Al Queda laughing at American Government

TimG · May 12, 2013

Unsustainable at what levels?

Largely healthcare spending. Costs have been rising faster that GDP for a long time and cannot be sustained and raising taxes simply delays the inevitable.

TimG · May 12, 2013

The government is not spending that much more of a % of GDP although it's pretty high, even compared with the end of the Nixon administration - which was a major recession if I recall - at 20%.

What are you talking about? Spending as a % of GDP in 1975: 33.62% Spending as a % of GDP in 2010: 40.97%. That is a huge increase and it is rising. What is different is tax revenues are exactly the same at 30% in 1975 vs 32% today which makes it pretty clear that the deficit problem is a question of spending - not revenue. Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

Michael Hardner · May 12, 2013

What are you talking about? Spending as a % of GDP in 1975: 33.62% Spending as a % of GDP in 2010: 40.97%. That is a huge increase and it is rising. What is different is tax revenues are exactly the same at 30% in 1975 vs 32% today which makes it pretty clear that the deficit problem is a question of spending - not revenue.

Those numbers are at odds with the source I provided.

TimG · May 12, 2013

Those numbers are at odds with the source I provided.

I cut and pasted them from your source (after double checking them because I could not figure out why you made the claim you did). I suggest you look carefully at what settings you used. I quoted total government spending as % of GDP for all levels of government. Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

Michael Hardner · May 12, 2013

Ok, I was just talking about Federal spending.

TimG · May 12, 2013

Ok, I was just talking about Federal spending.

There is only one taxpayer and your source supports the argument that it is a spending problem - not a revenue problem. Edited May 12, 2013 by TimG

Bitsy · May 13, 2013

It has been established that the film, and thus Nikoula, had nothing to do with the planned Benghazi terrorist attack. It was not a spontaneous uprising. Nikoula is a diversion from any actual responsibility for the events in Benghazi.

There is no connection whatsoever.

The truth of the matter is that the terrorist attack did not fit the Administration's political campaign narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run. The State Department, the WH and the CIA all conspired to draft the "spontaneous uprising" scenario and disseminate it through the media via the UN Ambassador Susan Rice. But that cover up is only the aftermath.

Why was such a story invented? What was it supposed to hide? That Al Qaeda was not on the run? That there was no organized planned terrorist attack implying it was entirely spontaneous? Or did this "idea" that Al Qaeda was on the run contribute to the attitude to ignore or simply not acknowledge the serious nature of the event and do nothing when something could have been done? Of course, the Administration will try and forward the fact that nothing could have been done to save the lives of those men. So the big question is did the idea that nothing could have been done exist at the time of the attack and therefore nothing was done or did someone actually say don't do anything?

What difference, at this point, does it make? It could be negligence resulting in the death of a high ranking official and three other Americans. It is important the facts must be known if this type of incident is to be prevented in the future.

My opinion is that the Democrats actually believed their own rhetoric that Al Qaeda was dysfunctional and thus unable to successfully pull off the attack making the responsible agencies complacent and to them the "spontaneity" of the attack left no time to effectively respond. If they had not had this arrogant attitude warning signs may have have been apparent to them and preventative security measures taken before the attack. Or during the actual attack some resources may have been available that could have been put into action but weren't. Those are the details that need to be filled in.

The protests and demonstrations against the film beginning in Cairo and spreading across the world that resulted in death and injury to hundreds was the reason for his arrest.

Your opinion about Benghazi closely resembles that of Fox News.

GostHacked · May 13, 2013

The protests and demonstrations against the film beginning in Cairo and spreading across the world that resulted in death and injury to hundreds was the reason for his arrest.

Your opinion about Benghazi closely resembles that of Fox News.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But Fox really is the only one pushing this story to it's headlines a lot more than what I have noticed from other networks.

Bitsy · May 13, 2013

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But Fox really is the only one pushing this story to it's headlines a lot more than what I have noticed from other networks.

That is because Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party; unable to use it to defeat Obama in 2012, they hope it will damage Hillary Clintons chances in 2016 should she decided to run. It has been presented as a news story on all the other networks not as a partisan conspiracy cover-up intended to enflame and outrage their conservative audience.

Pliny · May 13, 2013

The protests and demonstrations against the film beginning in Cairo and spreading across the world that resulted in death and injury to hundreds was the reason for his arrest.

Your opinion about Benghazi closely resembles that of Fox News.

I disagree. He was a scapegoat. The official reason for his arrest was violating conditions of his parole.

The film was irrelevant. It was Sept 11, protests and demonstrations were planned for that day. The President's campaign rhetoric about Al Qaeda being on the run and Bin Laden being dead was probably the most inciting factor to those demonstrations. Besides, if extremists could get excited about this obscure video by a Coptic Christian, that "the US government had nothing to do with", I'm certain they would take offense at the President's demagoguery regarding his great "successes" in shutting Al Qaeda down.

Your opinion closely resembles the same information provided by the MSM, which is just about nothing.

The Administration purposely downplayed the importance of the incident and fabricated the Spontaneous demonstration story entirely for political gain.

I would have said the President downplayed it but he doesn't do anything he just delegates others to do something - The buck stops with them so it seems.

Pliny · May 13, 2013

double post

Edited May 13, 2013 by Pliny

Pliny · May 13, 2013

That is because Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party; unable to use it to defeat Obama in 2012, they hope it will damage Hillary Clintons chances in 2016 should she decided to run. It has been presented as a news story on all the other networks not as a partisan conspiracy cover-up intended to enflame and outrage their conservative audience.

It has been reported by the MSM as a GOP politicized story trying to damage Hillary's 2016 opportunity. Just as you reiterate.

GostHacked · May 13, 2013

That is because Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party; unable to use it to defeat Obama in 2012, they hope it will damage Hillary Clintons chances in 2016 should she decided to run. It has been presented as a news story on all the other networks not as a partisan conspiracy cover-up intended to enflame and outrage their conservative audience.

Hillary Clinton is damaged goods. I would not let her anywhere near the White House ever again. She escaped responsibility over the Benghazi affair. I hope people remember this when 2016 rolls around.

Bitsy · May 13, 2013

It has been reported by the MSM as a GOP politicized story trying to damage Hillary's 2016 opportunity. Just as you reiterate.

Actually, only until Fox wouldn't let go of the story....they were like a dog with a bone and the entire media noticed....not just MSNBC.

Bitsy · May 13, 2013

I disagree. He was a scapegoat. The official reason for his arrest was violating conditions of his parole.

The film was irrelevant. It was Sept 11, protests and demonstrations were planned for that day. The President's campaign rhetoric about Al Qaeda being on the run and Bin Laden being dead was probably the most inciting factor to those demonstrations. Besides, if extremists could get excited about this obscure video by a Coptic Christian, that "the US government had nothing to do with", I'm certain they would take offense at the President's demagoguery regarding his great "successes" in shutting Al Qaeda down.

Your opinion closely resembles the same information provided by the MSM, which is just about nothing.

The Administration purposely downplayed the importance of the incident and fabricated the Spontaneous demonstration story entirely for political gain.

I would have said the President downplayed it but he doesn't do anything he just delegates others to do something - The buck stops with them so it seems.

He knew he was in violation of his parole when he made the film, that is why he chose to use a fictitious name.

The first protest against the film was in Cairo prior to the Benghazi attack and the subsequent attacks throughout the world left him with blood on his hands.

Bitsy · May 13, 2013

Hillary Clinton is damaged goods. I would not let her anywhere near the White House ever again. She escaped responsibility over the Benghazi affair. I hope people remember this when 2016 rolls around.

Fortunately, it will not be up to you .

GostHacked · May 13, 2013

Fortunately, it will not be up to you .

You are right, never underestimate the stupidity and short term memory of the populace.

bush_cheney2004 · May 13, 2013

Fortunately, it will not be up to you .

Indeed...I was not aware that Canadians now own the White House.

May 13, 2013

Fortunately, it will not be up to you .

Ha! I love it! So true, and my thoughts exactly.

GostHacked · May 13, 2013

Ha! I love it! So true, and my thoughts exactly.

Are you all still under the notion that your vote actually counts?

May 13, 2013

Are you all still under the notion that your vote actually counts?

More than yours does.

GostHacked · May 13, 2013

More than yours does.

And this is why you have Obama.

Argus · May 13, 2013

Largely healthcare spending. Costs have been rising faster that GDP for a long time and cannot be sustained and raising taxes simply delays the inevitable.

So just let people die, is that it?

May 13, 2013

And this is why you have Obama.

We have Obama because I voted for Obama. My vote does count.

TimG · May 13, 2013

So just let people die, is that it?

There is not really choice that can be made. Society simply does not have the resources to provide everyone with an infinite amount of medical care. Rationing is required to make the system sustainable. And rationing means some people will not have access to treatments that prolong life. Now we either accept the need to ration and come up with a rational plan or we can live in denial until the system collapses on itself which will harm a much greater number of people.