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?
PlainTruth asks: "So Laurel. You're approving of the IRS's dealings with conservative movements?" Really?
What do you mean, PT. Are suggesting that we need to establish some kind official affirmation action law when it comes to investigating potential criminal activity? I could go for this.
Good one, Clay Bennett. You know political corruption has really gone amuck when your politicians actually believe their own lies, feel they’re entitled to illegal campaign slush funds, and demand that crooks be unhampered by the law of the land.
The 501(c)(4)s section of the Internal Revenue Code entitles “social welfare” organizations an exemption from Federal taxation. The organizations receiving the exemption are prohibited from supporting campaigns of political candidates.
It’s the responsibility of the IRS to award 501c (4) designations to “social welfare” organizations. It’s also the responsibility of the IRS to confirm that the organizations applying for the “social welfare” exemption are what they claim to be, and to make sure the organizations receiving a 501(c)(4) “exemptions comply with the law.
Conservative says. “This bit of news may put you in a rubber room, considering your views against guns. . . Hold on tight, Israeli men and women carry these type of weapons around in public! Think about that. Beter yet, look at the pictures. . . Even Israeli women wearing bikinis!”
You poor guy. (sigh) . . .Exactly how does this relate to the fact that our military leadership is not effectively dealing with rapists within the military? . . . And exactly what kind of Christian goes to web sites to look at photos of Israeli women wearing bikinis? Have you given any thought as to what God is going say? Will gawkers be able to enter heaven?
Conservative says and asks: “You are entrenched in Liberal la la land. Where are these women in combat you speak of?”
I believe the “pioneers” so speak can be found in Denmark, Israel, and Norway:
Denmark: Since 1988, Denmark has had a policy of "total inclusion," which came on the heels of 1985 "combat trials" exploring the capabilities of women to fight on the front lines. "Danish research showed that women performed just as well as men in land combat roles," according to the British MOD study. Although all posts are open to women, physical requirements have so far prevented them from joining the country's Special Operations Forces.
Israel: In 1985 the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began putting women into combat positions and by 2009 women were serving in artillery units, rescue forces, and in anti-aircraft forces. While women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.
A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit "superior skills" in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from "a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity."
Norway: In 1985, Norway became the first country in NATO to allow women to serve in all combat capacities, including submarines. Norwegian women are also subject to the draft in the event of a national mobilization. "The few women that are attracted by the infantry and cavalry do a great job in the Norwegian Army," says Col. Ingrid Gjerde, an infantry officer in the Norwegian military for 25 years. "I have to be clear: You have to meet the physical standards, because the job is still the same. It works very well as long as women hold the standards," added Colonel Gjerde, who was the commander of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan in 2012. "It's not a big deal because women who go into these fields know the standards, and it's not that hard for women to train up to the standards if they really want."