20 October 2012 02:47 PM

This chart may be of interest,
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

good morning w4u -

I have seen the zfact chart you linked before as one of the left side guys on another site linked it to support his contention that Obama policies were contributing to the national debt at a slower rate than the Bush43 years -

Is that also your contention or is there some other message you wish me to address ?

gBob - 21 October 2012 04:35 AM

Write4U - 20 October 2012 02:47 PM

This chart may be of interest,
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

good morning w4u -

I have seen the zfact chart you linked before as one of the left side guys on another site linked it to support his contention that Obama policies were contributing to the national debt at a slower rate than the Bush43 years -

Is that also your contention or is there some other message you wish me to address ?

Yep, the ditch has now been filled and we can begin to build rather than repair.  It takes revenue to pay the interest on the national debt and in the absence of revenue after the Bush tax cuts, the financial collapse of the banks, housing market and the cost of unfunded programs such as the Iraq war. It was IMPERATIVE to borrow more money to prevent total collapse and yes it is true that this increased the national debt temporarily. May I remind you that except for Clinton, no president has reduced the national debt and even Clinton’s surplusses were distributed as tax cuts after he left office, rather than pay off the national debt which would have saved so much on interest alone that that might have translated in a funded tax cut. Bush did not run up 5 trillion dollar debt, he ran up a 10 trillion dollar debt. Thus Obama raised it to by another 6 trillion pay for the 5 trillion dollar debt and the unfunded programs , which he finally brought to the light of day and added it to the national budget, which of course was blamed on Obama’s incompetence. In fact it brought transparency to the dire straits the nation had fallen into. But of course any new information that emerged from the complete fiscal mismanagement by the Bush administration was blamed on Obama. Give the man a break, or is he just the nigger that mopped up the mess and presented a nice clean bathroom to be presented to the new occupants, once he was able to put the mop away.

But one thing is unarguable true. The rich have never had such an increase in wealth than during the Obama years. The stock market is at its highest in many many tears. Yet there was no evidence of any kind of economic recovery by the trickle down based economy.
Now Romney, one of the recipients of extraordinary windfall profits wants to cut the taxes even more and want to cut programs designed to help the less fortunate 47% who by Romney’s standards are free loafers.
But now that expenditures have been made and with an focus on building an NECESSARY infrastructure, good paying jobs would be available, stimulating local economies around the countries.

Instead Romney and his flunky want to cut (FIRE) teachers, educators, healthcare services, police and firefighters, financial assistance and a host of other programs which congress had recognized would bebeneficial to the nation.
Cutting programs means lay-offs, obstructing infrastructure jobs prevents a workforce of thousands of competent hard working proud American workers, who will spend their hard earned dollars in the local grocery store, automobile dealer, appliance store, clothing, and better education for their children. Fillibustering that essential jobsprogram by the republicans was an act that will live in infamy in my heart.

gBob (namesake), unless you are very rich and are able to pay some 14% on your income like Romney, your support of his economic scam is very surprising to me.

that is the crux of my question sir, why then did they send Rice out a week later to declare it was a result of the video ? plus the Obama / Hillary video for Pakistan and Obama’s it was the video speech to the UN several weeks later ?

As I previously mentioned, the full reports are yet to be published but if you read the transcript of Obama’s speech he is addressing the problem of religious intolerance world wide and not just in Lybia. Condemning the video was clearly IMO meant to calm the fears Muslims by stating that the US government doesn’t sanction attacks on their faith while making it clear that the constitution allows for freedom of expression here. He even mentioned holocaust deniers as an example. US citizens aren’t imprisoned for espousing hate speech. And how else would he have reacted at the time? Would he suddenly turn on the reps.and finger point that it was their fault? as far as we know now it was the video and the terrorists took the opportunity to strike during the chaos. It would logically have been the right moment to launch an attack on a virtually undefended compound. Anytime an event like this happens it takes time to sort through the evidence and that doesn’t automatically mean a cover up. This is exactly how conspiracy theories are spun.

Cap’t Jack

Responding to w4u -

“It takes revenue to pay the interest on the national debt”

According to data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Treasury, federal revenues hit an all-time high of approximately $2.57 trillion - in fiscal 2007 under Bush43 complete with his tax cuts - OMB published this table as part of Obama’s 2013 budget proposal showing historical revenues.

“It was IMPERATborrow more money to prevent total collapse and yes it is true that this increased the national debt.”

the National Debt is increasing at the rate of $ 1,453,798,079,568.14 per year under Obama as opposed to $ 612,159,600,000.75 / year under Bush43

that is NOT slower, that is more than twice as fast (2.38)

The National Debt as of 20 January 2001 - $ 5,727,776,738,304.64

The National Debt as of 20 January 2009 - $ 10,625,053,544,309.79 (1.85 times 2001)

Total National Debt Increase over 8 years - $ 4,897,276,806,005.15 ($ 612,159,600,000.75 / year)

The National Debt as of 17 October 2012 - $ 16,193,100,189,055.25 (2.83 times 2001)

Total National Debt Increase over 3.83 years - $ 5,568,046,644,746 ($ 1,453,798,079,568.14 / year)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

“there was no evidence of a function and beneficial trickle down eonomy.”

“Trickle down economy” is a nonexistent theory. Those on the left who use it simply argue against a caricature rather than confront an argument actually made. - I challenge you to find a single legitimate economist who proposes such a thing as a “trickel down economy” -

In 1921, when the tax rate on people earning more than $100,000 a year was 73 percent, the federal government collected a little more than $700 million in income taxes, of which 30 percent was paid by those earning more than $100,000. By 1929, after the tax rate had been cut to 24 percent on incomes higher than $100,000, the federal government collected more than $1 billion in income taxes, of which 65 percent was collected from those with incomes higher than $100,000.

Also, as stated above by the Obama OMB, the highest revenue ever was in FY2007 with Bush43 tax cuts in place .

“But now that expenditures have been made and with an focus on building an NECESSARY infrastructure, good paying jobs would be available, stimulating local economies around the countries.”

Obama’s proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Obama’s proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.

That will bring the total National Debt to $ 25.9 Trillion Dollars - who is going to pay for that w4u ? and how ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502974.html

TimB - 20 October 2012 05:40 PM

Indeed, that is the most obvious scary thing about another Republican Presidency, right now. His appointments to the Supreme Court will also solidify the most dastardly and damaging Court decisions to our democracy

are we no longer a Republic Tim ?

Thevillageatheist - 21 October 2012 05:47 AM

that is the crux of my question sir, why then did they send Rice out a week later to declare it was a result of the video ? plus the Obama / Hillary video for Pakistan and Obama’s it was the video speech to the UN several weeks later ?

As I previously mentioned, the full reports are yet to be published but if you read the transcript of Obama’s speech he is addressing the problem of religious intolerance world wide and not just in Lybia. Condemning the video was clearly IMO meant to calm the fears Muslims by stating that the US government doesn’t sanction attacks on their faith while making it clear that the constitution allows for freedom of expression here. He even mentioned holocaust deniers as an example. US citizens aren’t imprisoned for espousing hate speech. And how else would he have reacted at the time? Would he suddenly turn on the reps.and finger point that it was their fault? as far as we know now it was the video and the terrorists took the opportunity to strike during the chaos. It would logically have been the right moment to launch an attack on a virtually undefended compound. Anytime an event like this happens it takes time to sort through the evidence and that doesn’t automatically mean a cover up. This is exactly how conspiracy theories are spun.

 

Cap’t Jack

fair enough Capt Jack - you now state it is your opinion and I take no issue with anyone’s opinion, only when opinions are projected as fact

response to w4u

But one thing is unarguable true. The rich have never had such an increase in wealth than during the Obama years.

not sure what your purpose is here w4u ? if you’re trying to make a case for Obama being a great capitalist, I expect you will have difficulty selling it to the 23 million people who are unemployed or under-employed and the 47 million Americans on food stamps (up from 30 million when Obama took office)

I see this economic divide as a great part of the problem we face today and certainly not something to be heralded as a grand achievement ...