USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[daveb]

Romney was very careful to say 60% of collected revenue. If taxes for the middle class go down, then total revenue will decrease unless someone else makes up the difference. If revenue decrease, then the upper income workers will pay a higher % of revenue collected. So saying they will continue to pay 60% sounds like he means their taxes will decrease also (by some unspecified amount).

So let's look at some hypothetical numbers. Suppose the government collects 1 trillion dollars now from 100 million people. The rich (1% is 1 million) pay (collectively) 600 billion, and the rest pay 400 billion. If taxes are cut 20% (total collected now 800 billion) and the elimination of deductions occurs such that the rich continue to pay 60% of what is collected, the rich would pay 480 billion, and the rest would pay 320 billion.

That's a savings of 120 billion for the rich, spread over a small number ( average 120,000 per person), and 80 billion for the rest of us spread over a larger number (average 808 per person).

Of course this is a very simplified look at things, but it points out that from an individual perspective, the rich get a larger tax break than the middle class (the point the democrats make).

 

[MacLaddy]

"Now, how about deductions? 'Cause I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the nation collects. So that'll stay the same.

Please provide us with some sources for this information, specifically what deductions he will be cutting and by how much. I would also like to see a tax bracket explaining his tax plan.

Pell grants are part of the reason we have an education bubble right now. Its the same as the housing bubble easy to get loans are driving the institutions to raise prices because the money is available. Reduce the grants and school prices will come down to maintain enrollment numbers. Get a personal loan instead of a grant.

Or... eliminate the bankruptcy exemptions that is given to lenders and schools, and reinstate bankruptcy protection for students on student loans. If this industry had the same bankruptcy laws that every other industry in this country has then it would strive mighty hard to keep prices low.

 

[Oltz]

Daveb can you give any source at all for any plan Obama has for his next term? People cry for details from Romney when Obama is the king of vague plans and hand waving.

And again Romney has a detailed PDF he put out in the Primaries giving far more information then anything I have ever seen from Obama

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

You do realize in your crude example the rich are paying 600,000 apiece and the middle class are paying 4,040 so you are saying they should pay less then that and the "rich" should still pay 600,000 a piece?

the second part of your scenario is 480,000 and 3,232 still seems like a large share to me.

By the way the tax break is the same percent so how is it a larger tax break? Pure quantity wise it is but remember we have a progressive tax code so the "rich" will still be paying a large share of their income.

Please DO not bring in capital gains or payroll taxes to muddy the waters if we need yet another thread about those start a new one.

I think Pell grants should exit but I think to much money is being thrown at higher education right now and it is over inflated the bubble needs to burst. Better to control it then allow it to collapse under its own weight.

 

[Evo]

Daveb can you give any source at all for any plan Obama has for his next term? People cry for details from Romney when Obama is the king of vague plans and hand waving.

Here's how Romney's tax plan will ACTUALLY work.

Romney's tax cut

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, has said the Romney proposal would cost $360 billion in the first year before it is offset by closing loopholes, which others have extrapolated to estimate that it would amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

The report said the loopholes – popular deductions including those for mortgage interest, charitable giving and others – are not plentiful enough at the top of the income scale to cover the estimated $360-billion annual cost of reducing tax rates by 20%.

The gap would need to be filled by closing loopholes for those at lower ends of the income scale, those earning less than $200,000. Estimates say those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be significantly hit.

Also, the report said the trade-off between lower rates and loopholes would benefit higher-income households, which would see their overall tax burden go down while middle- and lower-income households would see their taxes rise.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate-romney-tax-20121003,0,3813713.story

 

[Oltz]

Daveb can you give any source at all for any plan Obama has for his next term? People cry for details from Romney when Obama is the king of vague plans and hand waving.

Here's how Romney's tax plan will ACTUALLY work.

Romney's tax cut
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-debate-romney-tax-20121003,0,3813713.story

Except that Romney said that Deductions would be capped for upper income earners so they still end up paying the same % as now the "gap" could just as easily be closed by cutting spending so there is no Gap or by doing what Obama does and borrowing the money until we "grow out of it" The point is allot of assumptions are made in that estimate that can easily be wrong or right you and I have no way of knowing. Just because they are non partisan does not mean they can see the future.

I think the specific quote I posted earlier from Romney saying he would not allow the burden of 60% for the top 5% of earners to decrease supersedes the estimates made 3 weeks ago that do not even take into account any growth in the economy as it says in the last sentence of your link.

So maybe you should rephrase to here is how one sources THINKS (or estimates or whatever) Romney's tax MIGHT ACTUALLY (based on some large assumptions with admittedly missing details) work since it is not fact.

 

[renz]

I don't have much background, but I am trying to understand Romney's tax plan.
He said (from the first debate) that his tax plan is revenue neutral. And from the second debate he said the top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax while the middle income will get a tax cut. So for it to be revenue neutral the balance has to come from somewhere.
I didn't get a clear picture about if he will eliminate some deductions that will affect the middle class.

So how is it going to be revenue neutral?

 

[daveb]

Daveb can you give any source at all for any plan Obama has for his next term? People cry for details from Romney when Obama is the king of vague plans and hand waving.

Why should I? I never claimed anything about Obama.

You do realize in your crude example the rich are paying 600,000 apiece and the middle class are paying 4,040 so you are saying they should pay less then that and the "rich" should still pay 600,000 a piece?

No, I'm not saying anything about "should".

By the way the tax break is the same percent so how is it a larger tax break?

It's a tax break because for those in the 40% tax bracket, a 20% cut means they recover 8%of their income (paying 32% now), whereas those in the 20% bracket only recover 4% (now paying 16%). Essentially, it makes the system less of a progressive tax system. If the rich are going to have deductions capped, why not just not give them the tax break and let them keep their deductions if they're going to pay the same amount anyway? Is it just so that those rich who don't take deducations end up paying less than they otherwise would? If the same amount of money is paid, then who cares whether it's due to a higher tax rate or the elimination of deductions? If they aren't paying the same amount, then Romney is being disingenuous when he says they won't get a tax break.

Please DO not bring in capital gains or payroll taxes to muddy the waters if we need yet another thread about those start a new one.

I think Pell grants should exit but I think to much money is being thrown at higher education right now and it is over inflated the bubble needs to burst. Better to control it then allow it to collapse under its own weight.

I wasn't planning on talking about these, so why would you bring them up?

 

[daveb]

I don't have much background, but I am trying to understand Romney's tax plan.
He said (from the first debate) that his tax plan is revenue neutral. And from the second debate he said the top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax while the middle income will get a tax cut. So for it to be revenue neutral the balance has to come from somewhere.
I didn't get a clear picture about if he will eliminate some deductions that will affect the middle class.

So how is it going to be revenue neutral?

Another good point. If middle class taxes go down, someone else's must increase (for it to be revenue neutral). But Romney signed on to Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. So either it isn't revenue neutral, he has to beak a promise, or the money has to come from somewhere else.

 

[mheslep]

I don't have much background, but I am trying to understand Romney's tax plan.
He said (from the first debate) that his tax plan is revenue neutral. And from the second debate he said the top 5 percent of taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax while the middle income will get a tax cut. So for it to be revenue neutral the balance has to come from somewhere.
I didn't get a clear picture about if he will eliminate some deductions that will affect the middle class.

So how is it going to be revenue neutral?

The Tax Foundation has a detailed description and accounting, out a couple days ago.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4119837&postcount=32

For the most part Romney/Ryan do not offer tax cuts, they propose to cut the marginal tax rate, and, at the same time, eliminate or shrink deductions/loopholes. The Simpson Bowles commission came up with similar plans two years ago.

restricting a variety of tax deductions such as the home mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer-provided healthcare benefits.

The point of the latter is to broaden the base of actual tax payers, so that, for instance, a General Electric that pays no or little tax because of ample deductions has to pay under Romney/Ryan but at a low rate. The point of the former, rate reduction, is to encourage output by decreasing the penalty on the next dollar earned.

 

[mheslep]

... If the rich are going to have deductions capped, why not just not give them the tax break and let them keep their deductions if they're going to pay the same amount anyway? ...

As others have asked elsewhere:

I'd like to know this answer as well. If you're revenue neutral, outside of a simpler 1040, what's the economic incentive? I can see the new tax policy disproportionately benefits some payers with lower deductions, who gain incentive, but revenue neutral means there are losers as well.

Thanks for asking! This is the most important point. In economics "how much money you have in your pocket" is really a secondary question to the overall economy (I know it matters to you!)
What matters is, if you (say) work an extra day, how much more money do you get to keep? If you get paid $100 per day, but the government takes half, then you keep $50. If it takes a third, then you keep $66, and are more likely to work that extra day rather than go home and watch the ball game. A revenue-neutral tax reform lowers this marginal rate, but eliminates deductions so you end up paying the same amount overall.
Why not "put more money in your pocket?" reduce the rate and let you keep the deduction? Yes, that would be even better. But the government is broke and needs the money.
Why does putting money in your pocket not really affect the economy overall? Because mostly the government takes your money and gives it to someone else to spend. You spend more, he or she spends less. You like it, but it's not much difference overall.
Margins matter to economics.

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2012/10/dynamic-tax-scoring.html#more

 

[Oltz]

Here is another question the "Bush/Obama" Tax cuts expire at the end of the year does anyone know if the 20% rate reduction is on top of the tax cuts or if it is after they revert to the previous levels?

The Bush tax cuts were:
original Bush cuts 20% w/o cuts 20% w/ cuts
39.6 35 31.68 28
36 33 28.8 26.4
31 28 24.8 22.4
28 25 22.4 20
15 15 12 12
10 8
Created a new 10% bracket so less income is taxed at 15% and fewer people fall into it.

So another thing that we do not know making it hard to anticipate its effects. Does the expiration of the cuts eliminate the 10% bracket?

Keep in mind Obama has promised to veto any extension unless it excludes the top 2% of the population. In other words if you are in the top 2% you pay 39.6% top rate but if you are 2.1% you pay 35%.

 

[Evo]

More analysis on Romney tax plan.

Romney’s Tax Plan: Secret or Just Nonsensical?

By the Editors Oct 15, 2012 5:51 PM CT

Romney’s reticence has led others to do the job for him. This in turn has made his campaign unhappy. An analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has met with particular scorn as it concluded Romney’s plan is mathematically impossible -- that there simply aren’t enough deductions, credits or loopholes in the tax code to offset the cuts for the well-off without wreaking havoc. (Romney’s promise to increase defense spending only complicates matters.) As Bloomberg View’s Josh Barro has demonstrated, efforts to poke holes in the tax center’s work are unconvincing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/romney-s-tax-plan-secret-or-just-nonsensical-.html

And another review.

Mitt Romney's campaign says I'm full of it. I said Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible: he can't simultaneously keep his pledges to cut tax rates 20 percent and repeal the estate tax and alternative minimum tax; broaden the tax base enough to avoid growing the deficit; and not raise taxes on the middle class. They say they have six independent studies -- six! -- that "have confirmed the soundness of the Governor’s tax plan," and so I should stop whining. Let's take a tour of those studies and see how they measure up.

The Romney campaign sent over a list of the studies, but they are perhaps more accurately described as "analyses," since four of them are blog posts or op-eds. I'm not hating -- I blog for a living -- but I don't generally describe my posts as "studies."

None of the analyses do what Romney's campaign says: show that his tax plan is sound. I'm going to walk through them individually, but first I want to make a broad point.

The Tax Policy Center paper that sparked this discussion found that Romney's plan couldn't work because his tax rate cuts would provide $86 billion more in tax relief to people making over $200,000 than Romney could recoup by eliminating tax expenditures for that group. That means his plan is necessarily a tax cut for the rich, so if Romney keeps his promise not to grow the deficit, he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html

 

[Oltz]

More analysis on Romney tax plan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-15/romney-s-tax-plan-secret-or-just-nonsensical-.html

And another review.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html

Those are still all based on the same report your first source was based on. Not 3 separate reviews of his policy or even a review of the assumptions made for the first review.

I am not saying you are wrong that it does not work I am saying we can not know either way with the current information we have.

In fact one is rebutting others complaints about the assumptions when we do not have any information.

 

[mheslep]

his 2001 tax cut ... initiated Bush’s march toward a trillion-dollar deficit.

remember, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were also sold on the promise of higher economic growth offsetting much of the revenue loss. It didn't happen.

That's hyperbolic nonsense from Bloomberg's opinion people. Federal revenues increased ~$800B from 2003 to 2007. Yes the recession dropped revenues, but it was the spending increases, including under Bush, and especially due to the accelerated spending in 2009 under Obama that pushed the deficit into the trillion dollar range, where it remains.

Federal revenue, nominal

Federal spending, nominal

Federal deficit

 

[collinsmark]

A new meme has begun!

Hee hee.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/sarcastic-binder-reviews-hit-amazon-155608662.html

"Being a very curvy lady, I really need more of a plus-sized binder to fit into. Will one be made available soon? Otherwise, this binder has everything a woman needs- a small pocket to fit my .70 per dollar, another to store all my recipes for the vast amount of cooking I perform each and every day, plus three separate rings on which to hang my personal belongings. I'll keep my eyes peeled and my fingers crossed that a larger version will soon hit the market. In the meantime, I'm kind of enjoying the "too-tight" look as my entire worth is based on entirely superficial things."

 

[russ_watters]

Don't forget, there was also a violent mob in Libya...

That's wrong too and it's a component of the error I thought we just corrected last night (I pointed it out last night, but you missed it). However, in researching it, it appears that it's a news media issue and not your fault that you didn't know that there was no protest in Benghazi. I knew because I read FoxNews and didn't realize until just now that in this case it meant that most other people didn't know because other media sources largely missed it.

-Initial reports on Benghazi were that the attack occurred out of/in conjunction with a protest.
-Later reports were that not only did the attack not grow out of a protest, there never was a protest to begin with!

So your understanding was apparently two-steps wrong and you've taken the first step to correcting it. But the second step is the more important one; it's what makes Rice's comments so bad. If there was a protest going on, then it is all but a matter of word-play to define the relationship with the protest: whether the attack happened during the protest, grew from the protest, etc. There's not much of a difference there.

But Rice isn't just playing word games with the nature of the link to the protest: she's linking the attack to a protest that didn't exist! The question, though, is whether she knew it at the time...

----------------------------------------
Separate issue on media bias, with sources for the above:
What is perhaps even more interesting about this is that few people are aware that there was no protest because most of the media chose not to report it. I knew it because Fox News was the only major media outlet to report it:

An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week's attack -- challenging the Obama administration's claims that the assault grew out of a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam film.

"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."

The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...resident-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

A week ago, there was this, official word, that also wasn't widely reported:

"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 p.m. or so." This is the night of the attack on 9/11. "There was nobody on the street." This is about the possible protests before the attack. "There was nobody on the street" according to this call with two senior State Department officials. Then at 9:30 p.m. they saw on the security cameras at the consulate that there were armed men invading the compound. Again, no protest, no spontaneous protest. There were armed men invading the compound. Quote, "Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m., nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside all day. And then the attack."

Again, this contradicts directly what was said by the U.N. ambassador, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2012/10/10/all-star-panel-truth-about-libya-attack-continues-come-out

CNN has a transcript of a video report of the same thing, but I see no article about it: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1210/10/es.01.html

As big of a mistake as it was to say that there was a protest when there wasn't, it is very odd that it is getting so little coverage.

But the question for Rice and the Obama administration is when did they know there was no protest? FoxNews first broke the story the day after Rice made the media rounds, but their article also said there were indications published in other news sources the week before.

 

[Alfi]

Enough of Rice!
Sick of this round and round singular topic.

Did anyone notice anything else about the debate?

 

[mheslep]

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but the motivation of the US Administration (&media?) for portraying, or believing, the Benghazi attack to be the 'senseless violence' of mob enraged by a video is not clear to me. Thoughts?

Acknowledging an Al Qaeda planned attack hurts the administration how? Takes away the public line that AQ is "on the run". Is that it?

Ok, but what different preemptive action would a different administration (McCain, Romney) have taken? Would they have not given US support to the Libyan civil war, leaving Qaddafi in charge?

If the political problem was an accusation of fumbling embassy security, then an attack in force with heavy weapons weakens that argument, making it more likely that even a reinforced embassy would still have been overrun.

 

[Angry Citizen]

That's hyperbolic nonsense from Bloomberg's opinion people. Federal revenues increased ~$800B from 2003 to 2007. Yes the recession dropped revenues, but it was the spending increases, including under Bush, and especially due to the accelerated spending in 2009 under Obama that pushed the deficit into the trillion dollar range, where it remains.

Federal revenue, nominal

Federal spending, nominal

Federal deficit

How much of the revenue increase was due to normal GDP growth?

 

[Alfi]

Enough of Rice!
Sick of this round and round singular topic.

Did anyone notice anything else about the debate?

Never mind the Binders Full of Women.

“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”
What Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney also didn’t seem to know, or want to let on in the second Presidential debate, was that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline is actually already being laid out.

Read more:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/10/17/romney-and-obama-debate-keystone-xl-140496 http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/10/17/romney-and-obama-debate-keystone-xl-140496#ixzz29hU96jhGAs a Canadian - I hope we stop this pipeline.
where are the mods keeping this on topic ? - oh ! it's the mods arguing about a single topic that's off topic .
make another thread mods.

 

[mheslep]

How much of the revenue increase was due to normal GDP growth?

Historical average maybe, but I don't think we get to say there is some normal GDP growth that would have happened independent of, well, everything. Incentives in economics, i.e. tax rates, matter, though I have little idea how much.

We can say that the idea that revenue growth "didn't happen" after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is nonsense.

 

[Evo]

That's wrong too and it's a component of the error I thought we just corrected last night (I pointed it out last night, but you missed it).

Ok, Susan Rice was obviously misinformed, which is why her statements contradict those of Obama. Clinton said in an interview that they all had access to the same information, and the reporter asked why Susan had a different story, Clinton said "you'll have to ask her". It's in the video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57533061/clinton-on-benghazi-we-all-had-the-same-intel

 

[Alfi]

Historical average maybe, but I don't think we get to say there is some normal GDP growth that would have happened independent of, well, everything. Incentives in economics, i.e. tax rates, matter, though I have little idea how much.

We can say that the idea that revenue growth "didn't happen" after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is nonsense.

Was this an observation of the Presidential debate?

 

[Alfi]

Ok, Susan Rice was obviously misinformed, which is why her statements contradict those of Obama. Clinton said in an interview that they all had access to the same information, and the reporter asked why Susan had a different story, Clinton said "you'll have to ask her". It's in the video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57533061/clinton-on-benghazi-we-all-had-the-same-intel

Was this an observation from the Presidential debate?

 

[Evo]

Was this an observation from the Presidential debate?

No, a response arising out of mention of Susan Rice's interviews several days after the attack in Benghazi.

 

[mheslep]

...

“We’re going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know.”

What Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney also didn’t seem to know, or want to let on in the second Presidential debate, was that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline is actually already being laid out.

Romney knows. Obama went out to the beginning of the southern KXL route back in March to speak and for some photos, though the federal government has little to no role in the southern, inside the borders pipes, and is thus irrelevant to the a Presidential debate.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/22/obama.3.22.12_620x350.JPG


About the March Obama visit Romney said:

“This week he’s been taking credit for the lower half of the Keystone Pipeline being built. If I’m president, we’ll get the upper half built,” Romney said amid applause.

 

[Alfi]

If I’m president, we’ll get the upper half built,” Romney said amid applause.

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

 

[mheslep]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

What is arrogant about it? The Canadian side already has approval from Harper.

 

[turbo]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

It's hard to nail Romney down, but he does seem to have a talent for alienating other countries with his ill-considered statements. In the debate, Obama seemed calm and secure, IMO. He trapped Romney (especially on Libya) without doing an end-zone victory dance. Good enough.

 

[rootX]

I know a few Canadian backs that straightened up at that arrogant comment.

Canadians are giving US a free bridge now US can atleast build pipes to up here

 

[Alfi]

What is arrogant about it? The Canadian side already has approval from Harper.

The Prime Minister said the fact that there are still questions about a decision that should be a “complete no-brainer” is encouraging Canada to pursue other export markets for oil and gas.

It’s “all the more reason why Canada should look at trade diversification and particularly diversification of energy exports,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/keystone-pipeline-approval-complete-no-brainer-harper-says/article2174907/

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but the motivation of the US Administration (&media?) for portraying, or believing, the Benghazi attack to be the 'senseless violence' of mob enraged by a video is not clear to me. Thoughts?

Acknowledging an Al Qaeda planned attack hurts the administration how? Takes away the public line that AQ is "on the run". Is that it?

Yes. Minus Benghazi, Obama's record on the War on Terror is stellar. It is the brightest spot of his Presidency, IMO. But with Benghazi, we have al Qaeda making its highest profile attack on US interests since 9/11, killing the highest ranking American government official in a very, very long time, making his dismemberment of al Qaeda not quite so complete.

Ok, but what different preemptive action would a different administration (McCain, Romney) have taken? Would they have not given US support to the Libyan civil war, leaving Qaddafi in charge?

If anything they would have likely provided more support for the war, but that's really not relevant to the aftermath unless it included ground troops.

Regarding the attack itself, anything is highly speculative due to remaining unanswered questions:
1. Why were so many angry requests for additional protection rebuffed? Was there a political motive to that?

2. Why, if you're not going to protect the ambassador adequately do you allow him to risk his life in a terrorist hornet's nest?

3. Did they know that Benghazi was a terrorist hornet's nest? The Libyans apparently did.

If the political problem was an accusation of fumbling embassy security, then an attack in force with heavy weapons weakens that argument, making it more likely that even a reinforced embassy would still have been overrun.

4. The embassy is in Tripoli. Benghazi was a consulate, which is just a French name for an office. What was its purpose? Was it accidentally revealed this week in the hearings that it was a CIA base? How did the terrorists know the ambassador would be there, since he wasn't based there?

5. Speaking of security, following the attack, the Obama administration requested permission to to reinforce several embassies with additional Marines. Requested? Really? (Request denied.)

6. Speaking of Marines, embassy/ambassador protection is one of the primary duties of the Marine Corps. The embassy in Tripoli is protected by Marines. Why was the ambassador not protected by Marines when he went to visit a hostile area?

To your point, though, perhaps a couple of squads of Marines would not have been able to protect the ambassador and we'd have a dozen dead Americans instead of three. I suspect public opinion would look at that like a scoreboard and consider it worse, but I would look at it as a better decision. But then, I was in the military.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, Susan Rice was obviously misinformed, which is why her statements contradict those of Obama. Clinton said in an interview that they all had access to the same information, and the reporter asked why Susan had a different story, Clinton said "you'll have to ask her". It's in the video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57533061/clinton-on-benghazi-we-all-had-the-same-intel

Thank You!

 

[russ_watters]

Enough of Rice!
Sick of this round and round singular topic.

Good idea! We really should be getting back to ripping Romney in another hundred posts for his gaffes rather than talking about actual issues! And we should never, ever try to correct official misinformation!

 

[Evo]

Yes. Minus Benghazi, Obama's record on the War on terror is stellar. It is the brightest spot of his Presidency, IMO. But with Benghazi, we have al Qaeda making its highest profile attack on US interests since 9/11, killing the highest ranking American government official in a very, very long time, making his dismemberment of al Qaeda not quite so complete.
If anything they would have likely provided more support for the war, but that's really not relevant to the aftermath unless it included ground troops.

Regarding the attack itself, anything is highly speculative due to remaining unanswered questions:
1. Why were so many angry requests for additional protection rebuffed? Was there a political motive to that?

2. Why, if you're not going to protect the ambassador adequately do you allow him to risk his life in a terrorist hornet's nest?

3. Did they know that Benghazi was a terrorist hornet's nest? The Libyans apparently did.
4. The embassy is in Tripoli. Benghazi was a consulate, which is just a French name for an office. What was its purpose? Was it accidentally revealed this week in the hearings that it was a CIA base? How did the terrorists know the ambassador would be there, since he wasn't based there?

5. Speaking of security, following the attack, the Obama administration requested permission to to reinforce several embassies with additional Marines. Requested? Really? (Request denied.)

6. Speaking of Marines, embassy/ambassador protection is one of the primary duties of the Marine Corps. The embassy in Tripoli is protected by Marines. Why was the ambassador not protected by Marines when he went to visit a hostile area?

To your point, though, perhaps a couple of squads of Marines would not have been able to protect the ambassador and we'd have a dozen dead Americans instead of three. I suspect public opinion would look at that like a scoreboard and consider it worse, but I would look at it as a better decision. But then, I was in the military.

Russ, the amount of protection apparently can be controlled by the host country under the Vienna Convention. I even used Fox News just for you.

Sudan has rejected an offer by the United States to send Marines to increase security at the U.S. embassy in Khartoum, amid protesters and police clashing.

The announcement Saturday follows the United States saying it was sending Marines to Sudan to bolster security at the embassy, where Sudanese police reportedly fired on protestors trying to scale the compound walls.

“Sudan is able to protect the diplomatic missions in Khartoum and the state is committed to protecting its guests in the diplomatic corps,'' Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti told the state news agency SUNA, which Reuters reported Saturday.

As a result, the deployment has been delayed and possibly curtailed, said a U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to disclose details on the troop movement.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Sudan's government "has recommitted itself both publicly and privately to continue to protect our mission," as obligated under the Vienna Convention.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...send-marines-to-secure-embassy/#ixzz29hv3Q2fz