Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 12:26 PM:
The republican national committee seeking political donations over the Benghazi tragedy, by asking conservatives to give about $500 to become a certifiable "Benghazi watchdog." And Speaker Boehner goes further in refusing to answer questions about the political nature of the 16th Benghazi "witch hunt," claiming to want to "just find the truth" while ignoring all the facts on hand.
Karl Rove comes unglued because his political action committees are being scrutinized in their attempts to avoid having to release the names of donors, by claiming tax exempt status. That's just what we need, more political bribe money from anonymous patrons. One would think they'd happy to have their names attached to such "worthy" albeit corrupt cause.
Replies (120)
And this is illegal? Or just outside the scope of the Obama IRS to target them? Which according to you is not illegal.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 12:40 PM
"And this is illegal?"
What did the IRS do that is "illegal?" It is their job to scrutinize applications for tax exempt status.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 1:20 PM
If they find wrongdoing, I hope they punish the wrongdoer whomever it is. If they find no evidence of wrong doing, then the Administration will not be tainted by this any longer. What is it that Common is afraid of?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 1:34 PM
"If they find no evidence of wrong doing..."
The last 15 witch hunts have found no evidence of wrong doing.
It may be a simple matter of "if we don't find wrong doing this time, we'll just make something up."
I don't have any "fear of republicans," it's just a matter of pointing out facts.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:02 PM
Remember the Salem witch hunts. If she was a witch she would survive the dunking, if she drowned, she was innocent. Sound familiar?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:05 PM
common I hate to burst your bubble but the republicans don't have near the scandals the current party has in power right now. I don't believe any one could beat that and get away with it if it had been any other President they would have been impeached or forced to resign. "Slick" got impeached just over women Nixon resigned over a nickle/dime Burglary or face impeachment. You can point out all the fact you want to but none of them beat this party in power right now when it comes to scandals.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:10 PM
The last 15 witch hunts have found no evidence of wrong doing.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:02 PM
Common,
If you wanted to be honest about the Benghazi mess, you would point out that the requested information was never turned over to the investigators. Yes some benign information was handed over. Seems like the latest recipient of the Contempt of Congress Award is now willing to open up a few files when her arse may find itself in the slammer if she doesn't quit stalling.
Tell us the truth for a change.... you are scared thy are going to find something. That would be a start in telling the truth.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:34 PM
"...pointing out facts."
"...any dilatory or obstructive tactics..."
Maybe 500 is low. But it did get your attention.
So what do you want to call a "filibuster..."
"A filibuster in the United States Senate usually refers to any dilatory or obstructive tactics used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when a senator attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a bill by extending the debate on the measure, but other dilatory tactics exist. The rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:41 PM
Filibusters and dilatory tactics are only legitimate tools when there is a Democratic minority in the Senate.... is that correct Common?
Quit your whining. It's sad to see a man cry like you have since they have announced, finally, a serious investigation into Benghazi.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:50 PM
"Tell us the truth for a change...."
What story would make you happy?
Suppose for example, that Ambassador Stevens had not died of smoke inhalation, and had been in a coma all this time. Now suppose he suddenly woke up and was able to recall the truth. Now suppose he said that, before the fire, the demonstrator's had told him that they were protesting the video. Now suppose the Ambassador said that he declined military protection (which is actually factual) and Secretary Clinton had warned him not to stay overnight in Benghazi.
Now there's a truth. The question is would that "truth" make republicans happy to have learned the "truth," or would it make them miserable and despondent because that's not the "truth" they wanted to hear.
Would that "truth" make you happy or sad?
The fact is the republicans have the truth now and they just don't like it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:53 PM
"Quit your whining."
No whining. I'll be glad to take your apology when this waste of time arrives at the same conclusions that the others did.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:56 PM
I'll be glad to take your apology when this waste of time arrives at the same conclusions that the others did. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:56 PM
And we'll be glad to take your apology for the special INDEPENDENT counsels that were assigned during previous administrations. Somehow democrats and the Holder US department of "just us" refuses to do so as well.
Your logic is "if I kill someone and I'm never prosecuted then I've done nothing illegal".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 3:04 PM
Common, uses the Hilary logic.... "What does it matter".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 3:08 PM
Common: Sometimes a cover up (Nixon for example) is worst than the actual crime. We just want the facts and nothing but the facts concerning the Benghazi incident to be made public and if there were any crimes or cover up the guilty must pay.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 3:12 PM
"Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist organization in Nigeria, is in the news because it kidnapped more than 200 teenage girls and now threatens to sell them into slavery. (That's what a real war on women looks like.) This is just the latest of many outrages committed by Boko Haram, which is guilty of many acts of mass murder. But it has now come out that for two years, Hillary Clinton blocked efforts to add Boko Haram to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
"This wasn't just an episode of bureaucratic indifference. The Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA and many in Congress lobbied the State Department to list Boko Haram, but Clinton stood firm in defense of the Nigerian terrorists. Now, with the kidnapping outrage in the news, Hillary is tweeting away on behalf of the Nigerian girls. (THAT will do a lot of good!) But where was she in 2011 and 2012?
"Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.
"In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
"Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group's ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia's al-Shabab terrorist organization.
"But Hillary Clinton was unmoved.
"Over the last day or two, debate has raged over whether adding Boko Haram to the State Department's terror organization list would have made much difference. (It finally happened in 2013, after Hillary's resignation.) But the more interesting question is why Hillary was so resistant to labeling Boko Haram a terrorist group, which they obviously were.
"Her defenders have said that it was inappropriate to put Boko Haram on the list because they are a regional group that hasn't acted against American interests. But that explanation holds no water. You can read the terrorist list here; there are a number of groups on it, like the Irish terrorists, who haven't attacked American interests. Democrats have also suggested that Hillary didn't want to name Boko Haram because doing so would add to the group's prestige among fellow terrorists. But this is a ludicrous claim; if it made any sense, we should abolish the list entirely. (The point of the list, of course, is to authorize intelligence activities and efforts to choke off funding.)"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 3:17 PM
No whining. I'll be glad to take your apology when this waste of time arrives at the same conclusions that the others did.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:56 PM
And if something is found showing wrongdoing you will admit you were wrong all along and these inquiries have been a search for the truth and not witch hunts. Is that correct Common?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 3:36 PM
The Dems have set a trap for these gullible republicans. The repubs are stupid enough to fall for this supposedly Benghazi cover up and they will be the laughing stock when it's over. The think the truth is "what they want to hear."
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 4:55 PM
"...the special INDEPENDENT ..."
What in the world is independent about it?
"....Hilary logic.... "What does it matter"."
Clearly you have no concept nor understanding of the comtext within which that was said.
"...there were any crimes or cover up..."
What crimes were committed?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 5:36 PM
What crimes were committed?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 5:36 PM
Common,
It is a crime that 4 Americans died at the hands of terrorists if it happened because of someone's ineptness or failure to act for political reasons. No matter who that someone might be.
It makes a difference Common.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:06 PM
Was it a "crime" that 241 Marines died in Beruit because of the "ineptness" of the President Reagan Administration?
Was 9/11 due in part because of "someone's ineptness?"
"...if it happened because of someone's ineptness..."
We have already had 15 investigations that said it wasn't. Who was guilty, Ambassador Stevens? I would say you're grasping at straws. Check with your buddy Krauthammer who is predicting that the whole issue will blow in Speaker Boehner's face.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:26 PM
"...troubling to watch grown adults idealize a man and think he can do no wrong."
I have often pointed out items or issues on which I disagree with President Obama. However, the majority of SO participants attack him so viciously, and without justification, that I spend almost all my time countering rumors, innuendo, baseless attacks, exaggerations and outright lies.
If that's too much for you, don't pay attention to what I write.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:37 PM
"...does nothing but "witch-hunts"
Actually they do a lot of "nothing." But everything is not a "witch hunt," and no one said that. Benghazi and the IRS are.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:43 PM
We have already had 15 investigations that said it wasn't. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:26
Which one of your 15 were by an INDEPENDENT counsel? A SPECIAL prosecutor?
None. THe most corrupt administration in history.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 9:45 PM
nd without justification, that I spend almost all my time countering rumors, innuendo, baseless attacks, exaggerations and outright lies.
If that's too much for you, don't pay attention to what I write.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:37 PM
An as usual if it is the true (as it most times is) you and Mic spin it and say it is a which hunt hoping some uniformed person will believe you. Bad thing is more and more people are feeling the financial burden of Obamanomics and starting to pay attention.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 9:48 PM
I've been busy today and have not the time to read every post so I may be uninformed or ignorant about some opinions expressed.
May I ask one question: Why is it that our president and his administration always seem to down play Muslim terrorism as in calling the Fort Hood murders work place violence?
The Benghazi murders were the work of Muslin terrorist and right off the bat the Obama people claim it is not.
Has Obama really ever been against the bad guys that count?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 10:19 PM
"..rammed through..."
How is this "independent" as it's a Speaker Boehner show? And what crimes are being "prosecuted " by the "SPECIAL Prosecutor?"
House votes to start new Benghazi investigation
May 8th 2014 7:39PM
By Bradley Klapper and Donna Cassata
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans on Thursday rammed through a measure opening a new investigation of the deadly assault in Benghazi, Libya, vowing to dig deeper in a search for truth. Democrats declared it merely a political ploy to raise campaign cash and motivate voters.
A bitterly divided House voted 232-186 to establish the panel that Speaker John Boehner insisted would answer questions that linger almost 20 months after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission. Seven Democrats, many facing tough re-election campaigns, broke ranks and joined Republicans in supporting the probe."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 10:40 PM
The last 15 witch hunts have found no evidence of wrong doing.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 2:02 PM
So , anyone who may question this President's actions are doing nothing but saying "rumors, innuendo, baseless attacks, exaggerations and outright lies."
...............
................
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 6:37 PM
Common, Common, settle down you'll have a mental hernia.
First you state at least 3 times that there have been 15 investigations into Benghazi. Then you call anything anyone says about Obama outright lies. Why not start with your statement about there havug beeb 15 investigations already. That is a lie.
I heard on the news this evening that this is the 8th investigation. So you have more than doubled the number of investigations.
You are really worked up about this aren't you? Afraid they are going to get your boy on something Common?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, May 9, 2014, at 11:36 PM
common: You know why nothing has been brought against Obama as well as I do and millions others come on now you have to be smart enough to know the answer to that, any other President would have already faced impeachment. They have plenty of proof but like I said you know why nothing is being done.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 7:28 AM
"A friend of Brandon Webb, who had to help pay to put him in the ground because our government hasn't paid his death benefit or insurance payment to his family/estate"
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 7:54 AM
FBI Now Investigating Bundy Supporters in BLM Dispute
By Daniel Terrill
News broke last night that the FBI is now investigating the armed supporters and militia groups that squared off against federal agents and law enforcement officers during the dispute over rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle illegal grazing on federal land.
According to CBS Las Vegas, the FBI is investigating to see if the armed supporters threatened and aimed weapons at government employees while they rounded up Bundy's cattle.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 8:40 AM
Add to breaking news the latest on the Veterans Administration scandal, an e-mail by an employee on how to doctor the reports to keep the front office happy while not delivering results. And Common told us some time ago how wonderful the VA handled medical care. Not the place here, oh wait I checked this is Common's thread on Scandals, so I suppose this qualifies.
I will go on, is the pattern of poor medical services now being given to our veterans to be what we can expect from Obamacare in the future.
Just more proof... if you want something screwed up, just give the job to the government to do.
Buck passing and excuses are the order of the day. And if the administrator has high up connections, they don't even get fired, they are hidden in another department and we continue to pay them for doing a poor job, or maybe for doing nothing.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 9:56 AM
common: You know why nothing has been brought against Obama as well as I do and millions others come on now you have to be smart enough to know the answer to that, any other President would have already faced impeachment. They have plenty of proof but like I said you know why nothing is being done.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 7:28 AM
I'd like to know why, swamp, what you and millions of others know, that I don't know. Spell it out in words my poor simple mind will understand.
-- Posted by exmissourian on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM
ex,
Not speaking for swamp, but would suspect skin color would be mentioned and then all hell would break loose on here again with accusations of racism etc.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM
"I heard on the news this evening that this is the 8th investigation.'
Maybe in the House alone, but...
According to (Greta) from Fox News (wouldn't want to give you a biased source) there have been 13 public hearings. In addition there have been investigations by the State Department, the CIA and private or classified hearings by both the
House and the Senate.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but none of these "investigations" have found actual "wrongdoing" nor have they brought any criminal charges. This is completely consistent with findings from similar terrorist attacks over the past 40 years or so.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 2:36 PM
According to CBS Las Vegas, the FBI is investigating to see if the armed supporters threatened and aimed weapons at government employees while they rounded up Bundy's cattle.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 8:40 AM
It does show how close we are coming. The BLM had snipers so the people came armed as they should have. Democrats are good at doing the sniper thing. Can we say Ruby Ridge and Janet Reno which BTW she suppose to have been Hilliary's lover at the time.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 2:46 PM
"You know why nothing has been brought against..."
How about it simply being a matter of the "charges" being bogus, imagined, exaggerated, and/or trivial.
By implying that President Obama is not being charged because he is black is ludicrous.
This is particularly dumb because of the fact to so many phony charges are being bandied about exactly because of his race. It's just stupid to suggest republicans can make accusations and allegations because of his race and then declare that he can't be impeached because of his race.
Face it, impeachment will not happen because there's no valid proof.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 2:57 PM
'The president did not mislead anyone about the cause of the workplace violence nor did he ever lie or tell anyone to lie about the tragic death of that ambassador, Mr. Stevens and others that followed him into risk.'
Does that about sum it up Common?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 4:09 PM
"It's just stupid to suggest republicans can make accusations and allegations because of his race and then declare that he can't be impeached because of his race."
Besides you, who said that Common?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 4:10 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 4:09 PM
Now Old John,
You're going to be the cause of Common getting his bowels in an uproar again today. ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 4:12 PM
"Does that about sum it up Common?"
No, it's complete and unadulterated gibberish.
That's also why that kind nonsense doesn't bother me in the least. Why should it, when you consider the source.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 5:07 PM
common: He has told so many stories people don't pay any attention to him any more besides you and few more on here. I believe common is one person running under about five different blogger names not hard to figure it out.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 5:25 PM
Swamp,
And I don't believe you want to forget our old friend Me'Lange in that category.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 5:34 PM
The SO group "...has told so many stories [denigrating the President that rational] people don't pay any attention to [them] any more.
Much more accurate and sensible statement.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 6:52 PM
Common likes adulterated gibberish better, the kind he posts. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 6:53 PM
"I believe common is one person running under about five different blogger names..."
Strange. I would suggest that the following saying applies directly to your above contribution.
Sometimes it's better to not post and let people think you're foolish, than to post something like the "five different blogger names" and remove all doubt. (With credit to Mark Twain.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, May 10, 2014, at 7:00 PM
Republicans and their mouthpiece network continue bringing up Benghazi (embassy attacks have been happening for decades under several presidents, which Fox News seemed to miss) and the IRS "scandal" (and wouldn't you know it, when the truth came out, they were actually targeting groups with affiliations to BOTH parties) because they have nothing else to go on.
It doesn't matter what the scandal is, they immediately go into "Do no real work which we were elected to do, and spend all our time talking on TV and making a mockery of the legislative branch" mode.
Like or dislike the democrats, they don't do that. Did newly elected President Obama go after the previous administration for war crimes? No.
Because it would have been nothing but several years of wasted time with no significant outcome.
Stop defending these Republicans. They are complete failures. They've accomplished NOTHING.
OPEN YOUR EYES.
Because even with my "one eye" (wink wink Wheels), I can see it plain as day.
A lot of you say "vote everyone out so we can get rid of the trash!
Then DO IT. That means you have to vote AGAINST some of the republicans.
EVERY seat in the H.O.R. is up next year.
Now's everyone's chance to change the country.
-- Posted by the_eye on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 1:15 PM
One prominent dem goes on TV and claims both parties were targeted by the IRS. That was proven to be inaccurate but the dems continue to exaggerate it an attempt to defend this president.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 2:24 PM
That was proven to be inaccurate..."
Proven by whom? Do you actually think that every democratic organization is automatically approved? Why would that be the case?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 4:40 PM
Because even with my "one eye" (wink wink Wheels), I can see it plain as day.
-- Posted by the_eye on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 1:15 PM
Please quit winking at me One Eye... You have made an error in judgement, I'm straight, I don't go in for none of that "strange" acting.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 8:01 PM
Claiming that some crooked democratic organizations were not approved is not the same as targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny and delays, requiring more hoops to jump through so to speak.
There are so many incidents suspect of scandal involving this administration that the MSM and democrat talking heads have been able to confuse and impede any effective inquiry that would result in public awareness.
The federal government as a whole is out of control of the people and both parties have participated in getting there.
What I can't understand is why some can be so loyally defend this president that openly states his agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 9:10 PM
What I can't understand is why some can be so loyally defend this president that openly states his agenda.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 9:10 PM
Old John,
I started to say they were brain washed, but changed my opinion. Make that brain dead.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 9:48 PM
"...that openly states his agenda."
Such as what?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 7:34 AM
Common, Remember cap and trade? How about spread the wealth around or "Under my plan...."?
Now it's income equality or whatever talking point that fits.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 9:40 PM
The republican initiative...
" ...the idea of capping emissions and trading emission permits was originally a GOP idea introduced to deal with acid rain. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report celebrating the 15-year-old program to curb acid rain as an environmental (and economic) success."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, May 12, 2014, at 10:48 PM
Some facts:
Administration officials refused to turn over information from previous investigations over what happened in Benghazi. New evidence has come to light, via e-mails that indicated the administration "coached" officials how to spin it and withhold known facts. It also indicated that the administration knew there was a terrorist threat and chose to ignore the warning signs. That isn't a "witch-hunt". If the administration wanted this to go away, they would have only had to been transparent from the start.
The IRS illegally demanded donor lists from conservative groups filing for tax-exempt status. Of the groups that did disclose donor lists, donors that were disclosed were audited at 1400% the normal rate for those in their tax bracket. 10% of donors were audited whereas the average was less than 1% for their respective brackets.
-- Posted by whitefeather on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 7:43 AM
Common, Back when most drug stores offered "Bromos" I asked the local Dr just what is a Bomo? He said, Well, it's a good product to sell.
Same with Cap and Trade still being used in some eastern states.
One blogger likened it to hiring someone to dig one hole to fill another. You still have a hole and the digger [Gov] gets paid.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 9:37 AM
Now we have Timmy G saying the administration INSTRUCTED him to lie...
-- Posted by whitefeather on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 11:04 AM
"...dig one hole to fill another."
It has nothing to do with filling one hole with another.
It just says there's a cap on the total depth of "holes." If one's allocation is a 2 foot hole, and he wants a 3 foot hole, and he's willing to pay someone else who has a foot of allocation left over, then they "trade," and all are "capitalistically" happy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 11:22 AM
I thought that "cap" meant "cap"? So you cap a 2 foot hole, and by paying someone you can make a 3 foot hole? Sounds like pay to play to me.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 11:29 AM
I guess some can't figure out that "cap" means limit also, not just something you put on your head.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 3:16 PM
Now we have Timmy G saying the administration INSTRUCTED him to lie...
-- Posted by whitefeather on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 11:04 AM
I heard that last night... and did you see the number of those that did lie to do a CYA for the White House, and do so without batting an eye.
Timmy G. best watch his step. Obama will unleash the IRS on him. If you remember correctly he came to the party owing back taxes, and I think if I remember correctly, had a substantial reduction in the amount owed and paid the rest.
Old habits die hard, he best hope he has stayed current since jumping on Obama's wagon.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 3:41 PM
Whitefeather,
I just noticed the title of this thread..... you posted this information on the wrong thread, this one is only for Conservative Scandals.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 3:42 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 3:56 PM
Hunter Biden, could have beat the luck of the draw and escaped inheriting his Father's genes.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, May 13, 2014, at 4:02 PM
Tax credits are not the same thing as tax cuts.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, May 16, 2014, at 8:19 PM
Tax credits to people that do not pay taxes don't reduce the amount of taxes people pay. By the contrary tax credits of that sort increase the demand for revenue from tax payers.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 17, 2014, at 9:37 AM
Tax credits, I think, are mostly targeted to certain businesses or individuals in exchange for certain economic activity.
I you are a lawmaker and have a brother in the solar panel business a tax credit for machinery to make solar panels is the way to go.
If you're the Governor and would like to be remembered as the Governor that increased jobs, raised revenues and balanced the budget, broad tax and spending cuts would be your thing.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 17, 2014, at 7:44 PM
"While you're correct, I think that's a distinction without a difference. Both tax cuts and tax credits serve the same purpose: reduce the tax paid by the taxpayer."
Tax cuts allow one to keep more of their own monies, and are generally uniform for all tax payers within the rate-paying group.
Tax credits permit targeted tax payers to receive monies applied against their tax obligation, and can lower one's tax obligation to less than zero, allowing tax payers to become tax receptors. Tax credits, unlike tax cuts, allow one man's taxes to become another man's income.
That you do not see that distinction as a difference is a large part of what is wrong with America.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 6:36 AM
"In some cases, yes. However, refundable credits are the exception, not the rule."
Earned Income Tax Credits, for example, lower one's tax liability to less than zero.
The point is, they are two entirely different animals, and the distinction is more than mere cosmetics.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:34 AM
Seems it wasn't all that long ago we had a crisis in crumbling roads and bridges. Lately I hear the same.
I thought all the borrowed-printed Bail out and TARP monies were to fix that and create a bunch of jobs in the process. What went wrong?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:47 AM
Also, tax credits are applied as payment to the taxes owed, rather than simply lowering the amounts owed. The taxes are paid, at least in theory, by someone, usually a government programme which offers the credits in exchange for spending your monies in the manner they prescribe.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:49 AM
"What practical difference do non-refundable tax credits and tax cuts have for the average tax payer?"
It depends on the tax cuts or credits being discussed. The point is, they are entirely different.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:50 AM
"My point is that to the average taxpayer they are not."
I consider myself an average taxpayer, and they are to me.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 12:27 PM
I'm sure they are no different to people who pay no taxes, either. That still does not change the fact that they are very different, in reality. I'm not concerned about the perceived similarities, the reality is what matters.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 12:29 PM
It matters to me because I look beyond myself. From what I am reading of your posts, if it does not affect you, it has no effect.
Just because you cannot see the difference does it does not follow that there is no difference.
My initial comment, that tax credits are not the same thing as tax cuts, stands. Why do you feel the need to challenge that claim? You acknowledged that it is correct, and yet to press on with your claim that it is a "distinction with no difference", even though I've shown clearly the difference.
As I said before, you have no point, just a desire to stir the pot.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 12:46 PM
"In other words, what difference does it make to you if your tax rate is cut 5% or you qualify for a tax credit that cuts your tax bill by 5%?"
If my tax rate is cut by 5%, then it follows that everyone in my bracket has also had their rate cut by the same, and it does not require me to "qualify" in any way other than be in that bracket. If I "qualify" for a tax credit, then it is presumed that I have to request it, provide some evidence of such qualification, file for it or otherwise make the effort to claim it, and may have to wait until the next filing season to see the savings. That is a distinction with a difference, in my view.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 12:49 PM
"Who is going to care whether their tax rate is lowered by 5% or the amount of tax due is lower by that same amount?"
I care, for one. Others do, too, which is why the distinction is brought up many times.
"Everything else you mentioned is already required...we call it "filing a tax return"."
Many tax credits require more than simply filing a tax return, and they require more paperwork. A tax cut, also applies even if you file 1040EZ, have a flat tax, or file no taxes at all (sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, etc., all can be cut, and do not always require filing a return).
"Because, as near as I can tell, that comment was merely you being pedantic."
Typical. Again, because you don't see the difference you assume the difference does not matter. I've pointed out many times on this forum that there is a difference, and gone to great lengths to discuss that difference in the past. Old John also pointed out a difference.
Again, and most importantly, a tax credit does not reduce taxes, it merely changes who pays them. Why do you assume it makes no difference to me whether 5% less is paid in taxes or whether I merely pay 5% less individually, with someone else being obligated to cough up the 5%.
I get tax credits often, because I sometimes pay more in taxes due to estimating than I end up owing at years' end. So, rather than accept the refund only to mail it in three months later, I apply my refund as a credit towards the next quarters' obligation. Thus, when the next year comes around, I get a "tax credit" for the monies carried over, but it most certainly is a different thing being credited for taxes paid than not paying the taxes at all.
I think it's kind of sad that you can't see the difference.
I've known people who think lending the government money free of interest for most of the year and then getting it back the following year is a great thing. I don't understand that logic and I don't understand the claim that tax cuts and tax credits are not significantly different.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:05 PM
If I have to file a worksheet, that is different than simply filing a return. To qualify for a tax credit, I would generally have to do so. A tax cut does not require that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:07 PM
I can file a tax return and earn a tax cut without telling the government how I spent the money I earned. To earn a tax credit, I have to tell them how I spent it and explain to them why they ought to give me credit for spending it the way they like it spent.
Have I given you enough reasons why they are different?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:09 PM
"Who does it the distinction matter to?"
It ought to matter to everybody.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:11 PM
"That's not a "tax credit'."
Yes, it is.
"A tax credit is a sum deducted from the total amount a taxpayer owes to the state. A tax credit may be granted for various types of taxes, such as an income tax, property tax, or VAT. It may be granted in recognition of taxes already paid, as a subsidy, or to encourage investment or other behaviors. In some systems tax credits are 'refundable' to the extent they exceed the relevant tax. Tax systems may grant tax credits to businesses or individuals, and such grants vary by type of credit."
"_Recognition of taxes already paid_".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:38 PM
"The direct dollar-for-dollar reduction of an individual's tax liability; compare with tax deduction, which reduces an individual's tax liability only in proportion to his/her tax bracket."
A tax cut is not a "dollar for dollar" reduction, but rather a rate reduction. Yet another distinction.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 2:42 PM
And I profoundly disagree, but that is the nature of such debates.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 3:16 PM
-- Posted by RickŪ on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 3:50 PM
Rick: Would that infrastructure improvements include the governors office.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 8:34 PM
Shapley, I'm a poor student of details of tax procedures. One thing I am curious of is my understanding that you forward your overpayment in quarterly taxes to the next year and then question the mentality of letting the government use your money for free.
I did the same thing but always wondered why my advisor said to.
Miccheck, You've turned the point of discussion into the definition and perception of "tax credits" and "tax cuts" and away from the end result or affect on business, individuals and the economy overall.
Rick, Was this a sales tax on fuel being proposed?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 9:38 PM
It would be one thing if I carried over a full year, but quarterly payments come up every three months, and one is usually coming around about the same time as my filing.
It is unfortunate that I cannot estimate my taxes more accurately so as to have no credit remaining at year's end, but the quarterly formulation does not make that possible, particularly in years of diminishing returns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 9:46 PM
The point is, I realize it is a bad deal, and do not claim to have beat the government if I am eligible for a refund.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 9:48 PM
It is unfortunate that I cannot estimate my taxes more accurately so as to have no credit remaining at year's end, but the quarterly formulation does not make that possible, particularly in years of diminishing returns.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 9:46 PM
Yes, I understand where you are coming from on that statement. But sometimes you can beat them for at least the year following a bad year, because you are not required to pay more estimated for the following year than you owed in the bad year, leaving you the opportunity to owe the government money without incurring a penalty, at least that is the way I understand it.
I like owing them money and I hate refunds, because they have had an interest free loan from me.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:06 PM
Shapley, I understand the frustrations. One year we overestimated to the point it hurt the business and that was due to a mere misunderstanding of what the accountant suggested.
Back to the tax cut and credits, we need to clear all this up with a much less complicated system.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:06 PM
Rick, That won't fly. Maybe someone not as lazy as me will research it further, :)
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 19, 2014, at 10:24 PM
We need a flat tax, for one thing. If the government wants to tax income, that is one thing. But it ought to be none of their business how we chose to spend it.
They talk a lot about "fair share", but there is nothing fair about reducing the share owed by those who spend their monies they way the government wants it spent as opposed to those who spend their monies the way they want to spend it. This is particularly true when the government's desired spending is geated towards enriching the friends of the politicians who draft the tax credit legislation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 6:32 AM
Politics operates via the Golden Rule.... Those that have the Gold make the Rules.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 8:02 AM
-- Posted by RickŪ on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 7:57 AM --
Thus ensuring that, even if the Republicans win the Senate, not much will change...
"Hey! Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 9:29 AM
"I disagree"
Of course you do.
"I think those that choose to spend money in a way that benefits others should have a lower tax bill than those who choose to spend money in ways that benefit only themselves."
Who says spending the way the government prefers benefits others? Who says spending money the way one wants does not? If one buys a yacht, it benefits the maker and sellers of yachts, and the keepers of marinas. They, in turn, buy goods and services which benefit others.
Many government programmes thought to "benefit others" have done much less.
Meanwhile, the "fair share" argument is diminished, because most of those who have money on which to offset taxes through credited spending schemes are, after all, "the rich".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 9:34 AM
"charitable donations and purchasing homes, for instance"
I would point out that those are tax deductions, not tax credits, but you'd just accuse me of being pedantic again.
But, contrary to popular belief, the home interest deduction does not encourage home ownership so much as it encourages the retaining of a mortgage, which is to say it encourages Americans to remain in debt more than they need be. This, even as we bemoan the fact that Americans carry too much debt. So, again, I ask, who is to say that spending money the way the government wants us to spend it benefits society. I'll grant you that it benefits the banks, though...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 9:48 AM
"I just can't figure out today's wanna be Liberals , it seems as if they want it both ways."
As I see it, they want tax breaks for the way they want to spend their money, but they advocate them for everyone based on the assumption that their habits are "good" habits and ought to be promoted while others habits are "bad" habits and out to be discouraged.
It's an ego thing, I believe.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:05 AM
Banks are evil, but we ought to reward those who mortgage their homes through them because home ownership is "good". We can do this by lowering taxes on those who take out mortgages.
Insurance companies are evil, but we ought to make citizens buy their products because having insurance is "good". We can encourage this by having those who buy insurance pay lower taxes than those who don't.
But, of course, government is "good" so we can reign in all that evil by having increased government oversight of those evil entities. But, of course, we will need to raise taxes to pay for this oversight...
Go figure.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:10 AM
"How is it any more an ego thing than what you're saying?"
Because I'm not trying to tell people to spend their money the way I think it ought to be spent. I'm saying they ought to free to spend it as they desire (it is, after all, their money). The ones with the ego are those who think they know better than the owners of the money how they ought to be spending it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:12 AM
"I'd say the one's with the ego are those saying no one else could possibly know better than themselves."
That's what I'm saying. But you're reading it differently. I believe in freedom, and that includes the freedom to spend your money foolishly, or at least those who presume to know better deem to be foolish. I don't presume to know how others ought to spend their money, as you apparently do.
"I spent most of my fortune on wine, women, and song. Like a fool, I squandered the rest."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:17 AM
"Your philophy seems very centerd on the individual, which is why it seems much more egotistical to me."
You're philosophy is centered on someone, whether it is yourself or yourself in concert with others who agree with you, telling others how they ought to be spending their own money. That is egotistical.
My philosophy does not presume that the individual will or will not spend his money wisely, it presumes that he ought to have the freedom (it being _his_ money, after all) to spend it foolishly or not foolishly, as he sees fit.
The point is, and you've already said it so you cannot deny it, you want to encourage spending on certain behaviours that you believe are beneficial to society, and you want laws imposed to steer others to do so, or to penalize those who do not. That is egotistical because it presumes that those things you advocate are correct and everyone ought to be doing them.
I've advocated for nothing but freedom. Now, perhaps, it is egotistical to believe that freedom as I see it ought to be encouraged, but at least my viewpoint does not impose any unfair advantage on anyone for doing things the way I want them done. After all, in my system, the person who has a mortgage pays the same tax rate as the one who does not, so I have neither penalized nor rewarded one for choosing or not choosing to become indebted to the banks.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:28 AM
"That's what living in a society is all about. Again, it's not what *I* want, or what *I* think is best, but what we as a society agree will benefit us most. Whether or not you want to admit it, your acts (or the acts of anyone) are not in a vaccuum, but affects others in society."
Yes, it is about what *you* want or what *you* think is best, because that is what you've been advocating. You want less freedom for others in order to ensure that the effects you fear are not imposed on society, meaning on *you* and *your* progeny, by and large.
Your post confirms my claim, because you say what *we* (as a society) benefits *us* most ("we" and "us" inclusive of yourself, and exclusive of those who disagree with *your* view of how things ought to be).
How is society benefited by someone else having or not having a mortgage (your example of beneficial spending)?
How is society benefitted if someone's tax obligation (which pays for social services) is reduced because he gives to a charity that may or may not actually provide social services? If I give monies to a Mega-Church, which uses the money to broadcast their message in Swahili to African tribes, how are *we* in society benefitted if I'm allowed to reduce my taxes because of that? *We*, as a society, have agreed that deducting donations to mega-Churches ought to be allowed, have we not?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:48 AM
"That's what living in a society is all about. Again, it's not what *I* want, or what *I* think is best, but what we as a society agree will benefit us most."
And that my friend is what communistic socialism is all about.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 10:51 AM
Freedom is so detrimental to good order, no?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:06 AM
"Just because your point of view is selfish first,.."
As usual, you have to turn this into an ad-hominem attack. Old John asked about "liberal" viewpoints and you decided to turn my response on generalities as personal, and now you expand that into "selfish".
I have no problem with "selfishness", as there is virtue in "selfishness", which is to say the right of the individual to decide, for himself, what to do with that which is his. However, my position is not founded so much in "selfishness" as it is in freedom. Under my system, the person is free to act selfishly or selflessly as he sees fit, with no coercion from others.
As I see it, the other view is greedy, as it seeks to impose control by others, either individually or collectively, upon that which is not theirs to control.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:26 AM
"Indeed it is. Again, unless you are advocating anarchy, you agree."
Typical narrow mindset. You've avoided the question of how having a mortgage benefits society, and now apparently advocate the view that, sans mortgages, society would fall into anarchy. Please explain.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:27 AM
"Who determines what is or is not "theirs to control"?"
It's the individual's money, ergo it is the individual's to decide how to spend it.
"Why are you trying to make it sound like I was responding to something else you said?"
I didn't. I said you were not responding to something else I asked specifically of you, and instead responded to something that was not addressed to you.
"Would you not agree that I must give up my freedom to drive on the left side of the road (for example) in order to keep order on the roadways?"
I've long stated that people gather together in groups and establish rules for good order within those groups. As the groups expand, they establish governments which, in turn, impose laws for good order. Laws, by their nature, restrict freedom in exchange for order (whether or not it is "good order" is always up to debate).
However, the authority of society to take freedoms in the name of order, through her government, is not absolute. A society based upon freedom, as is ours, imposes limitations upon the government in order to maintain essential freedom.
It is the nature of government to grow itself in size and importance. In order to do so, it assumes upon itself certain authorities which were not intended for it to have. Our Constitution was written specifically to limit the power of the our government to assume such authorities, but those limits have been breached, to the detriment of society, in my view.
You seem to advocate the view that whatever the mob can impose through government should be permitted. That is pure democracy, and our government is not supposed to be a pure democracy. The authority of the mob to take from me through force or coercion is theft, no matter whether it is legalized.
Now, I'll grant you tax incentives given for behavior are not force per se, but they do take from those who do not engage in them at an unfairly higher rate than from those who do, thus violating the fairness upon which our tax system is supposed to be founded. Your desire that I should mortgage my home should not be reflected in my tax bill.
_________
Your driving example is flawed. The roadways are not mine, but belong the collective, and the collective thus has the authority to set the rules. If I build a roadway upon my own property, I should have the freedom to establish such rules, including a rule granting the freedom to drive on the left side of it, as I see fit. What authority does the collective have to impose rules upon my private roadway?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:47 AM
You never had freedom to drive on the left side of the road and there is no tax deduction for driving on the right side.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:52 AM
"How so..."
Because you clearly meant the term to be demeaning, even if I do not find it so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:53 AM
Shapley, If your private road is to cross a puddle, you may need your government's permission to build it. :)
And what does what side of the road have to do with tax cuts and tax credits other than to muddy the waters of the discussion?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:02 PM
"I never said that."
Yes, you did:
"We, the government, do. We have decided what we think has a major benefit to our society (charitable donations and purchasing homes, for instance) and what does not."
"That's what living in a society is all about. Again, it's not what *I* want, or what *I* think is best, but what we as a society agree will benefit us most."
________
"fair: 1.reasonable or unbiased: not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial"
If your tax system imposes a bias towards those who behave one ways as opposed to another, you do not have a fair tax system.
___________
"However, it seems to me you think your private roadway extends much farther than it actually does."
How so? You think the collective should be able to penalize me if I do not mortgage my roadway?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:05 PM
"And what does what side of the road have to do with tax cuts and tax credits other than to muddy the waters of the discussion?"
Nothing. It is, as you say, an attempt at diversion. I have asked miccheck any number of questions, which he/she refuses to answer, but instead just heads off on a different tangent. He/she has no interest in honest debate, but merely seeks to stir the pot. Methinks I'll give him/her the last word, and call it a day.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:08 PM
"I've long stated that people gather together in groups and establish rules for good order within those groups. As the groups expand, they establish governments which, in turn, impose laws for good order. Laws, by their nature, restrict freedom in exchange for order (whether or not it is "good order" is always up to debate)." Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 11:47 AM
I have never seen you advocate anything like this, but hey, good for you. Now lets take that same objective thinking and apply it towards gun control!
-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:12 PM
"I have never seen you advocate anything like this, but hey, good for you. Now lets take that same objective thinking and apply it towards gun control!"
Gun Control is one of those freedoms the Constitution specifically prohibits the government from assuming the power to impose.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:15 PM
"I have never seen you advocate anything like this,..."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:18 PM
From that thread:
"The question is whether or not government infringes upon liberty. In my view, the very existence of government is an infringement upon liberty, but one which we accept as being necessary for good order. In the absence of government, you have the highest level of liberty but the lowest level of security. Peoples band together and establish governments, in which they trade some level of liberty for an attainable level of security.
"In the absence of government, there is no infringement upon my liberty to kill my neighbor if he offends me. My ability to do so is dependent upon the level of my strenght versus the level of his, but the liberty to do exists, which is to say there is no legal sanction against it. He, likewise, has the same liberty to do so against me. We establish governments to prevent that sort of atmosphere from existing.
"At some point, however, governments tend to infringe upon freedoms in ways that do not offer attainable security, or under pretenses of enhancing security with no real impact thereupon. That, I believe, is the point at which we now find ourselves."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:21 PM
Gun control is the ability to hit what you're aiming at.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:29 PM
All those rascals overseas drive on the left side of the road and drive from the passenger seat .
-- Posted by RickŪ on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 12:34 PM
Rick: Been there done that, try driving on the left side on a round-a-bout more fun than a 3 ring circus.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 3:04 PM
Got one of those little Japanese pickups. More than once I have started to hop in to drive and wondered what happened to the steering wheel. They should go over big with the younger set as it leaves your right hand free for texting since you shift with your left hand.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 8:51 PM
Wheels, You planning to be a mail carrier?
Semo, Which way do they enter a round about, left or right?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 20, 2014, at 9:08 PM
Menu
The republican national committee seeking political donations over the Benghazi tragedy, by asking conservatives to give about $500 to become a certifiable "Benghazi watchdog." And Speaker Boehner goes further in refusing to answer questions about the political nature of the 16th Benghazi "witch hunt," claiming to want to "just find the truth" while ignoring all the facts on hand.
Karl Rove comes unglued because his political action committees are being scrutinized in their attempts to avoid having to release the names of donors, by claiming tax exempt status. That's just what we need, more political bribe money from anonymous patrons. One would think they'd happy to have their names attached to such "worthy" albeit corrupt cause.
Replies (120)