American Politics during the Obama Presidency

How to Buy America.

All you need is money.

The Koch Brothers provide the Money. Pronounced COKE. Just like [URL]http://boehner.house.gov/.[/URL].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMvO7dx4GeU

[URL]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/10/koch-brothers-targeted-in-new-senate-ad/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140218/koch-brothers-backed-group-pulls-political-ads-after-alaska-refinery-shutdown[/URL]

[URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/10/sen-begich-launches-ad-against-koch-brothers/[/URL]

[B][size=+1]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/size][/B]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and if so many people hadn't been hurt by ObamaCare.

[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/031214-693001-latest-obama-mandate-exemption-change-guarantees-obamacare-failure.htm[/URL]

Go ahead Esten and ilk spin away.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438549][B]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/B]
[/QUOTE]Oh my goodness, that's terrible.

This is a brilliantly done fair and balance assessment by Neil Cavuto. An admitted conservative but at times he has been known to call out his own party. His message here is spot on for anyone who cares about fairness in any form.

[URL]http://video.foxnews.com/v/3340745208001/cavuto-conservatives-need-to-be-consistent-on-spending/?intcmp=HPBucket[/URL]

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/index.html[/URL]

Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits.

Surely you knew this was coming.

[QUOTE=Esten;438611]Yes, Cavuto himself describes his opinion as "fair and balanced". You hear this all the time from Fox News employees, or similar variants such as "Here are the facts" and "This is the truth". Why do they feel the need to so frequently tell their viewers how unbiased their reporting is?

Cavuto's comments are welcome, but they are balanced only within a discussion focused on spending cuts. His comments are not balanced within a broader discussion of fiscal responsibility, because there is no mention of revenues. Our federal deficits are now driven by both increased spending and decreased revenues. We know Democrats favor a mix of revenue increases and certain spending cuts, and Obama has signalled his willingness to push Democrats to make additional cuts they may not be comfortable with. And we know Republicans only support spending cuts (as inconsistent as they may be when it comes to the details, as Cavuto notes). So ultimately, Cavuto's "fair and balanced" commentary only perpetuates the right-wing ideological position, a one-sided, inflexible position that is a primary reason for our failure to significantly address our deficits.[/QUOTE][i]"Oh my goodness, that's terrible."[/i]

[QUOTE=Esten;438527] You want to support a group but remain anonymous. Just pick a group that's already 501 (c)(4) approved. Or wait until a new group you want to support gets approval. Where is the widespread abuse of donor confidentiality with approved 501 (c)(4) s?[/QUOTE]Esten, I thought I was clear on that point but maybe not. At this point, since tea party groups brought IRS abuses to light, the application process is not an issue. The issue is new regulations proposed by the Department of the Treasury/IRS in November that would apply to all groups, not just ones that are seeking approval to start up.

[QUOTE=Esten;438527]The underlying motive for the rigor behind 501 (c)(4) approvals is to ensure that big-monied interests (whether they be individuals, organizations or corporations) cannot anonymously funnel huge sums to influence elections. I believe you will find this is a concern for many Americans of all political stripes.[/QUOTE]No, the reason is that Democrats are cohesive on a range of issues. They brainwash themselves to believe as their party does, or they benefit from their party's largess. As such, they donate more to their party and their politicians than do others. Democrats have a big lead in amounts donated to individual campaigns, their national party, and congressional campaign committees.

Many Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and Greens believe differently from others in their party on particular issues. The issue is what's important to them, not the party. To some taxes and spending are important. To others the environment. To others particular social issues. The particular concern of the Democrat Party are Tea Party types, because reducing the size of federal government, promoting an efficient, pro-growth tax system, and promoting greater opportunity through an education system for the benefit of the students instead of the teachers unions runs counter to the interests of their party. If a Tea Party group tries to promote its agenda through the political process, it's bad for Democrats.

About anonymity -- I was eating lunch today with a like minded Libertarian who was upset that his wife put her name on a petition at a tea party event in Arizona. Why? Because he's afraid of being persecuted. This is not unwarranted. In my lifetime, there's never been an instance where the executive branch of government went after its opponents like now. Yes, Richard Nixon tried to do something similar, but the IRS wouldn't go along. Obama's opponents have gotten persecuted. Ask Frank Van Der Sloot and others that federal agencies went after because they donated to the Romney campaign. Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. Or the 5 donors to a conservative political organization that were audited by the IRS for not reporting their contributions in excess of $14,000 as gifts on their federal tax returns. By the way, there is no chance in hell the IRS would have done that to a Democrat affiliated organization. I believe the organization was a 501(c)(4) and the IRS got the anonymous donors' names through an audit of the group. This is why people want to be anonymous.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438549][B]Obama Just Guaranteed ObamaCare's Failure[/B]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and if so many people hadn't been hurt by ObamaCare.

[URL]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/031214-693001-latest-obama-mandate-exemption-change-guarantees-obamacare-failure.htm[/URL]

[/QUOTE]It's worse than that Punter. Now the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 30 million Americans will still be uninsured in 2022. Why did we do this, instead of something that would have cut costs, improved the system, and made it where millions of people wouldn't still be relying on emergency room visits for basic health care?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438629]Or Catherine Engelbrecht. She and her business had no IRS audits or OSHA, FBI or ATF visits until she founded an organization that monitors voter fraud. Then all hell broke lose. [/QUOTE]Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".

Her group has a track record of targetting and intimidating Democrat voters, all in the name of preventing "voter fraud", which has been all but dismissed as mythical. They send letters to minority voters stating [b]"Your right to vote has been challenged by a qualified electorate"[/b]. With 501(c)(4) status, big-monied interests (like the Koch brothers, who she knows) could anonymously funnel millions to groups like hers to expand their voter intimidation efforts across the country. And she applies to the IRS for tax-exempt status when her group is CLEARLY all about influencing elections?

The new regs are a step in the right direction to deal with the abuse and politicization of 501(c)(4)s.

[QUOTE=Esten;438632]Please Tiny, ask yourself why this woman and her group received such scrutiny, far atypical from that of other right wing groups. Her activities are WAY beyond just "free speech".[/QUOTE]Esten, IF what you say is true, so what? The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. IF what you say is true, complete, and representative, and I have my doubts about that, then yes, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission should put the organization out of existence. You start involving the IRS in politics and you're going down a dangerous path. And this is a prime example, when they start auditing issues totally unrelated to her group, in order to harass her.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438635]The IRS, ATF, OSHA and FBI came down on her personally, and her family and her business, because people in the executive branch of government didn't like her. [/QUOTE]If the multiple agency audits / questions were indeed coordinated harassment, those responsible should be held accountable and punished.

But forgive me, such coordination seems very far-fetched. And the argument that some people "didn't like her" isn't evidence. This is just more of the same flimsy victimization mindset that you applied to the phony IRS scandal. Out of hundreds if not thousands of Tea Party groups, why was it only her group that got so much attention? Did you even bother to look into the specifics of why these agencies were involved?

Esten, While I'm not very knowledgeable about Obamacare, except to know it doesn't fix anything, or gun control, I do know enough about income taxes and tax exempt organizations to argue with you. And some of the positions you take aren't reasonable. Bush was responsible for the tax increases on January 1,2013. The maximum marginal tax on individuals' income is 39.6%. And now the hold up of approvals of tea party organizations by the IRS was a phony scandal. You're intelligent and a HIV, so all I can figure out is you're twisting facts in your mind to come up with explanations that fit your world view. From reading your posts, there isn't a single position of the Democrat Party platform you disagree with. You must believe everything you see on MSNBC. Come on, think for yourself. Watch Stossel once in a while.

BTW, with respect to your references to the massive amounts of money being sloshed through the political system by Tea Party 501 (c)(4)'s and the Koch brothers, please realize they're a drop in the bucket compared to the $4.4 billion unions spent from 2005 to 2011. The Democrat Party and its candidates have raised a lot more money recently than Republicans, let alone Libertarians and other third parties: [URL]https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2014[/URL]

Esten, while you complain about the Tea Party 501's can you say George Soros or MoveOn. Org? What the Tea Party has plowed into ads is not a drop in the bucket compared to just these two much less all the other liberal organizations or the labor movement as pointed out by Tiny.

If the IRS scandal is phony, why is Lerner taking the Fifth against SELF INCRIMINATION if no misdeeds were committed?

Typical Liberal/Progressive double standard again.

Doppel, Democrats aren't seeking any different or preferential treatment when it comes to disclosure requirements for political donations.

And Lois Lerner, like others in the Obama administration, clearly understands that Darrell Issa is a joke. He has made a mockery of the House Oversight Committee, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that he is a partisan hack who operates based on political strategy. The man is now desperate, having failed to find even a smidgen of political motivation after interviewing numerous witnesses and reviewing thousands of emails and other documents. Why would Lerner play into his Monkey Court? Issa is not looking for the truth, he is looking for any way to selectively report or twist the facts, to enable the right wing media to keep rallying their followers about how they are all "victims".

Correction:

We are spending Billions of dollars to support what started under Bush.

I had to say Bush, because some of you would have said it started under Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/vice-shane-smith-scariest-story-power-cnn-article-1.1719527

The Contractors are destroying good products to sell to the Afghans, which is then resold to the Taliban. Then the contractors order more new products.

Our government is the problem! No one in the government is checking what is going on.

Not just the Democrats, but the also the Republicans!