Nixon was only liberal when it meant political advantage. He didn't give much of a feck about domestic issues anyway. He was all about foreign policy.
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Maher sums it up about the Bengazi crap. Four in ten polled Republicans believe Bengazi is the worst scandal in American history. What the living feck.
Benghazi and IRS is only a scandal in Faux.
who the feck cares.
sorry repubs.
you are losing the next election too.
who the feck cares.
sorry repubs.
you are losing the next election too.
6 in 10 repubs don't even know where Benghazi is. They think he's in The Black Eyed Peas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578495250424727708.html
Who needs tax havens when you don't actually have to pay anything.
Who needs tax havens when you don't actually have to pay anything.
The old DC two step, never actually try to just get to bottom of an issue always turn it into some political scandal to bring someone down and if your side is on the receiving end make sure you downplay it and attack the other side.
Listening to a talk radio show today, it seems both supporters of both parties only care about pointing fingers. "Worst scandal ever" "Not as bad as this scandal or that scandal" "Well your guy did this" "Well your guy did that" "You're dumb" "No your're dumb" blah blah blah blah blah. Very little actually said about the issues they are supposedly debating.
Listening to a talk radio show today, it seems both supporters of both parties only care about pointing fingers. "Worst scandal ever" "Not as bad as this scandal or that scandal" "Well your guy did this" "Well your guy did that" "You're dumb" "No your're dumb" blah blah blah blah blah. Very little actually said about the issues they are supposedly debating.
The problem now seems to be the AP and Fox reporters having emails and phone call records, they were looking for any leak from the government and spying the reporters they actually made a threat to press freedom and trying to silence sources, including whistleblowers.
Statements like these are one of the reasons this country is going to hell in a handbasket. The IRS targeting specific groups should bother everyone, irrespective of ideology. It's a branch of the government you have very little recourse against. Try pleading the 5th when they're investigating you....
And yes, they will lose the next election. Unfortunate that when Dems are in charge they don't care about these things and the same is true for Repubs.
This
Benghazi isn't a scandal. IRS is.
I'd probably agree with this. I'd like to more a little more about Benghazi though.
The IRS targeting a group that names itself after an event that protested the paying of tax...a group that supports the non-payment of tax.
Why wouldn't the IRS target them?
Why wouldn't the IRS target them?
Not 100% sure but I don't think it is is in the tax rules,laws, IRS guidelines, etc that they are allowed to target someone solely because of their political beliefs. Of course this is probably not the first time it has happened in the history of the IRS and probably won't be the last.
were you this upset when Bush made up lies to take this country to an unnecessary war or when he and his Vice outed an American covert operative?
The country will stop going to a hand basket when the repubs lose the house.
Obama fired the guy...what more do you want? The ex-head of the IRS will get his.
Bigger scandal is all these Tea Party PACs or Rove groups and some liberal ones as well getting away with tax exempt status as they're supposedly social organizations as opposed to political ones. What a crock! And why wouldn't you target any kind of tea party group when they as their names suggest, anti tax. It's like not targeting a crack house for drugs because there are loads of other houses around and it wouldn't be fair to single out the crack house. Shouldn't they in this day and age of outrageous tax avoidance and dwindling governmental revenue be targeting exactly the kinds of groups that would be most likely to abuse the tax system. This makes sense.
I bet all the tea baggers and republikans are up in arms about all the dark people being targeted in NYC's stop and search . . . not.
Love how the IRS lady taking the fifth was a Bush appointee.
I bet all the tea baggers and republikans are up in arms about all the dark people being targeted in NYC's stop and search . . . not.
Love how the IRS lady taking the fifth was a Bush appointee.
Makes me laugh when people don't see a problem spying on reporters and even the family of some reporters to find out leaks from government workers and they always bring Bush and his wars, which with Obama in power for 5 years we still at war and we even had time to be involved in a civil war and we may go look for trouble in Syria. Now the embassy scandal which is not a scandal but people been incompetent - Hilary - before the attack CIA warned that embassy would be raided by terrorists and her department did nothing, during the attack they could send special forces which they were close enough to be there by air in few minutes and they stay ready for the "okay" word from Washington which never came. That's Clinton fault and she had to go like she did, actually she lost any possibility to run for president after this episode. The IRS issue, looks now with the officer refusing to resign that she was receiving orders from the top and until they give her a nice "escape" - another job on private side, she will not resign. Now I'm not saying Obama knew about any of this after all is the people he appointed who run the show.
yes...yes..
we know you watch Fox.
yes...yes..
we know you watch Fox.
Actually I don't watch news, I do read newspapers.
this 'scandal' is nothing of the sort. It is a media manufactured nonsense. low level employees correctly making it difficult for any of these groups to claim tax exempt status.
why should the IRS just approve any of em willy nilly. It has been politicicised and the President has acted swiftly to defuse it. the person pleading the 5th is not his appointee either.
I was more interested in his speech about war and drones.
why should the IRS just approve any of em willy nilly. It has been politicicised and the President has acted swiftly to defuse it. the person pleading the 5th is not his appointee either.
I was more interested in his speech about war and drones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/wonkbook-some-very-good-news-for-obamacare/
Obamacare got some very good news on Thursday.
In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought.
As always, Sarah Kliff has the details. The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month.
Sparer plans are even cheaper. A young person buying the cheapest “bronze”-level plan will pay $172 — and that, again, is before any subsidies.
California is a particularly important test for Obamacare. It’s not just the largest state in the nation. It’s also one of the states most committed to implementing Obamacare effectively. Under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — remember how that really happened? — California was the first state to begin building its insurance exchanges. The state’s outreach efforts are unparalleled. Its insurance regulators are working hard to bring in good plans and make sure they’re playing fair. If California can’t make the law work, perhaps no one can. But if California can make the law work, it shows that others can, too.
And perhaps others will. We’re beginning to see competition drive down proposed rates in some exchanges around the country. Remember Maryland, where CareFirst grabbed headlines with a shocking 25 percent proposed increase in rates? More plans have streamed in with lower bids. Kaiser Permanente, for instance, is only increasing its rates next year by 4.3 percent — a modest increase that will make CareFirst’s proposal almost impossible to sustain. My guess is when the exchange actually opens in October, CareFirst will have dropped its price substantially. If they don’t, then Kaiser and others will grab all the market share.
The way this competition can drive down rates is already evident in Oregon. There, one insurer came in with monthly premium costs in the $169 range, while other insurers asked to charge more than $400. But then, seeing what their competitors were charging, two insurers came back to the state’s regulators and asked if they could refile at lower rates. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be competitive in the exchange. The Obama administration was ecstatic to see this: It’s exactly what they’re hoping will happen across the country.
Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.
Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.
Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.
Obamacare got some very good news on Thursday.
In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that a medium-level “silver” plan — which covers 70 percent of a beneficiary’s expected health costs — on the California health exchange would cost $5,200 annually. More recently, a report from the consulting firm Milliman predicted it would carry a $450 monthly premium. Yesterday, we got the real numbers. And they’re lower than anyone thought.
As always, Sarah Kliff has the details. The California exchange will have 13 insurance options, and the heavy competition appears to be driving down prices. The most affordable silver-level plan is charging $276-a-month. The second-most affordable plan is charging $294. And all this is before subsidies. Someone making twice the poverty line, say, will only pay $104-a-month.
Sparer plans are even cheaper. A young person buying the cheapest “bronze”-level plan will pay $172 — and that, again, is before any subsidies.
California is a particularly important test for Obamacare. It’s not just the largest state in the nation. It’s also one of the states most committed to implementing Obamacare effectively. Under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — remember how that really happened? — California was the first state to begin building its insurance exchanges. The state’s outreach efforts are unparalleled. Its insurance regulators are working hard to bring in good plans and make sure they’re playing fair. If California can’t make the law work, perhaps no one can. But if California can make the law work, it shows that others can, too.
And perhaps others will. We’re beginning to see competition drive down proposed rates in some exchanges around the country. Remember Maryland, where CareFirst grabbed headlines with a shocking 25 percent proposed increase in rates? More plans have streamed in with lower bids. Kaiser Permanente, for instance, is only increasing its rates next year by 4.3 percent — a modest increase that will make CareFirst’s proposal almost impossible to sustain. My guess is when the exchange actually opens in October, CareFirst will have dropped its price substantially. If they don’t, then Kaiser and others will grab all the market share.
The way this competition can drive down rates is already evident in Oregon. There, one insurer came in with monthly premium costs in the $169 range, while other insurers asked to charge more than $400. But then, seeing what their competitors were charging, two insurers came back to the state’s regulators and asked if they could refile at lower rates. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be competitive in the exchange. The Obama administration was ecstatic to see this: It’s exactly what they’re hoping will happen across the country.
Of course, California and Oregon are managing Obamacare particularly well. But the state-by-state nature of the Affordable Care Act creates really unusual political dynamics around how the law is perceived in its first year.
Imagine it’s the end of 2014. California now boasts a working, near-universal health-care system. Nothing perfect, but clearly a a success after the first year of implementation. Texas, meanwhile, is a bit of a mess. They didn’t allow the Medicaid expansion so the state’s poorest residents got nothing. They didn’t help with the exchanges, or the outreach, so there aren’t many choices, and premiums aren’t as low one might hope.
Viewed in isolation, Texas’s problems would be deadly for the law. But viewed next to California, they might mainly be a problem for the political class in Texas, which has failed to implement a clearly workable law.
Single Payer...
here it comes.
here it comes.
Michele Bachmann to not seek re-election in 2014
Living in Minnesota, I am very thankful 
obviously summat is happening. FBI is investigating her.
obviously summat is happening. FBI is investigating her.
Living in Minnesota, I am very thankful
obviously summat is happening. FBI is investigating her.
Oh that will be Obama's doing
the Republicans are already running on the IRS 'scandal'...Obama orchestrated it all.
oh. lets not forget the old favourite Benghazi.
all this only tracks in the logic free world of the GOP.
oh. lets not forget the old favourite Benghazi.
all this only tracks in the logic free world of the GOP.
Great rant by Bill
NYT - Not happy
This from Jonathan Chait on Republican attitudes to government power is very funny. And sad.
Yep and combined with rampant apathy among the citizenry, pretty much why the system is broken.
Breaking story about some folks at the State Dept hiring hookers when Hillary was in charge. Have not read the stories yet just going to pretend I work at FOX News and say it was Hillary hiring the hookers for herself and Bill.
And yes I am just kidding, that is actually meant as a jab at FOX News not at Bill and Hillary.
Of course she will not have been involved in any of this, but she was in charge of the State Dept at the time so her name will be involved in the stories.
And yes I am just kidding, that is actually meant as a jab at FOX News not at Bill and Hillary.
Of course she will not have been involved in any of this, but she was in charge of the State Dept at the time so her name will be involved in the stories.
I watched a marathon of The Newsroom yesterday. Here's my fav clip from the show (think Episode 3 or 4). His opening rant in the Series premiere is classic. Of course FOX News has already slammed the show. Hehe.
The movie NETWORK was a great predictor of the direction network news shows would be heading. And the speech by Albert Finney's character could still fit today, just take any number of groups and put their name in place of "the Russians".
Also, saw it reported on CNN this morning that for the first time since he took office Obama scores lows on honesty and being trustworthy with the American people. Just saying I saw it reported, that's all.
Also, saw it reported on CNN this morning that for the first time since he took office Obama scores lows on honesty and being trustworthy with the American people. Just saying I saw it reported, that's all.
In this clip from The Newsroom, the show reenacts how most TPs have no idea what they're actually supporting.
It might be classic, but it's also quite silly. It presents a romantic view of "old-timey USA" which never existed. It's quite possible that the US government has never been less tainted than it is today, NSA scandal and drones included.
He pointed all that out in that series premiere rant, argued against the notion that the US is the greatest country in the world. It did exist, and still does the foolish notion of the US being the greatest country on the planet. We still hear that often from regular people to talk-show people to elected officials.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. What I am saying is that the USA he describes never existed. The whole "let's get back to/we used to" spiel.
This is the series opening rant... Are you referring to this rant or one of the two above? Because I don't hear anything about "let's get back to/we used to" be in it. However, the TPs really do believe in revisionist history. They really do think the US has been taken over by liberals and whatnot. They really do believe God blessed the US and this nation is founded on Christianity.
- Status