Not nit picking, just clarifying for those that may not know how the federal government operates. Some may actually read your attempts to be deceptive as facts. Or maybe I'm over estimating you knowledge of how the federal government works, you may really believe this garbage.
People's approval rating of congress is low because they write the laws. They are ALL viewed as useless and corrupt.
BTW, congressional approval rating was 11% in 2010 when democrats controlled BOTH Houses of congress. So if its in the teens, it actually WENT UP!
In 2010, just as today, the Obstructionist Republican Party Of NO (along with their now deceased "blue dog" brethren) was still refusing to pass any legislation that might in any way, make Obama look good. That process continues today.
AND FROM THEOFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PARTY SPOKESMAN:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In 2010, just as today, the Obstructionist Republican Party Of NO (along with their now deceased "blue dog" brethren) was still refusing to pass any legislation that might in any way, make Obama look good. That process continues today.
Wrong! It was the same democrat controlled Congess that passed Obamacare in March of 2010. And in December of 2010, Congresses approval rating plummeted to 13%. You would have thought the approval rating would have skyrocketed to over 50% since a democratically elected majority(all democrats) voted to pass it.
Wrong! It was the same democrat controlled Congess that passed Obamacare in March of 2010. And in December of 2010, Congresses approval rating plummeted to 13%. You would have thought the approval rating would have skyrocketed to over 50% since a democratically elected majority(all democrats) voted to pass it.
Good try though...I like the effort!
And what was the ObamaCare debate like??? An orderly process of debating the good and possibly bad points of the bill??? OF COURSE NOT!!! "Death Panels, Rationed health Care and Socialized Medicine"was all you heard from the TeaBaggers who were the minority party.
Polls show that many who oppose Obama Care do so because the GOP diluted the bill and eliminated many important features. Three states now are implementing universal coverage, which the GOP removed from Obamacare... Their plan may be the precursor to the future of ObamaCare.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
And what was the ObamaCare debate like??? An orderly process of debating the good and possibly bad points of the bill??? OF COURSE NOT!!! "Death Panels, Rationed health Care and Socialized Medicine"was all you heard from the TeaBaggers who were the minority party.
Polls show that many who oppose Obama Care do so because the GOP diluted the bill and eliminated many important features. Three states now are implementing universal coverage, which the GOP removed from Obamacare... Their plan may be the precursor to the future of ObamaCare.
Box, you and the dems allegedly won the debate! The democrat congressmen and women passed the bill THEY WROTE. The Republicans "diluted" nothing, they voted against the final version. So that argument is dead on arrival.
The Democrats supposedly had the public behind them. I can't believe the democrat controlled congess approval rating dropped to 13% after such a monumental and HUGELY POPULAR piece of legislation. The Obama 08 victory gave him the mandate to pass Obamacare.
Don't blame Republicans, you are showing poll after poll that they are irrelevant as an opposition party. NOW they are relevant again? Please...Spare Me!
Box, you and the dems allegedly won the debate! The democrat congressmen and women passed the bill THEY WROTE. The Republicans "diluted" nothing, they voted against the final version. So that argument is dead on arrival.
The Public Option, Cissy... it was in the original Obamacare and removed before passage by Republicans with the help of Blue Dog Conservatives. Denying it happened, doesn't change the facts:
Quoted Text
The public health insurance option — also known as the public insurance option, or simply the public option — was a proposal within the federal government of the United States to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other health insurance companies. The public option is not the same as — but is an alternative to — publicly funded health care. It was a proposed health insurance plan that could be offered by the government. The purpose of public option is to make cheaper health insurance for those uninsured citizens who can't afford the high rates of private health insurance companies or are rejected by private health insurance companies. In this way, the uninsured could be insured and therefore have access to healthcare which they otherwise would not have. The government's insurance company can lower its rates by using its greater leverage than private industry, when negotiating with hospitals and doctors. Another way that the government lowers the rates, is by paying the employees of the public option insurance company a fraction of the salary and benefits than a private insurance company employees are normally paid. The government's public option insurance company would be designed to survive on its own profit, rather than on government financial handouts, such as subsidies. Currently, there is no "public option" in the United States.
Public Support: In a poll in which the data were gathered on August 19, 2009 Survey USA estimated that the majority of Americans (77%) feel that it is either "Quite Important" or "Extremely Important" to "give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.
Vote against by GOP and Blue Dogs Conservatives: WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan Senate vote swept aside demands by liberal Democrats for a government-run health insurance plan, delivering a potentially lethal blow to the most controversial measure of the proposed U.S. health-care overhaul.
Dramatizing Democratic divisions on the issue, five (blue dog) Democrats joined with all Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to defeat 15-8 a proposal by Sen. Jay Rockefeller for a government plan to help those who couldn't get affordable insurance through their employers. A similar proposal fell by a 13-10 vote. Should a government-run insurance option be included in new health-care legislation? The two votes suggested that the "public option" is all but dead in the Senate.
Blue Dog Conservative Dems 2009:
Quoted Text
The Blue Dog Coalition was founded in 1995, following the GOP sweep of Congress, with the intention of claiming the center for the Democratic Party. Its membership is largely made up of Democrats elected in districts that voted for Bush in 2004.
Democrats currently hold a 75-seat advantage over Republicans in the House -- 254 to 178. But 218 votes are needed to pass legislation, meaning that if the GOP stays united, Democrats can only lose 36 members on a given vote.
NOTE: Many of these Conservative Blue Dogs have since been voted out of office because of their Public Option Votes.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Wrong again Box...The public option was "diluted" by DEMOCRATS. The democrats controlled the committee. They could have passed the public option 15-8 if the Democrats were lockstep.
Quoted Text
WASHINGTON — After an intense debate that captured the essence of the national struggle over health care, a pivotal Senate committee on Tuesday rejected two Democratic proposals to create a government insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
The first proposal, by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, was rejected 15 to 8, as five Democrats joined all Republicans on the panel in voting no. The second proposal, by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was defeated 13 to 10, with three Democrats voting no.
The votes vindicated the middle-of-the-road approach taken by the committee chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. Mr. Baucus voted against both proposals, which were offered as amendments to his bill to expand coverage and rein in health costs.
“There’s a lot to like about a public option,” Mr. Baucus said, but he asserted that the idea could not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on the Senate floor.
The Blue Dogs were voted out because of their Obamacare vote. Not the public option vote. The public option died in the Senate Committee by DEMOCRATS.
Quoted Text
Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election Amanda Terkel | Nov 03, 2010 WASHINGTON -- Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, as they watched Republicans win enough seats to take back the House in the next Congress and began to ponder life under a likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But one group hit especially hard was the Blue Dog Coalition, with half of its members losing their seats.
According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 22 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), four were retiring and three races were still too close to call.
"We are talking about whether or not the American Taxpayer will subsidize your work... We are talking about a tax break... If you didn't come in and ask for this tax break, you would have never had a question asked of you. You could go out there and say anything you want... The purpose of a C3 or C4 tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of PUBLIC GOOD, NOT POLITICAL WORK"
Is there anyone on the board who looks at TeaBagger groups as strictly for "PUBLIC GOOD"? Is there anyone on the board who sees TeaBagger groups as "NOT POLITICAL"?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Is there anyone on the board who looks at TeaBagger groups as strictly for "PUBLIC GOOD"? Is there anyone on the board who sees TeaBagger groups as "NOT POLITICAL"?
Whoohoo!! Way to go!
What he just said is like telling a rape victim that she was raped because she was dressed too pretty.
Oh and your dumbass "PUBLIC GOOD" and "NOT POLITICAL" statement.....Shouldn't unions be held to the same standard? Don't really seeing you crying about that.
But let's get back to the facts. He made himself look real stupid.
Then you have this......
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
What he just said is like telling a rape victim that she was raped because she was dressed too pretty.
Oh and your dumbass "PUBLIC GOOD" and "NOT POLITICAL" statement.....Shouldn't unions be held to the same standard? Don't really seeing you crying about that.
The opening statement McDermott says the IRS screwed up and he apologized for that. Unions are 501c and their political pacs are separate from their union status. They, like the TeaBaggers should be held to the same standard. If not they, like the TeaBaggers, should be prosecuted... don't you think? But if they (either group) are found in violation, they should be stripped of their tax exempt status.
I watched the ditzy blonde till she started to cry (boo hoo) and couldn't stand any more of her...We Patriots are not political... we just wanted to change Obama for any Conservative White Guy!
Back to my question: Is there anyone on the board who looks at TeaBagger groups as strictly for "PUBLIC GOOD"? Is there anyone on the board who sees TeaBagger groups as "NOT POLITICAL"?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Back to my question: Is there anyone on the board who looks at TeaBagger groups as strictly for "PUBLIC GOOD"? Is there anyone on the board who sees TeaBagger groups as "NOT POLITICAL"?
You're asking the wrong question, and your question is irrelevant. The question is - are Tea Party Groups the ONLY groups that are political and not for public good based on exemption guidelines?
I’m not all that outraged that the I.R.S. held up applications by Tea Party groups for tax-exempt status. I’m outraged that any of them—or their liberal counterparts—qualify for that status at all.
Unfortunately, given the way this I.R.S. scandal slid so easily into ideological definitions, I fear that few non-politicos are recognizing the real disgrace here: that the federal government—Congress, the White House, the tax agency, and the Supreme Court—has created a situation where blatantly political organizations are able to legally break the law by pretending they’re something that they’re not.
The key to this obscene state of affairs is an entity known as a 501(c)(4), named for the section of the tax code that created it. Supposedly, these are civic associations or organizations devoted to social welfare, which can operate tax-free, but whose donors aren’t allowed to deduct their contributions. Fair enough. But then comes the loopholes that politicos have used to drive not only a truck through the intention of the law but a whole fleet. Unlike a wholly charitable organization, a 501(c)(4) can engage in political activities, so long as it is not its primary purpose. In other words, I could form an organization that spends 49.99999 percent of its time, energy, and money on politics and still be deemed tax exempt. In other words, you, me—every American citizen—can be providing a tax subsidy to groups that (theoretically) are spending almost half of their money on politics. It’s worse than that. Under the law, a 501(c)(4) can spend an unlimited amount of money on lobbying, so long as it is related to its “primary purpose.” So, in truth, an organization can be fully political under any rational interpretation of the meaning of that word, yet be deemed not to be primarily political under the law. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/05/real-scandal-tea-party-irs-tax-code
What a joke the media is, you couldn't make this up... well liberals and the race card go hand and hand so maybe you could believe it.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
You're asking the wrong question, and your question is irrelevant. The question is - are Tea Party Groups the ONLY groups that are political and not for public good based on exemption guidelines?
Nope, they are just the most obvious!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
WASHINGTON -- In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.
That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn't be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.
In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:
• Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to "drive the progressive change." According to its website, its mission includes "support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people's interests and make tough choices." It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.
• Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. "It would be fair to say we're on the progressive end of the spectrum," said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after "a pretty simple, straightforward process."
• Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama's signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. "We're busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now," the group's voice mail said.
Logged
