Good one, Clay. Clearly, there is no mystery here. . . the goal was stated some time ago.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” [Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Nov. 4, 2010]
Conservative asks: "Please explain how your comment has anything to do with my comment."
You appeared to be suggesting that private enterprise offers something it doesn’t. I simply provided you with a recent reminder to illustrate that it doesn’t. Clearly, greed is an inherent problem within private enterprise and there is lots of evidence that demonstrates power only compounds this. In other words, your theory that the country would not be in debt if private enterprise had been running the show so to speak is simply wishful thinking on your part.
Conservative says: “Private enterprise would not funnel money to these same special interest groups and thus this country would not be in debt trillions of dollars. Who does this writer think he/she is fooling?”
And who do you think you’re fooling, Conservative? The recent financial crisis has taught the whole world the kind of crisis that occurs when private enterprise is given too much power and is trusted with other people’s money – with you being the exception, of course.
TFP commentary says: "Sell Congress, not TVA"
Yes, what’s occurring is unsettling and a blatant conflict of interest. Great commentary, TFP.
Needless to say, the politicians who are out there screaming foul about the IRS doing their job and investigating these questionable 501 (c) 4 “social welfare” applications are the same people directly benefitting from the billions and billions of dollars these corporate donors are funneling into these phony 501(c) 4 political campaign accounts.
Clearly, the foxes are guarding their lucrative henhouses at our expense.
Maximus says: “Volunteers, The Red Cross, and various volunteer and church organizations will move faster, help more people and have more impact than Barry's Make Everyone My Pawn Welfare World could ever hope to do.”
You poor guy. . . You just can’t admit there is a need for a government agency like FEMA. Can you, Maximus? . . .While churches, volunteers and organizations like the American Red Cross are real troopers when it comes helping people after a crisis there is a long list of things they simply cannot do. . . They cannot possibly rebuild all those homes, repair damaged infrastructures, provide loans for uninsured homes, pay for moving/property storage expenses related to the disaster, pay for disaster related medical/dental expenses of victims, and/or pay for disaster related funeral and burial expenses. . . so get over it.
Miraweb notes: “It is rather refreshing to see a little actual governing in place of the usual diet of camera-chasing and political shenanigans.”
I wonder if those Oklahoma politicians will take time to thank the National Weather Service, which the Republicans have continuously targeted for budget cuts:
"The tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma on Tuesday left incredible devastation and loss in its wake. But the damage may have been even worse if it weren’t for a warning from the National Weather Service (NWS) 16 minutes before it touched down, allowing some to seek out safety. As George Zornick reported at The Nation, the tornado emergency it sent out “no doubt saved hundreds of lives in Moore.”
But the NWS has been struggling with budget cuts in recent years and is facing down even more cuts thanks to sequestration. . .
Since taking control of the House in 2011, Republicans have targeted NOAA for severe cuts—they came out of the gate proposing a massive 28 percent cut in their first budget that year, which was moderated by the end of the process.
But the assaults on the NOAA budget continued, and the agency couldn’t escape the sequester, which will lop 8.2 percent from the NOAA budget. This lead the acting administrator to institute an across-the-board hiring freeze in March, and four days of mandatory furloughs are on the horizon. (There is already a 10 percent vacancy rate at the agency.)"
Another good one, Clay Bennett. . . And as these monster storms, tornados, and hurricanes keep hitting America’s cities over and over again, I predict we’ll be hearing this new disaster tune introduced by Republican Senators Coburn and Inhofe over and over again - “But MY disaster victims are more deserving than YOUR disaster victims.”
Jt6gR3hM says: “You can’t give big money directly to candidates. Individuals can give $2600 and PAC’s $5000. . . With so much of our personal information readily available on the internet we are all subject to being threatened with it to alter our political activity. The moment that the names of donors are leaked or released opposition research begins.”
Thanks but no thanks, Jt6gR3hm. I’m not buying your argument. I also want to know specifically who is paying for all of these outrageous and irresponsible TV advertisements and literature that we typically see during our elections.
In 2006 approximately 1% of political spending - other than spending by political parties and campaign committees - did not disclose donors. This changed dramatically after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. By 2010, the percentage of political spending through undisclosed donors had increased to 44%, which I find unsettling.
I believe citizens only lose when you a situation like we saw in 2012 where two of the biggest 501(c)(4) groups (Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity) had put more money into the presidential campaign than all the super PACs combined.
Jt6gR3hm says: "To keep ourselves safe from the reprisals of our political opponents would it be wise that as with voting we could keep our personal names and any contributions both monetary and nonmonetary private? Couldn’t we just be identified by a group title?"
As a citizen, I believe we need to know who is contributing money to our elections. If a group of gangsters are contributing big money to a particular candidate, I certainly want to know about it, and I’m very concerned that these various political organizations are exploiting this 501 (c) 4 "social welfare" status crap so they do not have to disclose their donors.
Leaf says: “It's a huge travesty of justice that these terrible political money laundering organizations can exist and disguise themselves as non-profits. If our politicians were honest, they would outlaw these organizations altogether. It seems to me that this might be a case of mid-level people in the IRS trying to do the right thing despite all the money people pushing them to be dishonest.”
Yes, I believe the real culprit in this situation is the tax law written by the U.S. Congress, which is giving these political groups tax exempt status under 501 (c) 4. Indeed, I’d like to see the U.S. Congress explain to us specifically how groups like Roves Crossroads or Priorities USA or these Tea Party groups like the Chattanooga Tea Party are promoting “social welfare” issues?