Not a good time for this to come out

[Colorforms]

[video]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57528335/security-dwindled-before-deadly-libyan-consulate-attack/[/video]
The timing for this is pretty poor for the administration. I don't think they can sweep this Benghazi debacle under the rug as easily as they thought with a few well placed lies.

 

[middleview]

What lies?

 

[Colorforms]

Little things about movies and no requests for security and what not. You know, everything we have been discussing concerning the subject since the event took place.

 

[Arkady]

I read the link but didn't see the lies you're referring to. The link recounts one guy's allegation that there was a draw-down in security before the attacks. Presumably, Congressional investigations won't have much trouble confirming if that's true or not, since that would leave a huge paper trail. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it were true, though. As you'll recall, federal government spending under Obama has grown at the slowest pace in many decades, as part of an undeclared policy of budgetary austerity:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

When you tighten the budgetary belt that way, you wind up needing to make some very tough decisions about where the money should go, knowing full well that it can be a matter of life or death. Skimp a bit on consulate security, and a few people may be killed as a result. Skimp a bit on food inspections, and maybe there's an e-coli outbreak killing dozens. Skimp on the FBI, maybe the mafia stages a big comeback. Skimp on OSHA enforcement, or mine inspections, or consumer product safety enforcement, or the majority of other things the government does, and there's a risk the result will be corpses. Even something seemingly harmless, like skimping on park rangers, could result in preventable deaths (fewer park rangers means fewer people to find lost hikers, or to discover unsafe conditions, or to stop people from lighting fires during wildfire conditions, etc.) And, Republicans being what they are, no matter which places you find the savings, when they result in preventable deaths, there will be howling on the right, demanding Democratic blood. But this is the price we pay for cheaping out on our budget.

 

[Colorforms]

Well politifact just lost any credibility that I may have credited it with. You don't go from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years by cutting spending. That's not even sane.

As for lies, there has been plenty to cover up this debacle, from blaming a movie that was months old to claiming that Stevens never requested increased security, the administration has been doing everything it can to cover this up.

 

[middleview]

Little things about movies and no requests for security and what not. You know, everything we have been discussing concerning the subject since the event took place.

1. I recall no attempt to say that there had been no request related to security.
2. I recall a statement that there was an investigation under way and that initial information was that there had been a demonstration related to the film that was hijacked by an armed militia group....

If you have a link to statements you think were lies....feel free to include them.

 

[Colorforms]

http://www.therightscoop.com/uh-oh-cnn-says-their-sources-say-obama-not-truthful-about-libya/

 

[Arkady]

Well politifact just lost any credibility that I may have credited it with. You don't go from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years by cutting spending. That's not even sane.

As for lies, there has been plenty to cover up this debacle, from blaming a movie that was months old to claiming that Stevens never requested increased security, the administration has been doing everything it can to cover this up.

Run the numbers yourself, if you don't like the work of an independent fact-checker. Check what the growth of federal spending was under Obama, in annualized percentage terms, and compare it to his predecessors. I've run the numbers myself, using official figure from the Congressional Budget Office, and the trend is clear. You can come up with different figures based on what you use as the baseline (2008, or 2009, since FY 2009's budget was enacted under Bush), and how you account for supplemental FY 2009 spending (the additional appropriations after Bush left office but before FY 2010 started). But, even if you cherry-pick the numbers to make spending growth look as bad as reasonably possible under Obama, you will still see the same thing: that spending growth on his watch has been far below normal. And, of course, that means that much tougher decisions had to be made about where to spend money, than back in the Bush years when we'd just shovel a whole lot more money at every issue.

 

[Colorforms]

They didn't say "budgetary spending", since democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama took office, that is kind of a red herring, but to say that the debt went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years was not due to increases in spending is simply dishonest on a level only liberals can achieve. No sane person would believe it, which is why I am not surprised that liberals are falling all over it.

"Ooo, an authority says that spending is down in Obama's term. I guess everything we see with the debt and borrowing is wrong, and we can beat sane people over the head and defend Obama's record at the same time"

 

[middleview]

So you do not have a link to anyone from the obama administration telling a lie.....got it.

 

[middleview]

The "democrats haven't passed a budget"? Sorry....I thought there were republicans in Congress as well....and Congress hasn't passed a budget.

The deficit was over $1 trillion in Bush's 2009 budget. Obama added $787 billion ($250b or so in tax cuts) in an attempt to ease the impact of Bush's recession (maybe you forgot about that, it was in all the papers).

The increases in the deficit were a combination of revenue reductions due to tax cuts and increases in spending due to increases in unemployment and the recession.....

Who said spending is down? I read that the rate of increase is slow....

 

[Zam-Zam]

Run the numbers yourself


Here's a number:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/



Let's put a smiley face on it and say it's all good. Or let's say that the man in charge bears zero responsibility for the number. Either way, an incredibly tough sell.

 

[Colorforms]

Spending under Bush never exceeded 400k, TARP, which democrats cite as spending in order to justify the numbers they racked up, was a one time loan, which was paid back.

 

[degsme]

They didn't say "budgetary spending", since democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama took office,

Hmm and who filibustered the 2009 and 2010 budgets?

And which party was unable to pass a budget out of the House that would even get consideration inthe Senate?

There is no such thing as "budgetary spending"... There are Budgets. and there are Spending Authorizations. the two are different.

, but to say that the debt went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years was not due to increases in spending is simply dishonest on a level only liberals can achieve. No sane person would believe it,

Um so you are saying that only insane people understand arithemtic?

Here lets try this this way.

• 2009 you inherit a budget that spends $3.5 TRillion and takes in $2.1 Trillion.... That adds $1.4 T to the debt
• 2010 faced with a crash, you only slightly decrease spending to $3.5 Tril and take in $2.2 T and that adds to the $1.3T to the Debt
• 2011 with a filibustering Senate you continue existing spending as required by law and spend $3.6 Trillion and Take in $2.3 Trillion and that adds $1.3 T to the debt
• 2012 with a Just Say No Congress you continue existing spending as required by law and spend $3.7T and Take in $2.5 T and that adds $1.2 T to the debt.

NOTICE THE ARITHMETIC... Deficit GOES DOWN. Spending stays steady (slight increse due to larger population) and its only $5.2 T in net new debt. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls


Now explain to me how this is not

A decrease in PER CAPITA Spending
a decrease in the inherited deficit?


Talk about dishonest.
Talk about not benign a "sane person"


FACTS MATTER

"Ooo, an authority says that spending is down in Obama's term. I guess everything we see with the debt and borrowing is wrong, and we can beat sane people over the head and defend Obama's record at the same time"

Yes Color - pretty much everything you see about the debt is factually not supportable.

FACTS MATTER.

 

[degsme]

Spending under Bush never exceeded 400k, TARP, which democrats cite as spending in order to justify the numbers they racked up, was a one time loan, which was paid back.

Historical tables say this is bullsh!t....

One of the things Obama did that made the deficit APPEAR to explode is he took GWB's "off budget" Supplemental Defense Spending bills and put them "on budget". The data is allo there to be looked at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

FACTS MATTER
your claims simply lack them.


As for TARP having been "paid back" actually that's not true. You yourself have whined about GM... well GM was bailed out by TARP funds. And not all of that bailout has been paid back.

 

[middleview]

Spending under Bush never exceeded 400k, TARP, which democrats cite as spending in order to justify the numbers they racked up, was a one time loan, which was paid back.

No kidding? The federal budget under Bush was $400,000 ($400k).....? Where do you get your numbers?

 

[degsme]

Run the numbers yourself


Here's a number:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/



Let's put a smiley face on it and say it's all good. Or let's say that the man in charge bears zero responsibility for the number. Either way, an incredibly tough sell.

Well explain how he bears responsibility for it when DESPITE unprecedented filibusters and obstruction by the GOP Congress, he STILL has managed to bring down the deficit he inherited byt 30%?

 

[middleview]

The 2009 budget was passed in September of 2008.

 

[Arkady]

They didn't say "budgetary spending", since democrats haven't passed a budget since Obama took office, that is kind of a red herring, but to say that the debt went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years was not due to increases in spending is simply dishonest on a level only liberals can achieve. No sane person would believe it, which is why I am not surprised that liberals are falling all over it.

"Ooo, an authority says that spending is down in Obama's term. I guess everything we see with the debt and borrowing is wrong, and we can beat sane people over the head and defend Obama's record at the same time"

You're apparently ignorant of how deficits work. It's a mismatch between spending growth and revenue growth that causes deficit growth. Under Obama, spending growth has been far below normal, but revenue growth has been even slower (thanks to the weak economy), and thus deficits have grown.

 

[Arkady]

Run the numbers yourself


Here's a number:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/



Let's put a smiley face on it and say it's all good. Or let's say that the man in charge bears zero responsibility for the number. Either way, an incredibly tough sell.

You're off topic. I'm talking about spending, not debt. Try to stay focused. It's like trying to debate an issue against a toddler with a sugar high. Focus!