|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 25 2012 08:56 oneofthem wrote:
on the price of houses in china and wage levels, 80 years is probably overshooting the median but not by much. it's more like 50 years, and that's with a loan.
the huge number of application for shit paying government positions in china is also partially reflective of this. because the government still provides state employees of a certain level of seniority with housing arrangements. land rent sucks up a large part of housing prices, and this in turn a large part of consumer income for the average guy.
but yea it would be a serious mistake to attribute savings rate as some kind of choice or policy problem for china's government. it's just that poor people have to save to afford houses (loans still require substantial down payments that require many years of savings), while rich people opt to buy houses too, in america, australia and canada.
Do you have any sources for that? Here's what I could find:
In China, economists see a house prices-to-income ratio of about 7 as reasonable, as was historically the case in fast-developing Asian economies. The norm in rich countries is closer to 4. Ms Yao of Dragonomics says the good news is that the nationwide market is fast approaching the preferred level as housing prices edge down while wages climb. The price-to-income ratio for houses peaked at 8.1 in 2009, but fell to 7.4 last year and will decline further this year, according to the Shanghai E-House real estate research institute.
Source
So 7.4X the average income in the US would be very expensive but not so much in China since wages are rising so quickly.
Moreover, if its just that China's consumers are poor, why has the situation only exacerbated as wages have grown? If saving is high because consumers can't afford basic needs than consumption should be rising as a % of GDP as wages rise. But that's not the case, consumption is declining:
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120526_SRC124.png)
Additionally, while its common to cite "cheap labor" as the main reason for China's export success, government policy frequently played a role as well. The main export center of China is the Greater Pearl River Delta region which was explicitly set up to be an export powerhouse:
In 1979, the Central Government of the People's Republic of China announced that Guangdong Province would be allowed to follow less restrictive economic policies and would be permitted to set up three Special Economic Zones (SEZs), including two in the Pearl River Delta, Shenzhen and Zhuhai. Preferential policies in the SEZs included a number of features designed to attract foreign investment, such as a 15 percent tax rate, tax holidays of up to five years, and the ability to repatriate corporate profits and to repatriate capital investments after a contracted period. They also included duty free treatment of imports of raw materials and intermediate goods destined for exported products, as well as exemption from export taxes...
The economic development of the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone took off after the reform programme was instituted. The region's GDP grew from just over US$8 billion in 1980 to more than US$89 billion in 2000 and nearly US$221.2 billion in 2005.
Link
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
8 years hahaha let me find you some sources becuz that's just silly.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/500181-the-main-target-of-china-s-housing-regulations-home-price-to-income-ratios
this one gives a figure between 9 to 15 for house price vs income for tier 1 and 2 cities. these income figures are skewed to the right because of the high number of low wage migrant workers that do not qualify for residency in those cities. if you take the median population income it becomes pretty segregated.
so housing price has a very definite class/social caste structure priced in. people want to reserve a spot in a better city, and save up to buy property in those cities. it is a price on social mobility, or at least the appearance thereof.
i do realize a lot of income in china is unreported, this makes the official data quite useless, but it also skews in two extremes. it hides top end income, which are unreported, particularly corruption and tax evasion stuff, but it also hides quite a bit of cash only, low level income. so speaking for the average guy with no political or family connections, house price may be as high as 100 times income, while for a middle class household earning 10kRMB per month, it may only take 10-15 years to buy a house in a good city.
future expectation wise, chinese parents understand that it is impossible for their male children to get married without a house so obviously they have to save. income isn't even that important when you need to put up the downpayment before your kid is older than 35. it's just simple survival instincts.
Moreover, if its just that China's consumers are poor, why has the situation only exacerbated as wages have grown? If saving is high because consumers can't afford basic needs than consumption should be rising as a % of GDP as wages rise. But that's not the case, consumption is declining: a preference level explanation is that as people get income they are looking to move into cities which has higher housing prices than the countryside. thus more saving. same goes for trying to move into a better city, being closer to the city center, etc.
of course, there may be shocks. food, housing, and generally everything is rising in cost a lot. i don't think real wage has increased any if at all.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-038.pdf
edit: okay after reading that paper it seems that they are talking about savings rate - savings rate for housing. i also think housing is a consumption expenditure so yea, housing is not true savings in the sense of financing future spending. it's a necessity consumption.
China’s high saving rate has been considered as one of the most important causes of China’s trade imbalances with the rest of the world. Since houses are nontradable goods, including housing investment in the saving rate does not change the difference between the aggregate saving rate and national investment rate (i.e., net exports) and thus is not helpful in understanding China’s trade imbalances.
Indeed, the rapidly rising housing prices and other costs of living (such as education and health care) in China have become serious socioeconomic problems and have attracted much attention from news media and policymakers. In Beijing and Shanghai, for example, the average housing price-to-income ratio (for a 30-square-meter living space) is about 12. In particular, Wei and Zhang (2011) propose that the unbalanced sex ratio in China leads to competitive saving behavior in the marriage markets, which may significantly raise the aggregate household saving rate because men with adequate wealth accumulation (e.g., enough savings to buy houses) have a greater chance to attract marriage partners. Such competitive behavior can drive up housing prices and further reinforce the competitive saving behavior. Chamon and Prasad (2010) argue that the rapidly rising private burdens of housing, education, and health care are the most important contributing factors. They also conjecture that the impact of these factors on saving can be amplified by underdeveloped financial and credit markets.
6 That is, a young married couple needs to save their entire income (a 100% saving rate) for 12 years to afford a 60-square-meter apartment for their family. This means that, even with bank loans with a one-third
down-payment arrangement and a 33% household saving rate, a typical working couple still needs to save for 12 years to buy a small apartment. Hence, it is not surprising that rising housing prices have been perceived as one of the most important factors underlying China’s high aggregate household saving rate, especially the rapid accumulation of financial wealth in terms of bank deposits.
the paper itself concludes that house price changes, not its absolute level, does not impact savings rate all that much. this i do not really dispute, but it would be a mistake to think that the absolute level of housing prices does not lead to the formation of the habit of saving.
|
On November 25 2012 10:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 08:56 oneofthem wrote:
on the price of houses in china and wage levels, 80 years is probably overshooting the median but not by much. it's more like 50 years, and that's with a loan.
the huge number of application for shit paying government positions in china is also partially reflective of this. because the government still provides state employees of a certain level of seniority with housing arrangements. land rent sucks up a large part of housing prices, and this in turn a large part of consumer income for the average guy.
but yea it would be a serious mistake to attribute savings rate as some kind of choice or policy problem for china's government. it's just that poor people have to save to afford houses (loans still require substantial down payments that require many years of savings), while rich people opt to buy houses too, in america, australia and canada.
Do you have any sources for that? Here's what I could find: Show nested quote +In China, economists see a house prices-to-income ratio of about 7 as reasonable, as was historically the case in fast-developing Asian economies. The norm in rich countries is closer to 4. Ms Yao of Dragonomics says the good news is that the nationwide market is fast approaching the preferred level as housing prices edge down while wages climb. The price-to-income ratio for houses peaked at 8.1 in 2009, but fell to 7.4 last year and will decline further this year, according to the Shanghai E-House real estate research institute. SourceSo 7.4X the average income in the US would be very expensive but not so much in China since wages are rising so quickly. Moreover, if its just that China's consumers are poor, why has the situation only exacerbated as wages have grown? If saving is high because consumers can't afford basic needs than consumption should be rising as a % of GDP as wages rise. But that's not the case, consumption is declining: Additionally, while its common to cite "cheap labor" as the main reason for China's export success, government policy frequently played a role as well. The main export center of China is the Greater Pearl River Delta region which was explicitly set up to be an export powerhouse: Show nested quote +In 1979, the Central Government of the People's Republic of China announced that Guangdong Province would be allowed to follow less restrictive economic policies and would be permitted to set up three Special Economic Zones (SEZs), including two in the Pearl River Delta, Shenzhen and Zhuhai. Preferential policies in the SEZs included a number of features designed to attract foreign investment, such as a 15 percent tax rate, tax holidays of up to five years, and the ability to repatriate corporate profits and to repatriate capital investments after a contracted period. They also included duty free treatment of imports of raw materials and intermediate goods destined for exported products, as well as exemption from export taxes...
The economic development of the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone took off after the reform programme was instituted. The region's GDP grew from just over US$8 billion in 1980 to more than US$89 billion in 2000 and nearly US$221.2 billion in 2005. Link
You are both missing the point. It's not only about their consumption or their revenue. You must also consider other type of revenue originating from transfer : for exemple, the retirement system, the health care system, etc. are all types of transfer revenue that permit the individuals to protect themselves from certain risks in life. If you don't have those type of system, then it's perfectly normal for people to save a big chunk of their income and to avoid asking for credit because they can't be sure they will be in a situation where they will be able to pay the loan.
|
On November 25 2012 07:31 radiatoren wrote:
Why are people getting hung up on entertaining loans/bonds/stocks and not investments as a primary force for consumption? I know that loans are important for how investments are distributed or if they are made, but in essence the investment should be the focus. By increasing the opportunities for obtaining a loan at favourable terms you are essentially encouraging more loans, but at the same time, you are moving money away from workers and towards economic entrepreneurship, lawyers, speculants and moneytanks in general which is not lower middle class in any way shape or form. It is only trickling down from those people to the workers as far as the investements are sustainable and increasing loans is a crude and short-term way of trying to force more dynamics into the economy. Since investors often want a return on their loans and expansion of available loans happens at an increase in interests, it is just peeing your pants to keep warm. Now, having government guarantee a low interest loan and making it available to force the average interest on investment down is probably a good thing (To some extend it is indirect Keynesian deficit spending). However, liberalisation of lending is the killer and what I am ranting against. Keep the interest rates on loans down by keeping money protection (savings etc.) and investment separate. Also put limits on the concentrations of money in single currencies and we are generally better off than looking at inventing fourth and fifth derivate level papers on debt and valuables. To me it sounds like common sense, but the lemming effect of liberalisation to avoid being labeled as "unfriendly to business" is a strong pull on politicians.
To get out of the situation we have to lower the private debt and take the hit on economy it will bring. I expect the unsustainable austerity measures to continue in europe if Merkel wins the election in Germany. The other way is government soaking up private debt by increasing national sovereign debt in the short term and only in the longer term, the governments can pay off the debt, when national spending is under control. In europe that is gonna take decades unless the economic pact gets pushed a few years into the future to allow for debt soaking. Also, the economic inequality in the EURO has to be decreased significantly. For USA it is all about soaking up more of the private debt into sovereign debt and balancing the structural budget in the short term. It sounds easier for USA, but in reality it will be a highly problematic affair because of federal vs state role in taking the hits. The fiscal cliff is only one small step in that direction.
Seems like inflation would be the proper course for a place like the US. Also, private debt has already shrunk drastically in the past 4 years, which is somewhat reflected in demand and government spending.
|
Rather surprisingly, Senator John McCain has softened his stance toward the appointment of Susan Rice, and is now willing to discuss what happened in regards to the Benghazi information dissemination affair instead of simply black-listing Rice, something he and Senator Lyndsey Graham had suggested previously. Also worthy of note is McCain's public recommendation of a Republican retreat from the abortion debate.
John McCain was slightly less crotchety than usual during his morning appearance on Fox News Sunday. First, he softened his months-long stance on the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who he has relentlessly criticized for the statements she made in the wake of the Benghazi attack, which she initially blamed on a spontaneous protest — as opposed to a planned act of terrorism — because the CIA told her that was the case. McCain had previously said he would block Rice's nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but today he told Chris Wallace that he'd "give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took." He added, "I'd be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her.
McCain's possible new willingness to budge on the issue might have something to do with Rice's recent defense of her statements. On Wednesday, she addressed the supposed controversy publicly for the first time, saying that she had relied "solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community." She added that the information was "preliminary" at the time, and that, "Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available." As our own John Heilemann just pointed out, President Obama's unwavering support of Rice — coupled with the consensus that she did nothing wrong — means that McCain's battle against her is clearly a losing one."
John McCain Backs Slightly Off Susan Rice, Says Republicans Should ‘Leave Abortion Alone’
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
What Reid appears most likely to do is push for an end to the filibuster on so-called motions to proceed, or the beginning of a debate on bills or nominations. If Reid goes this route, senators could still filibuster virtually any other aspect of Senate business, including any movement to end debate and call for a final vote on a bill. And Reid is strongly considering pushing for other filibuster changes, too — most notably requiring senators to actually go to the floor and carry out an endless talking session, rather than simply threaten them as they do now. Reminiscent of the 1939 movie classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the idea has picked up steam in liberal circles — and its intent is to discourage senators from filibustering, though it would fundamentally change the very nature of the modern Senate. “We cannot allow the Senate to be dysfunctional by the use of filibusters,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid’s No. 2. “We’ve had over 300 filibusters in the last six years — it’s unprecedented. What we’re talking about is very basic — you want to start a filibuster, you want to stop the business of the Senate, by goodness’ sake, park your fanny on the floor of the Senate and speak. If you want to go to dinner and go home over the weekend, be prepared, the Senate is moving forward.” Read the full article here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html
Seems totally reasonable to me.
|
On November 26 2012 07:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +What Reid appears most likely to do is push for an end to the filibuster on so-called motions to proceed, or the beginning of a debate on bills or nominations. If Reid goes this route, senators could still filibuster virtually any other aspect of Senate business, including any movement to end debate and call for a final vote on a bill. And Reid is strongly considering pushing for other filibuster changes, too — most notably requiring senators to actually go to the floor and carry out an endless talking session, rather than simply threaten them as they do now. Reminiscent of the 1939 movie classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the idea has picked up steam in liberal circles — and its intent is to discourage senators from filibustering, though it would fundamentally change the very nature of the modern Senate. “We cannot allow the Senate to be dysfunctional by the use of filibusters,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Reid’s No. 2. “We’ve had over 300 filibusters in the last six years — it’s unprecedented. What we’re talking about is very basic — you want to start a filibuster, you want to stop the business of the Senate, by goodness’ sake, park your fanny on the floor of the Senate and speak. If you want to go to dinner and go home over the weekend, be prepared, the Senate is moving forward.” Read the full article here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84195.html Seems totally reasonable to me.
I've always said that if they should attempt to stop the proceedings of government, they should have to actively do it.
|
On November 25 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
stuff about China RE/Savings.
You do realize that at least half of all savings China is not in the households but in the corporate sector right?
Or that while the savings rate in the 1990-2000 decade was around a high 30%, in line with South Korea and lower than Singapore, that the rate jumps after 2000 to over 50%, coinciding with a surge in investment and a trade surplus?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
was not talking about the savings rate in general, just household sector savings rate, which was offered as an explanation for their lack of consumption spending.
|
On November 26 2012 07:05 farvacola wrote:Rather surprisingly, Senator John McCain has softened his stance toward the appointment of Susan Rice, and is now willing to discuss what happened in regards to the Benghazi information dissemination affair instead of simply black-listing Rice, something he and Senator Lyndsey Graham had suggested previously. Also worthy of note is McCain's public recommendation of a Republican retreat from the abortion debate. Show nested quote +John McCain was slightly less crotchety than usual during his morning appearance on Fox News Sunday. First, he softened his months-long stance on the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who he has relentlessly criticized for the statements she made in the wake of the Benghazi attack, which she initially blamed on a spontaneous protest — as opposed to a planned act of terrorism — because the CIA told her that was the case. McCain had previously said he would block Rice's nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but today he told Chris Wallace that he'd "give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took." He added, "I'd be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her.
McCain's possible new willingness to budge on the issue might have something to do with Rice's recent defense of her statements. On Wednesday, she addressed the supposed controversy publicly for the first time, saying that she had relied "solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community." She added that the information was "preliminary" at the time, and that, "Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available." As our own John Heilemann just pointed out, President Obama's unwavering support of Rice — coupled with the consensus that she did nothing wrong — means that McCain's battle against her is clearly a losing one." John McCain Backs Slightly Off Susan Rice, Says Republicans Should ‘Leave Abortion Alone’
does it not bother you, even a little, that she completely lied, and is continuing to lie, about the murders of four Americans? does that even make you stop for a second and ask yourself, "wait, is my agenda worth it?"
this is why this whole Benghazi thing is ridiculous: because you and I and everyone else on earth knew on 9/12 that it was a terrorist attack, probably by Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda affiliate, and that it had nothing to do with the video. the intelligence community knew it, and Susan Rice, if she's got the mental faculties of an earthworm, should have known it. we all know that she lied, but we have to pretend that we don't because of...... I don't know why. it's not even innocent until proven guilty because she's been proven to be guilty.
it just seems very sad to me that in the wake of a intelligence/diplomatic disaster that led to the completely avoidable murder of four Americans, everyone's biggest concerns have been:
1) did Mitt Romney jump the gun
2) did Obama call it a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden
3) who was Patreaus fucking
4) are Republicans playing politics.
and no one is asking the very important question (that Obama never answered during the second debate) which is:
"Who pulled security and why?"
|
On November 26 2012 08:02 Sub40APM wrote:You do realize that at least half of all savings China is not in the households but in the corporate sector right? Or that while the savings rate in the 1990-2000 decade was around a high 30%, in line with South Korea and lower than Singapore, that the rate jumps after 2000 to over 50%, coinciding with a surge in investment and a trade surplus?
The corporate sector savings are supposed to be in use for consumers through the finance sector, but since chinese consumers prefer saving money and doesn't rely to the banking system to buy themselves a house (or anything else really, I don't really understand the focus on houses still), the result is that the savings are moving, through the international finance market, to developped countries. So that half of the saving in China is in the corporate sector is not really important considering what we were talking about.
|
Of all of the many lies told me by my government, society, and culture, this is just about the most trivial
|
On November 26 2012 08:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 07:05 farvacola wrote:Rather surprisingly, Senator John McCain has softened his stance toward the appointment of Susan Rice, and is now willing to discuss what happened in regards to the Benghazi information dissemination affair instead of simply black-listing Rice, something he and Senator Lyndsey Graham had suggested previously. Also worthy of note is McCain's public recommendation of a Republican retreat from the abortion debate. John McCain was slightly less crotchety than usual during his morning appearance on Fox News Sunday. First, he softened his months-long stance on the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who he has relentlessly criticized for the statements she made in the wake of the Benghazi attack, which she initially blamed on a spontaneous protest — as opposed to a planned act of terrorism — because the CIA told her that was the case. McCain had previously said he would block Rice's nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, but today he told Chris Wallace that he'd "give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took." He added, "I'd be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her.
McCain's possible new willingness to budge on the issue might have something to do with Rice's recent defense of her statements. On Wednesday, she addressed the supposed controversy publicly for the first time, saying that she had relied "solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community." She added that the information was "preliminary" at the time, and that, "Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available." As our own John Heilemann just pointed out, President Obama's unwavering support of Rice — coupled with the consensus that she did nothing wrong — means that McCain's battle against her is clearly a losing one." John McCain Backs Slightly Off Susan Rice, Says Republicans Should ‘Leave Abortion Alone’ does it not bother you, even a little, that she completely lied, and is continuing to lie, about the murders of four Americans? does that even make you stop for a second and ask yourself, "wait, is my agenda worth it?" this is why this whole Benghazi thing is ridiculous: because you and I and everyone else on earth knew on 9/12 that it was a terrorist attack, probably by Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda affiliate, and that it had nothing to do with the video. the intelligence community knew it, and Susan Rice, if she's got the mental faculties of an earthworm, should have known it. we all know that she lied, but we have to pretend that we don't because of...... I don't know why. it's not even innocent until proven guilty because she's been proven to be guilty. it just seems very sad to me that in the wake of a intelligence/diplomatic disaster that led to the completely avoidable murder of four Americans, everyone's biggest concerns have been: 1) did Mitt Romney jump the gun 2) did Obama call it a terrorist attack at the Rose Garden 3) who was Patreaus fucking 4) are Republicans playing politics. and no one is asking the very important question (that Obama never answered during the second debate) which is: "Who pulled security and why?"
No, she did not lie, and if you are to assert that she did, you ought to have overwhelming evidence; unfortunately, the very nature of the public release of intelligence information inherently presuppose a degree of cognitive dissonance, as there must always be things that are simply not told to the public at certain times, given certain pieces of intel, or given the inevitable "fog of war" that also plays a role in hurried transmission of intelligence. I needn't point out the hypocrisy in waving the "agenda" flag when your own abject skepticism supersedes the bounds of reasonable objection and amounts to a very polemic agenda in and of itself. As to "who pulled the security and why?", it would appear the tight US resource situation in Libya required a division of manpower that called for the movement of security forces from Benghazi to elsewhere, and actionable intelligence on the attack itself amounted to worries amongst Benghazi staff and affiliated government officials (Stevens) that Al-Qaeda influence in the area was increasing. Unfortunately, reports from all over Libya were of similar nature, so the differentiation needed for a deliberate and sufficient distribution of security forces was likely nonexistent. Hindsight is 20/20, yada yada yada.
|
as to the evidence that she lied... well she clearly said something untrue on Sept. 16. that much is indisputable, because even she admitted that it was untrue. her excuse was that she only read the unclassified talking points from the intelligence community, and couldn't possibly have known what everyone in the world knew four days beforehand. sure that isn't the smoking gun that you're looking for (yeah right, you're looking for a full confession and nothing less), but to most reasonable people, that's a lie.
now I know the excuses, that the intelligence community somehow thought that it was dangerous to tell America what we've known all along, but that still begs the question as to why she was not made aware, or had not made herself aware, of the actual intelligence and not just the talking points. she had access to it, so why did she (allegedly) not review it?
as for the intelligence community, well no one is saying that they aren't guilty of a greater crime than she is. at the best, she is guilty of extreme and willful negligence, at the best, they are guilty of trying to cover up a murder. and again, the excuse that they couldn't risk letting Americans know what every single rational human being on earth already knew is... well let's just say that that excuse is usually reserved for people who actually were born yesterday.
the reason I say agenda is because there is a mountain of evidence that points to the conclusion that Barack Obama and his administration failed to provide adequate security, failed to act when the attack actually occurred (and may have actually hindered rescue operations), and then lied to cover it up after that fact. there is not a shred of evidence that has come to light that contradicts this conclusion, and yet there is not a Democrat in sight that is not more worried over whether Republicans are being big meanies to poor old Susan Rice and Barack Obama. even if you want to assume the best, you still have a consistent string of failures leading to a massive fuck-up, and an utterly dishonest, disrespectful, and disgusting coverup that followed and is ongoing. so the only possible reason you, or anyone else, could have to ignore these facts is that something else is more important to you than the truth.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/25/mccain-graham-keep-heat-on-rice-but-appear-to-take-less-head-on-tack/
The CIA issued classified reports immediately after the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans stating the strikes appeared to be terror related. However, it remains unclear whether that information was included in the talking points given to Rice before her Sept. 16 appearances, as she and Democratic leaders have insisted.
This right here leads to more questions:
1: (if she is telling the truth) Why did Susan Rice feel it was unnecessary to review the actual reports before going before America?
2: (if she is telling the truth) Why did the administration send a woman with no knowledge of the attack (other than the lie) out to explain the attack to the American people?
3: (if she is telling the truth) Why does she not provide her reasoning for not reviewing the intelligence on the attack before trying to explain it? Further, why did the administration allow her to tell a lie to the American people unknowingly and then not step forward and exonerate her by admitting their own lie?
I don't have any agenda as to what happened, other than being very curious as to what the truth is. I haven't really assumed anything unreasonable, whereas you have taken the very unreasonable position of: "not guilty" before the trial has even started.
|
Did you get this worked up about Bush's lies re: iraq? just curious
|
|
|
On November 26 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote:
Did you get this worked up about Bush's lies re: iraq? just curious
not that it's relevant at all, but I have yet to see that Bush "lied" about anything. and further, I'm not really going to discuss that because it is irrelevant. one does not decide to oppose lies and coverups because the other side does it too, one opposes lies and coverups because they are wrong. if you're implying that you or anyone else is somehow freed from the responsibility to determine the truth and tell the truth because of some perception that someone else failed to do so in the past, then you are very clearly displaying an agenda which does not include the truth, and in fact, disregards the truth as unimportant.
basically, if you think Obama being President is more important than knowing why our Ambassador was murdered and why he and everyone else in the consulate and annex were denied help, than it makes perfect sense why you would be fine with the administration's lying. Susan Rice's statements and the subsequent coverup helped keep him in office, so the benefit is clearly there. what I'm arguing is that Obama's re-election should not have taken precedence over the truth for anyone, at any time.
maybe I'm missing something but I can see no reason why someone would be unconcerned with covering up a murder unless they were involved or has something they think is more important than a coverup to worry about.
|
On November 26 2012 10:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2012 10:13 sam!zdat wrote:
Did you get this worked up about Bush's lies re: iraq? just curious what I'm arguing is that Obama's re-election should not have taken precedence over the truth for anyone, at any time.
What I'm arguing is that if you think American politics has ever had anything to do with truth, you are already lost.
(didn't vote for obama, just for the record)
|
a presumption of innocence is different than predetermining innocence. in one case, you wait for the evidence and then make your determination. in the latter case, you decide that evidence is unimportant and that no amount of evidence will suffice to determine guilt.
I have an attitude of presuming innocence, and as of yet, I haven't accused the administration of doing anything that the evidence does not suggest it did. but I am not going to pretend that evidence doesn't exist to satisfy a misguided need to protect Obama's presidency and reputation.
it is wrong to predetermine guilt (To Kill a Mockingbird), but it is just as wrong to predetermine innocence.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this rice witchhunt is about as serious as assuming she has perfect information and deliberative authority within that particular bureaucratic structure.
this won't fly anywhere (outside of land o economics anyway)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
