JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP Scandals—Will The Buck Ever Stop With Obama?

Fast and Furious - Benghazi - IRS - AP and our commander and chief was clueless about all of it. Is Obama the dumbest MF to ever occupy the WH or the most corrupt?

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?”

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.”

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread.

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi:

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions. The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover, their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...will-buck-ever-stop-with-obama/#ixzz2TN6q8kzz
 
Last edited:

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
Just for the sake of context, President Bush the elder lost re-election in 1992 after four consecutive quarters of greater than 4 percent growth in GDP. During his entire presidency, President Obama has had two quarter of 4 percent growth in GDP.
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Even Carter looks pretty good compared to Obama. Jimmy is sighing with relief. Now he won't go down at the worst President in modern history
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
325
I'm not sure any of it matters, what's the worst that can happen? People forget their favorite politicians' fuck-ups faster than their own misdeeds, so any secondary figures involved won't have a problem advancing and furthering the agenda. Amongst the imbecilic civilian criminals, the political criminals are barely distinguishable.

All it really accomplishes is a sense of self gratification for those who didn't vote for this fool in the first place and that leads to it's own set of problems. A horse and pony show to assauge the political critics, with no one held accountable.

It's just another day in the news.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
It's funny. From 1981 to 2000, we had a string of decent to very good Presidents. After 2000, it's like they fell off the fucking cliff.

Well 1981 gave us the first president that threw any notion of fiscal responsibility out the window. Reagan was the beginning of the baby boomers free ride to the entitlement sunset. Bush 1 wasn't bad. He was pragmatic which I can respect.

Clinton combined with Gramm to gut financial regulation which led to the clusterfuck that we still seem to be unable to relegislate after the debacle in 2008. His DoJ was a clusterfuck that was personified with the tragedy in Waco. He gets good marks because he rode the emergence of the online industry and the subsequent growth. I would like to see the policy or policies that he had that actually engendered it. It was all but impossible to fuck up the economy given that boom. He certainly didn't predict nor prevent the bubble bursting.

I would rate them from poor to decent.

Ted Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, and Harry Truman are very good in my view. I guess we just have different standards in leadership.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
Well 1981 gave us the first president that threw any notion of fiscal responsibility out the window. Reagan was the beginning of the baby boomers free ride to the entitlement sunset. Bush 1 wasn't bad. He was pragmatic which I can respect.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "fiscal responsibility". When determining whether or not the government is on a fiscally sustainable path, the most important measure is government spending as a percentage of GDP. As long as government spending is shrinking relative to the overall size of the economy, you're on a fiscally sustainable path. The sizes of the debt and deficits are of secondary importance. It's possible for President B to run up more total debt than President A but for President B to have the country on a more fiscally sustainable path.

Consider President Bush and President Obama:

President Bush (federal spending pct. GDP)
Federal spending pct. GDP - Bush II.JPG

President Obama
Federal spending pct. GDP - Obama.JPG

As you can see, President Obama has run up more total debt. HOWEVER, federal spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped more than risen during his time in office. Meanwhile, under President Bush, federal spending as a percentage GDP rose fairly steadily through his time in office. Obama's trajectory is more fiscally sustainable than Bush's. In fact, the Obama Administration has cited this a major victory. (Incidentally, my major criticisms of Obama are not the size of the debt or federal spending in itself. My major criticisms are his policies. I criticize him for how he's spent, not how much he's spent.)

Now, let's look at spending under President Reagan:

Federal spending pct. GDP - Reagan.JPG

Depending on where you want to start attributing spending to President Reagan (some people start the tracker a year after the President takes office, some people start it a few months after), federal spending as a percentage of GDP drops anywhere between 1 point and 1.5 points during his time in office.

You'll notice that spending was highest under Reagan during his first years in office -- that's when the bulk of his debt was run up. The debt exploded because inflation collapsed unexpectedly. Reagan and Paul Volker (FED Chairman) wanted to lower inflation as means of ending the stagflation in which the Carter years had been mired, but they didn't expect it to fall so quickly.

Clinton combined with Gramm to gut financial regulation which led to the clusterfuck that we still seem to be unable to relegislate after the debacle in 2008. His DoJ was a clusterfuck that was personified with the tragedy in Waco. He gets good marks because he rode the emergence of the online industry and the subsequent growth. I would like to see the policy or policies that he had that actually engendered it. It was all but impossible to fuck up the economy given that boom. He certainly didn't predict nor prevent the bubble bursting.

I would rate them from poor to decent.

Ted Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, and Harry Truman are very good in my view. I guess we just have different standards in leadership.

I have issues with Clinton as well, but his economic policy was generally decent.

As the following factcheck.org article points out, blaming the housing market collapse on Gramm-Leach-Bliley is overly simplistic. It was a myriad of things.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
scipio I want to give you a gold star for being the only conservative on here who has ANY idea what the difference between the debt and deficit is.

but I can't, so I'll just give you this.

you're welcome.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
scipio I want to give you a gold star for being the only conservative on here who has ANY idea what the difference between the debt and deficit is.

but I can't, so I'll just give you this.

you're welcome.

That's peculiar. That same picture was just posted to my Facebook wall.
 

Ben_in_Austin

Practice Squad
Messages
437
Reaction score
0
It's funny. From 1981 to 2000, we had a string of decent to very good Presidents. After 2000, it's like they fell off the fucking cliff.

I was thinking this very same thing, although I'd argue Bush in 2000 wasn't a great string, but I gather you're saying that's where it started. Really, though, they fell of the cliff.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
I was thinking this very same thing, although I'd argue Bush in 2000 wasn't a great string, but I gather you're saying that's where it started. Really, though, they fell of the cliff.

Bush was elected in 2000, but he didn't take office until 2001. I wasn't including him.

I had numerous problems with the Bush Administration.
 
Last edited:

Ben_in_Austin

Practice Squad
Messages
437
Reaction score
0
If we can get through 16 years of these clowns, we should be OK in the future.

By the way, did you guys know Skippy and I went to the same high school together? We also attended the same university--same department and major, IIRC. Small world, no?
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
If we can get through 16 years of these clowns, we should be OK in the future.

By the way, did you guys know Skippy and I went to the same high school together? We also attended the same university--same department and major, IIRC. Small world, no?

P-ville represent!

I would love to move back to the Austin area.
 

iceberg

In the Rotation
Messages
824
Reaction score
0
P-ville represent!

I would love to move back to the Austin area.

now that i'm job hunting, austin is one area i'd love to go home to. born there. have some family there. would be kinda cool to be around family again.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
now that i'm job hunting, austin is one area i'd love to go home to. born there. have some family there. would be kinda cool to be around family again.

Aside from the overbearing heat and humidity 4 months out of the year, Austin is a great city. Very casual and relaxed. Jeans and a polo are sufficient for most expensive restaurants. There's a wide variety of cuisine. With SXSW and ACL, its live music and entertainment scene is first class. There's Sixth Street, the Drag, and a myriad of bars and clubs and theaters downtown. The University of Texas, mine and Ben's alma mater, is at the heart of the city.

My grandmother lived in Rollingwood once upon a time. Rollingwood is quintessential, upscale West Austin. She had a house atop a hill. And before the trees grew up, you could see the entirety of downtown Austin from her backyard. It was awesome.

I hope you find a job there. Then, you can find me one.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I'm just going to assume all our jobless conservatives never received a dime in unemployment. It's too painful otherwise.
 
Top Bottom