• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 371 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Why not, seems appropriate, to put things into perspective. Watergate and the Iran contrascandal are still being used to today, to indicate malicious political practices. I don't see why we should forget about Iraq so fast.

But you are probably right this is something big... like you were about Solyndra, Fast and furious Tokyo drift, and Romney's electoral chances.
Hey guys, I purposefully did not bring Benghazi up because unless and until there is something to talk about, there really isn't much to talk about.

I never said it was something big... all I've said is it's getting good, which it is.

You can use Watergate as your meter all you'd like. You can bring up Solyndra all you'd like. If what happened there is ok with you then consider yourself part of the problem.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Dude, those 12 "talking point" emails have been posted everywhere. You can read them all in their entirety for yourself.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi Talking Points Timeline.pdf

Here are the changes that are getting attention:

1. Both the initial draft created by the CIA and the final draft said the Benghazi attacks were "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."

2. The initial draft described the attackers as "Islamic extremists" while the final draft described them as "extremists."

3. The initial draft said press reports had linked Ansar al-Sharia to the attack, but added that the group had denied ordering it in a statement. The initial draft nonetheless did not rule out that some of its members may have participated. The final draft didn't include any mention of Ansar al-Sharia.

4. The initial draft referred to previous incidents of violence in Benghazi conducted by unidentified attackers. The final draft excluded this.

...all of which is consistent with what was already known. There's nothing there dude.


I dunno Scott. Did Bush lie about yellowcake and WMD's in Iraq? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/divided-senate-committee_n_105374.html

Yep. He sure did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/tom-ridge-i-was-pressured_n_264127.html

Yep. He sure did.
...all of which is consistent with what was already known. There's nothing there dude.
Cool then. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I dunno Scott. Did Bush lie about yellowcake and WMD's in Iraq? Make up stories and have surrogates go out to the Sunday shows and blow smoke up everyone's azz?
Hey look... over there!:rolleyes:

So you are ok with presidential administrations lying to congress. Got it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
Give me a break I answered that on a cell phone... try typing that lot into one! ok here you go its quite a seminal article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x/abstract



*sigh* i see you dont understand this... we are talking about monetary policy so its the banks holding reserves at the CB that attract negative rates in the hope that they will lend instead... not your savings account, no one would hold money on deposit if that was the case as stuffing it under your matress would have a yield by comparison. (Although could be done if the government nationalised the banks and the economy was in that much of a desperate state i spose)



National debt is not what you think, it is non government savings... if you dont understand that then not much point in you looking at the graphs as it will tell you nothing apart from you confusing a household/business to a currency issuing country.




Krugman is a neo keynesian basically a left neoclassical...go and look at the money/banking/economics thread where Ferminal and myself explained economic history to ACF (no Post Keynesian or MMTer would ever use IS-LM)
*sigh* i see you dont understand this... we are talking about monetary policy so its the banks holding reserves at the CB that attract negative rates in the hope that they will lend instead... not your savings account, no one would hold money on deposit if that was the case as stuffing it under your matress would have a yield by comparison. (Although could be done if the government nationalised the banks and the economy was in that much of a desperate state i spose)
Consider it likely that I mostly get it. Since you are having trouble I will more liberally use this :rolleyes: so as not to confuse.

National debt is not what you think, it is non government savings... if you dont understand that then not much point in you looking at the graphs as it will tell you nothing apart from you confusing a household/business to a currency issuing country
I reasonably ok with understanding debt instruments. But thanks anyways.

Krugman is a neo keynesian basically a left neoclassical...go and look at the money/banking/economics thread where Ferminal and myself explained economic history to ACF (no Post Keynesian or MMTer would ever use IS-LM
I tried to read some of that thread... I honestly would rather stick needles in my eyes.

I can't stand being bored... which is a huge reason I spend way to much time battling wits with the likes of people like you.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
er, Lisa Myers incorrectly reported that Hicks was demoted and the Ds were trying to correct her. Odd, I thought uncovering "the truth" is what this was all about, yet you don't seem to be very interested in whether or not the message is correct.
Oh, I see. Just happened to have her cell phone number... heard she made a mistake and they called just to be neighborly.

Funny stuff right there.
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott even though its called national "debt" its actually a credit instrument ie its equity. No you dont understand it pretend all you like but obvious you dont.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
Scott
I am going to try to explain the monetary system to you, now i am going to have to simplify a bit or this will go on and on.

The government (through its fiscal agents the banks and cbs) have to spend first before it can be taxed that is just logic. Now remember just about every transaction in the economy gets taxed so think about government as if they have a super platinum credit card with a 100% cashback. For example they need a fighter from Lockheed so print the money, pay Lockheed who then pay their staff and shareholders and the government tax a bit of that. The staff/shareholders then go and spend some of that on whatever...the government tax those transactions, the shop where the staff member bought food then pays taxes, pays it staff and so and so on, now if everyone spent their money straight away the government would get 100% back almost immediately. There is a catch though in that people save (whether it is granny or china doesnt matter) this then causes what you call national debt. It also has the side effect that it takes money out of the economy causes what we would call a demand leakage which causes a lack of effective demand...therefore spare capicity in the economy aka unemployment.
Thanks Andy. I don't think I could have gone another day without reading that post.

You may now consider me an expert.

I have a thought. Why not just go back to the original barter system?

I'll give you two goats for that used Colnago.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
Scott even though its called national "debt" its actually a credit instrument ie its equity. No you dont understand it pretend all you like but obvious you dont.
Damn Andy. You got me. Always did have problems figuring out which side of the ledger is credits and which are debits.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
OMG.

THIS WILL BE BIGGER THAN WATERGATE.:D

The IRS doesn’t have many friends on a good day. By Friday evening, the agency seemed to have none at all.

A steady stream of criticism directed at the IRS in recent weeks exploded with the disclosure that the agency targeted about 75 conservative groups for extra review because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their tax documents.

The GOP immediately pounced — and Democrats offered no defense. The result: The IRS is an agency under siege, facing its worst public relations debacle in years.

The revelation fuels Republican fears that the agency is targeting the administration’s political enemies. It also hands the GOP a fresh issue to use in attacking President Barack Obama’s administration at the same time they are stepping up their criticism of the way it handled the attack in Benghazi.

The reach of the IRS is so broad that the damage to the agency’s reputation could touch everything from its oversight of rapidly expanding nonprofit groups to the implementation of the health care law.

Top Republicans on Capitol Hill, including House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, immediately tied the IRS admission to some of the worst instances of government overreach, including Watergate.

Bush's fault in 3,2,1....


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-under-siege-91206.html?hp=t1_3
 
Scott SoCal said:
Thanks Andy. I don't think I could have gone another day without reading that post.

You may now consider me an expert.

I have a thought. Why not just go back to the original barter system?

I'll give you two goats for that used Colnago.
There wasn't an original barter system Scott; there was always credit.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Tea party? Aren't those the loons who just hate paying taxes? I dunno, but to me it makes sense to have an extra careful look at their IRS filings.
It's was inappropriate audits of tax-exempt applications.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's was inappropriate audits of tax-exempt applications.
Inappropriate audits? Sounds dirty. I'm glad they get on top of that. What's next? Fumbling in the dark? Oh the humanity! Would please somebody think of the children!
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Tea party? Aren't those the loons who just hate paying taxes? I dunno, but to me it makes sense to have an extra careful look at their IRS filings.
Scott SoCal said:
It's was inappropriate audits of tax-exempt applications.
It's irrelevant who the groups were. The IRS is the single most powerful entity in the United States Government outside of the military forces, and in some ways are more powerful. The threat of their scrutiny is extremely significant, and regardless of whether I agree with the targeted group's political philosophy, the attempted silencing of political speech through means such as this is unacceptable.

If the Obama administration was involved with this targeting, whoever was involved should be fired and face criminal charges. If Obama was involved with this targeting, he should be impeached.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Inappropriate audits? Sounds dirty. I'm glad they get on top of that. What's next? Fumbling in the dark? Oh the humanity! Would please somebody think of the children!
Yeah. It's no big deal so long as they target only conservative groups.
 
Feb 1, 2013
84
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, I see.

I'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today.

Got it.
Yes its called a credit card where you pay out of future earnings. You are well confused about this.

Look as pointed out it was not originally a barter system, Menger got it wrong it was always a credit system... IE I do you a favour and later on you do me one, can even see it in the animal kingdom to this day. I know you wont like this because its ones of the flaws of right wing economic thinking and you dont want to be wrong, but the reading of history is incorrect. "money" in its physical form has always been state currency not private.

Oh and i didnt get my balance sheet confused, its you not understanding the nature of sov debt that has the sheet confused as you are doing households/companies again and thinking a currency issuing state has the same issues....no fail.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
AndyMMT said:
Yes its called a credit card where you pay out of future earnings. You are well confused about this.

Look as pointed out it was not originally a barter system, Menger got it wrong it was always a credit system... IE I do you a favour and later on you do me one, can even see it in the animal kingdom to this day. I know you wont like this because its ones of the flaws of right wing economic thinking and you dont want to be wrong, but the reading of history is incorrect. "money" in its physical form has always been state currency not private.

Oh and i didnt get my balance sheet confused, its you not understanding the nature of sov debt that has the sheet confused as you are doing households/companies again and thinking a currency issuing state has the same issues....no fail.
Is English your first language?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah. It's no big deal so long as they target only conservative groups.
As I said before, groups with the self declared goal to abolish taxes and the IRS? Seems to me that auditing their IRS filings might just make sense.

Now, did they find any irregularities?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Cobblestones said:
As I said before, groups with the self declared goal to abolish taxes and the IRS? Seems to me that auditing their IRS filings might just make sense.

Now, did they find any irregularities?
Yep. Potentially criminal activity on the part of the IRS toward your fellow citizens.

Nothing to be concerned about.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah. It's no big deal so long as they target only conservative groups.
So what about these then?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18protest.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?pagewanted=all

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups in what the groups charge is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration.

The F.B.I. has in its files 1,173 pages of internal documents on the American Civil Liberties Union, the leading critic of the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies, and 2,383 pages on Greenpeace, an environmental group that has led acts of civil disobedience in protest over the administration's policies, the Justice Department disclosed in a court filing this month in a federal court in Washington.
Hmm, looks to me like they were specifically targeting liberal groups. If I recall, there was quite the outcry from the right at the time. Not.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
So was this impeachable too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18protest.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?pagewanted=all

Hmm, looks to me like they were specifically targeting liberal groups, eh? If I recall, there was quite the outcry from the right at the time. Not.
So was this impeachable too?
Probably.

You are pretty damned funny when your hysteria rises.

So, you are ok with IRS targeting your fellow citizens? Nothing to see here, right?

Okay.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
If there were still any doubts about whether or not Benghazi is just theater, this should put them to rest.

There were several oddities about the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearing last week, but one of the unanswered questions related to Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) choice of witnesses. Yesterday, on "Meet the Press," this grew even more problematic.

The hearing was supposed to be about the committee getting more answers about the attack, but Issa chose not to invite former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan and Bush administrations, who helped oversee the independent investigation into the events in Benghazi. If the goal was to get more information, why not ask Pickering to appear?

Issa said yesterday, "Ambassador Pickering, his people and he refused to come before our committee." Pickering, who was seated next to Issa at the time, said the far-right congressman was lying. "I said the day before the hearings, I was willing to appear to come to the very hearings that he excluded me from."

So it would appear that Mr. Issa said something he knew to be untrue. I mention this, of course, because we've been told that saying something untrue on a Sunday show -- deliberately or not -- is deeply scandalous, and reason to keep someone from positions of power and authority. So why the congressman say Pickering "refused to come before our committee" when that's the opposite of the truth?

Issa's response was even more amusing:

"The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way."
So why not allow Pickering to testify?

Pickering, a seasoned diplomat who penned a highly critical report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his scathing assessment but absolved Clinton. “We knew where the responsibility rested,” said Pickering, whose career spans four decades.

“They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made,” Pickering said of Clinton’s critics.
Ah. Can't have that now, can we. Or maybe this?

In a separate interview, Pickering said he asked, via the White House, to appear at Wednesday’s session. He said he could have answered many of the questions lawmakers raised, such as whether U.S. military forces could have saved Americans had they dispatched F-16 jet fighters to the consulate, some 1,600 miles away from the nearest likely launching point.

“Mike Mullen, who was part of this report and indeed worked very closely with all of us and shared many of the responsibilities directly with me, made it very clear that his view as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that there were nothing within range that could have made a difference,” Pickering said.
But actually having answers to questions would mean that the show's over.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/issa-clinton-benghazi-response.php?ref=fpblg
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Probably.

You are pretty damned funny when your hysteria rises.

So, you are ok with IRS targeting your fellow citizens? Nothing to see here, right?

Okay.
Just wondering where your outrage was then.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS