Kudos to Obama for Cleaning up Washington

[Ibanez]

Yeah, lets fire a guy that was stepping down in less than a month. Holder needs to fired, the IRS needs a serious makeover. I was listening to the POTUS channel on SiriusXM and there was an old British guy named Llewellyn King who made many great points one of which was that Obama never translates his speeches into action i.e. transparency, closing GITMO, ending partisan gridlock.

So, you would have preferred he serve out his term? Obviously, more needs to be done and more people will need to go. I guess I don't understand your point...should he have stayed?

No, he shouldn't have stayed but firing him isn't the solution. Some one here are pointing to the fact that Obama is cleaning up and it's beginning with the firing of a guy that was leaving in less than a month. That my be symbolic for the base, but it doesn't solve the problem.

[houndawg]

Nah, that's just throwing Ibanez something to snivel about. Holder is a mess all on his own. And you never know, this thing gets legs and he might be the next sandbag out of the balloon.

And I'm a registered Independent since '72. Voted for Obama in '04 and Willie in '08 and long ago expressed my opinion here about lack of change, particularly in the area of civil liberties. A lot of what you're taking as trying to deflect back to Bush is meant more to point out that when you do stupid **** like the DHS and the so-called Patriot Act that it can have consequences long after you are gone. Obama can now argue that he is just using the tools that were already in place when he got to the job, as will every future President in the continuing War on Civil Liberties of the bottom 95%. The Executive Branch is like a boa constrictor, every time you finish a breath they tighten up just a little and pretty soon.....

Blaming Bush is ridiculous. Obama is the executive in chief. Even with policies from another Administration, he has the power to enact change. If he doesn't then he is liable for the damage/problems that he creates because he chose to follow the policy. One of his biggest issues is that he isn't a manager. He has mismanaged every major political event since he came in. Wall Street is up, the economy is slowly improving. He should be enjoying this time but no, he's failed leadership and mismanagement (or lack thereof) is taking the public's attention away from that because of the scandals that have hit on his watch. Rahm Emmanuel has said countless times that he will sit in meetings, nod his head but never really listen. That's a problem.

He has to act vice react to achieve any goals. All he does is react. I voted for him in 2008 but not in 2012. I couldn't. He wasn't the person we thought he'd be.

Precisely why Willie got my vote last time.

[houndawg]

He has to act vice react to achieve any goals. All he does is react. I voted for him in 2008 but not in 2012. I couldn't. He wasn't the person we thought he'd be.

He set an impossibly high bar for himself in '07-'08. He was too inexperienced at the time to understand what it would take to enact the kind of sweeping change he was preaching. Instead, things are about where they were when he started, with the business cycle slowly churning upward as it would have done under any president.

True, but I can see why he did it - he was on a hell of a roll. His rise through the system to the White House was meteoric and things went his way every time. A tough opponent for his US Senate seat has an untimely wife-pimping scandal, he goes against the advice of the entire planet when he decides to run against Hillary Clinton in the primary, and wins. Thank the gods that he isn't a Republican, which is what he would have been when I was growing up, before the wack jobs seized the party.

[Bronco]

-
Clean up Washington...yes
Get rid of this Chicago gang of crooks and liars

NYT:Obama Administration Knew of IRS Scandal 5 Months Before Election
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=2&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


In no uncertain terms and with no hedging, the Obama Administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department's Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

We still don’t know for sure what the President knew or when he knew it, but this does confirm that the Administration was aware of the fact that Obama's political enemies were under fire by the IRS and covered that fact up during an election year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=2&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

StickyBunz isn't that lucky.

My dad, god love him, is a close minded Republican like yourself.

Even though I said I loathe the ignorant, I'm willing to teach you the difference between your dad and a free-market libertarian. Send me a PM if you want to learn something.

[D1B]

My dad, god love him, is a close minded Republican like yourself.

Even though I said I loathe the ignorant, I'm willing to teach you the difference between your dad and a free-market libertarian. Send me a PM if you want to learn something.

Baldy is a sharp motherfucker and unfortunately is right about most things.

[BDKJMU]

The guy was a temp whose term was set to expire in a few weeks in June. That wasn't a firing.

This firestorm will not end until there are NUMEROUS firings AND prosecutions.

You can say that again.

But you are wrong. Firings and prosecutions won't do anything. God, am I the only one that sees that? YOU HAVE TO REFORM THE IRS AND THE TAX POLICY.

I didn't say no reform. We need firings AND prosecutions, AND I AGREE MAJOR reform. But Congress refuses to do it. The only way I see it happening is if a significant chunk of the population, at least a significant the chunk of the 53% that pays income taxes, say's f*ck it and refuses to comply with the tax laws, file, pay their taxes, etc. If 30-40 million people did this (and maybe not even that many) it would cripple the IRS. They couldn't go after even a fraction of the people. Our who convaluted tax system would collapse. Whatever it was replaced with, flat tax, national sales tax, ANYTHING would be better than the horrendous system we have now with 70,000?+ page tax code and hundred of billions of dollars a year in compliance costs + tens of billions a year spent trying to enforce it.

[BDKJMU]

Nah, that's just throwing Ibanez something to snivel about. Holder is a mess all on his own. And you never know, this thing gets legs and he might be the next sandbag out of the balloon.

And I'm a registered Independent since '72. Voted for Obama in '04 and Willie in '08 and long ago expressed my opinion here about lack of change, particularly in the area of civil liberties. A lot of what you're taking as trying to deflect back to Bush is meant more to point out that when you do stupid **** like the DHS and the so-called Patriot Act that it can have consequences long after you are gone. Obama can now argue that he is just using the tools that were already in place when he got to the job, as will every future President in the continuing War on Civil Liberties of the bottom 95%. The Executive Branch is like a boa constrictor, every time you finish a breath they tighten up just a little and pretty soon.....

Blaming Bush is ridiculous. Obama is the executive in chief. Even with policies from another Administration, he has the power to enact change. If he doesn't then he is liable for the damage/problems that he creates because he chose to follow the policy. One of his biggest issues is that he isn't a manager. He has mismanaged every major political event since he came in. Wall Street is up, the economy is slowly improving. He should be enjoying this time but no, he's failed leadership and mismanagement (or lack thereof) is taking the public's attention away from that because of the scandals that have hit on his watch. Rahm Emmanuel has said countless times that he will sit in meetings, nod his head but never really listen. That's a problem.

He has to act vice react to achieve any goals. All he does is react. I voted for him in 2008 but not in 2012. I couldn't. He wasn't the person we thought he'd be.

What's this "we" sh*t Kemo Sabe? You actually believed all that hope and change BS?

[ASUMountaineer]

So, you would have preferred he serve out his term? Obviously, more needs to be done and more people will need to go. I guess I don't understand your point...should he have stayed?

No, he shouldn't have stayed but firing him isn't the solution. Some one here are pointing to the fact that Obama is cleaning up and it's beginning with the firing of a guy that was leaving in less than a month. That my be symbolic for the base, but it doesn't solve the problem.

I agree, and I never indicated it was the only action necessary to solve/account for the problem.

[death dealer]

if nothing else, always good for a chuckle. Thanks Doobie.

[Ibanez]

My dad, god love him, is a close minded Republican like yourself.

Even though I said I loathe the ignorant, I'm willing to teach you the difference between your dad and a free-market libertarian. Send me a PM if you want to learn something.

I'm aware of the difference. I don't need some condescending person to instruct me.

[Ibanez]

No, he shouldn't have stayed but firing him isn't the solution. Some one here are pointing to the fact that Obama is cleaning up and it's beginning with the firing of a guy that was leaving in less than a month. That my be symbolic for the base, but it doesn't solve the problem.

I agree, and I never indicated it was the only action necessary to solve/account for the problem.

All of us in the real world, know that it takes more than personnel actions to fix the problem.

[Ibanez]

You can say that again.

But you are wrong. Firings and prosecutions won't do anything. God, am I the only one that sees that? YOU HAVE TO REFORM THE IRS AND THE TAX POLICY.

I didn't say no reform. We need firings AND prosecutions, AND I AGREE MAJOR reform. But Congress refuses to do it. The only way I see it happening is if a significant chunk of the population, at least a significant the chunk of the 53% that pays income taxes, say's f*ck it and refuses to comply with the tax laws, file, pay their taxes, etc. If 30-40 million people did this (and maybe not even that many) it would cripple the IRS. They couldn't go after even a fraction of the people. Our who convaluted tax system would collapse. Whatever it was replaced with, flat tax, national sales tax, ANYTHING would be better than the horrendous system we have now with 70,000?+ page tax code and hundred of billions of dollars a year in compliance costs + tens of billions a year spent trying to enforce it.

You didn't say reform either. Now you're back peddling.

[Ibanez]

Even though I said I loathe the ignorant, I'm willing to teach you the difference between your dad and a free-market libertarian. Send me a PM if you want to learn something.

Baldy is a sharp motherfucker and unfortunately is right about most things.

No doubt he is sharp.

[houndawg]

You can say that again.

But you are wrong. Firings and prosecutions won't do anything. God, am I the only one that sees that? YOU HAVE TO REFORM THE IRS AND THE TAX POLICY.

I didn't say no reform. We need firings AND prosecutions, AND I AGREE MAJOR reform. But Congress refuses to do it. The only way I see it happening is if a significant chunk of the population, at least a significant the chunk of the 53% that pays income taxes, say's f*ck it and refuses to comply with the tax laws, file, pay their taxes, etc. If 30-40 million people did this (and maybe not even that many) it would cripple the IRS. They couldn't go after even a fraction of the people. Our who convaluted tax system would collapse. Whatever it was replaced with, flat tax, national sales tax, ANYTHING would be better than the horrendous system we have now with 70,000?+ page tax code and hundred of billions of dollars a year in compliance costs + tens of billions a year spent trying to enforce it.

Do you think GE should operate without paying taxes?

[Baldy]

Even though I said I loathe the ignorant, I'm willing to teach you the difference between your dad and a free-market libertarian. Send me a PM if you want to learn something.

I'm aware of the difference. I don't need some condescending person to instruct me.

One good condescension deserves another. Don't you think?

[Ibanez]

I'm aware of the difference. I don't need some condescending person to instruct me.

One good condescension deserves another. Don't you think?

No.

Spoiler: show

In all seriousness, I agree with you most of the time. For a 63 yr old guy from the South, my dad is who he is. He's way right on some issues (gay marriage) but way left on others (abortion). Not bad for a Catholic.

[BDKJMU]

I didn't say no reform. We need firings AND prosecutions, AND I AGREE MAJOR reform. But Congress refuses to do it. The only way I see it happening is if a significant chunk of the population, at least a significant the chunk of the 53% that pays income taxes, say's f*ck it and refuses to comply with the tax laws, file, pay their taxes, etc. If 30-40 million people did this (and maybe not even that many) it would cripple the IRS. They couldn't go after even a fraction of the people. Our who convaluted tax system would collapse. Whatever it was replaced with, flat tax, national sales tax, ANYTHING would be better than the horrendous system we have now with 70,000?+ page tax code and hundred of billions of dollars a year in compliance costs + tens of billions a year spent trying to enforce it.

Do you think GE should operate without paying taxes?

GE doesn't operate without paying taxes.

Here's factcheck.org (that leans left) for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren ... -no-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Do you think GE should operate without paying taxes?

GE doesn't operate without paying taxes.

Here's factcheck.org (that leans left) for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren ... -no-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

[Baldy]

One good condescension deserves another. Don't you think?

No.

Spoiler: show

In all seriousness, I agree with you most of the time. For a 63 yr old guy from the South, my dad is who he is. He's way right on some issues (gay marriage) but way left on others (abortion). Not bad for a Catholic.

Understood.

[BDKJMU]

GE doesn't operate without paying taxes.

Here's factcheck.org (that leans left) for you:
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren ... -no-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

WTF is "fair share?"

[Ibanez]

Thank you, I will amend the question: Do you think GE should be able to operate without paying their fair share of taxes?

WTF is "fair share?"

If you don't understand fair share, then you need to get off the interwebs and into some remedial courses. Fair share is NOT overtaxing one group while giving breaks to others. Fair Share is NOT one group paying little to nothing in taxes then being "refunded" more than they could have ever possibly put in. Fair Share will not be a perfect measurement due to various income levels however we can make sure that companies are paying a tax and not using loopholes. We can make sure that subsidies end for oil companies and agricultural areas (like celebrities getting tax breaks for farms).

[kalm]

WTF is "fair share?"

If you don't understand fair share, then you need to get off the interwebs and into some remedial courses. Fair share is NOT overtaxing one group while giving breaks to others. Fair Share is NOT one group paying little to nothing in taxes then being "refunded" more than they could have ever possibly put in. Fair Share will not be a perfect measurement due to various income levels however we can make sure that companies are paying a tax and not using loopholes. We can make sure that subsidies end for oil companies and agricultural areas (like celebrities getting tax breaks for farms).

Pfffft. Whatever commie.

[houndawg]

we could repeal the mining act of 1872.

[BDKJMU]

WTF is "fair share?"

If you don't understand fair share, then you need to get off the interwebs and into some remedial courses. Fair share is NOT overtaxing one group while giving breaks to others. Fair Share is NOT one group paying little to nothing in taxes then being "refunded" more than they could have ever possibly put in. Fair Share will not be a perfect measurement due to various income levels however we can make sure that companies are paying a tax and not using loopholes. We can make sure that subsidies end for oil companies and agricultural areas (like celebrities getting tax breaks for farms).

And what company(s) would that be that has negative income tax liability? We have the (debunked) claim of GE paying zero, but even those who claimed they payed zero never claimed they paid zero and got $$ back on top of that.

There are companies have had low effective income taxes, but what companies have paid less than zero income taxes (MORE income taxes back than they paid in)?

The only people being "refunded" more than they paid in are those in the (about) 47% who have zero income tax liability who get the EITC, which is a form of welfare.