[talaniman]

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

[smoothy]

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

We learned it from the Democrats when Bush was in office. But nobody is as good at playing the Victim as a Democrat is... they raise it to a science.

[talaniman]

You guy holler and complain of a sore throat and blame others for forcing something down it.

Learn to shut up sometimes and swallow! Suck it up and carry your own weight. Stop being a doorman for the greedy rich guys robbing u blind.

[speechlesstx]

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

You sure have a short memory. I bet when Dems vowed to do nothing but obstruct and investigate when when they won their Trojan Horse election you were cheering them on. Just giving the devil his due...

[smoothy]

THis is WHY it all started.

[smoothy]

[talaniman]

More information has surfaced for the IRS,

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row - Bloomberg

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected... In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

[talaniman]

To Tom as a matter of clarity.

Daily Kos: The IRS and the Continuing GOP Circus of Hypocrisy

In 2004 the IRS investigated the tax-exempt status of the NAACP in response to demands by Republican lawmakers who questioned whether the NAACP's activities had crossed into political campaigning, which is prohibited to tax-exempt organizations. The lawmakers included Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Virginia), Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas), Rep. Robert Ehrlich (R-Maryland) and Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Florida).
How hypocritical, then, for Collins to be among those “outraged” by this week's revelations of the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups for investigation of their tax-exempt status. Collins called for a more aggressive response from President Obama to personally condemn the IRS action.

[paraclete]

What it comes down to is politicians only want the laws of the land enforced when it doesn't disadvantage them. It was ever so

[tomder55]

To Tom as a matter of clarity.

Daily Kos: The IRS and the Continuing GOP Circus of Hypocrisy

So they acted on the request of some lawmakers . And the IRS found nothing improper . Do you want me to document all the times the Dem lawmakers in the late 1990s did the same thing to conservative organizations ?
Back then the DNC and the Clintonoids published this smear document called 'Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce'.
washingtonpost.com: White House Memo Asserts a Scandal Theory
Aka ;the vast right wing conspiracy report.
Well based on that doc. 20 + conservative organizations;including the Heritage Foundation ,Landmark Legal Foundation ,and the American Spectator magazine... and other high profile Clintoon accusers, such as Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.
But that was just the warm up . Landmark sued and discovered that over 100 groups were audited at the request of lawmakers and the White House. During discovery, the IRS managed to lose over 114 files requested under FOIA . Not only that , they managed to record over a tape recording that would've implicated them in a clear conspiracy case of targeting conservative .

But that isn't all!! I've already talked about how using the IRS in this manner led to one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. What you did not hear was how JFK ,and before him Roosevelt used the IRS as a political arm of their administrations. All it took was for Kennedy to utter the words "the discordant voices of extremism" to unleash the dogs. During the same presser Kenne'dy indicated that he expected the IRS to be vigilant in policing the tax-exempt status of questionable organizations. From that the IRS launched the' Ideological Organizations Audit Project'. It targeted right-leaning groups(of course ) .
Kennedy also used the IRS to pressure Steel companies into complying with "voluntary " price controls .

But the kudos goes to the hero of the left FDR. He used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers who were opposed to the New Deal, including William Randolph Hearst .
He attacked political opponents like Huey Long and Father Coughlin with the IRS . He went after former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon with the IRS weapon. He also squashed an investigation of a political ally when this ally accepted illegal campaign contribution from a government contractor . Sort of nipped it in the bud before it became known to his constituents . Who was this ally ? Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I'll say it again. The best remedy for this is a flat or fair tax that eliminates this government agency for all practical purposes. So long as it is around ,politicians will be tempted to use it as the capo (caporegime ) of the political regime. But instead the Obots granted them tremendous new powers as the main muscle behind Obamacare (aka Zero care ).

[speechlesstx]

There's apparently nothing too scandalous for Tal.

[talaniman]

Scandalous is hollering loud and saying nothing and solving no problems. Its even more scandalous to see a problem that's been festering and growing and not addressing it. Yet again repubs are voting to repeal ACA, and no job bill.

That's a major scandal.

PS, from here on in right wing hollering will be referred to as NOISE.

Thank you

[smoothy]

Tal is a real Koolaide drinker...

Protect the Messiah at all costs... I don't see his brainwashed whorshippers lining up to jump under the bus for him this time.

[talaniman]

You don't see anything beyond your NOISE and paranoia. Its an easy fix if you look at it, and willing to work toward a solution. SHHHHHHHHHHH! Be quiet for a minute. You can't learn anything while you are making such a racket.

[smoothy]

Open your eyes Tal... not even the drive by media is giving him a free pass and covering for him any more.

[speechlesstx]

Good news, the lady in charge of the office that targeted conservatives is now in charge of Zerocare at the IRS. As if having the IRS be the Zerocare enforcer wasn't scary enough. .

P.S. Even in the midst of all these abuses of power it's like this administration just can't help but flex their muscles - the "culture of intimidation" lives on...

[smoothy]

The Woman responsible for the IRS harassment and civil rights abuse of Conservatives got a $130,000 bonus and got promoted to be in charge of Obamacare...

And people on the left claim Obama doesn't have his hands in this. And that Obamacare won't determine who gets treated and who doesn't by what their political affiliation is.

[speechlesstx]

First off, Obamacare supporters are shocked, shocked I say that employers are looking at bare bones plans that only cover the mandates.

Planning of large chunks of the economy is harder than pro-government advocates usually anticipate. People often respond to new laws or behave in ways that central planners never forsee. In this vein, over at the Cato Institute, Michael Cannon points to yet another factor that ”could make the roll-out of ObamaCare’s health insurance ‘exchanges’ even more of a train wreck.”

While, in theory, Obamacare requires that employers with 50 or more workers must offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty, the law may only mandates the provision of what amounts to very light coverage. The Wall Street Journal explains:

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

The money quote from the article...

Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

“We wouldn’t have anticipated that there’d be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014,” said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. “Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance.” Part of the problem: lawmakers left vague the definition of employer-sponsored coverage, opening the door to unexpected interpretations, say people involved in drafting the law.

Words fail me.


Secondly on the Zerocare front, yet another union is not happy.

For decades, unions have negotiated high quality, affordable health insurance through nonprofit Taft-Hartley plans — one of the few reliable private providers for lower income individuals. …

But as currently interpreted, the ACA would block these plans from the law’s benefits (such as the subsidy for lower-income individuals and families) while subjecting them to the law’s penalties (like the $63 per insured person to subsidize Big Insurance). This creates unstoppable incentives for employers to reduce weekly hours for workers currently on our plans and push them onto the exchanges where many will pay higher costs for poorer insurance with a more limited network of providers. In other words, they will be forced to change their coverage and possibly their doctor. Others will be channeled into Medicaid, where taxpayers must pick up the tab. …

But we had to pass the bill to know what was in it you dummies.

[paraclete]

First off, Obamacare supporters are shocked, shocked I say that employers are looking at bare bones plans that only cover the mandates.



The money quote from the article...



Words fail me.


Secondly on the Zerocare front, yet another union is not happy.



But we had to pass the bill to know what was in it you dummies.

Let me just remind you how nice it is to live in a free country

[talaniman]

What's the surprise Speech? Companies have been pushing to eliminate employee based insurance for decades, along with pensions. Do you think they have either at the sweat shops they open overseas after closing factory's here?

Most of these food workers and retail industry workless than 35 hours a week and have done so like I say for decades. But just be clear, most unions are affiliated with other unions, and have considerable leverage in the health insurance market, and as your link points out, congress can act... oops forget that part... but they can add a few tweaks, like Medicare for everyone.

You may not like the ACA, but the options for consumers is undeniable and better than the way it was already.