JOBS VERSUS DEBT
Joe/Marist poll shows 64% put Jobs ahead of Debt Reduction.
We know how to reduce the Deficit but not how do we create NEW industries
and millions of new jobs..The out sourced jobs return? Forget that dream.
I have read only that spending like 500Billion on infrastructure will
revive our dormant economy. Debt is important. Fed has kept interest rates low
but higher rates will come. It is called good news that the 2014 Budget projects the first below 1000B Deficit since 2008. 700B is not good news. Zero billion is good news. We can balance our budget. Congress can do it. A higher “effective” tax on wealth estates and income.
Public finance campaigns over six months. Ban any gift with a financial value as gift to employees of the Federal government . Overturn Corporation as a person. Expire Bush Tax Cuts.
Eliminate Obama Payroll Tax Cut. Means Test Social Security and Medicare.
It was disgusting to hear employees of large hotel on Collins Avenue in Miami Beach
tell me that wealthy winter residents get S ocial Security checks each month. It is disgusting to know some of my dearest friends get Social Security and Medicare and are multi-millionaires.
I love them like brothers but their logic turns me off. “We paid for it” logic. Yes! They paid for free cheese Ag gives out at local armory but they will not go get it.. That would be shameful!
Our National Income is 14,000 Billion. In 2014, the budget projects tax receipts at 3100B.
That is a 22% Effective Tax Rate. That is why we rank third as Least Taxed in OECD nations.
Let us build Industry not more Billionaires from gambling in America Derivative Casino.
WE NEED MILLIONS OF JOBS THAT PAY A DECENT WAGE.

The Republicans have successfully changed the conversation from gun control and immigration to Benghazi and IRS.

Brad, I hate to go off-topic on your blog but I thought your readers might be interested in an example of right-wing censorship that has penetrated an American institution - Mad Nagazine. The current issue (#521 June 2013) had an early printing showing a gun-violence "fold-in" on the inside of the back cover. The feature asks the question: "What inevitable sequel already has many people sick to their stomachs?" When folded, the answer is revealed: "The next mass shooting". Later printings have this page replaced by a reprint of a page from an earlier issue. I have been discussing this censorship example in another forum with several people who are in contact with editorial staff members of Mad. It appears that the decision to recall and edit Mad #521 was made by the parent company (DC) and that all Mad staff members have been sworn to secrecy (my opinion).

I think they're learning a thing or two from the left. But a summer spent talking about scandals isn't going to be beneficial to anyone.

I didn't listen to the Bradcast, but read the highlights above. Looks like there was no discussion about IRS thuggery, at least it wasn't mentioned in this piece. Surprising, that is the scariest by far of all the garbage that's recently come to light from this administration and one which everyone, left and right, should worry about. I think in the long run that's the scandal which will do the most damage to Obama, whether he knew about it or not.

Think of the political gold the GOP has stumbled upon. Just a week ago he was telling Ohio State Grads to reject the voices that suggest there is tyranny in government. Now we see admitted abusive power displays by the IRS, Justice trampling the freedom of press, back pedaling and ridiculous denial about lying to the American people over Benghazi. It took him all of one week to shatter the "myth" he told those graduates...

I see some great potential for GOP 2014 campaign ads, just using his own words and the admitted actions of his administration.

Steve Snyder said:

back pedaling and ridiculous denial about lying to the American people over Benghazi.

Umm...I guess I missed that part. When/where did that happen, chief?

(And, yes, we covered the IRS business --- or "IRS thuggery" as you believe it's appropriate to knee-jerkingly describe it --- as well, if only briefly yesterday. You might want to listen to the thing you're commenting on before doing so. Or just look at the graphic. You also have a habit of not reading what you're commenting on either, which, on more than one occasion, has resulted in your making an unnecessary fool of yourself here.)

Ahhhhhh, you're right! I see IRS in the graphic! But looking at a picture is not the same as reading Brad....

I don't see what's knee jerk about saying thuggery of the IRS, hell they admitted to it. Clearly meant to intimidate and stall applications for the tax exempt status of political enemies from a supposedly non political arm of the government.

Brad..."knee-jeerkingly"?? ROFL

Steve @ 7:

I don't see what's knee jerk about saying thuggery of the IRS, hell they admitted to it.

They admitted to using "Tea Party" and "patriots" to help identify which c4's they should examine when deciding whether to bestow tax-payer subsidized non-profit status. They did not, to my knowledge, admit to thuggery.

When I wrote my comment to you, the IG's report had not yet been released. I hadn't yet read it (still haven't, though trying to get to it) and I suspect you hadn't/haven't either.

There are more than enough good reasons to examine and/or reject c4 applications in the wake of Citizens United and the explosion of political operative groups masquerading, on our dime, as "social welfare organizations". That MUST be stopped. If the IRS used inappropriate, non-neutral standards for determining which organizations to examine, those responsible should be investigated and appropriate disciplined and/or fired. If it is determinable that it was due to something as serious as "thuggery", they should be criminally prosecuted.

Without having read the IG's report, I couldn't even begin to tell you if it was "thuggery", criminal or otherwise, and I suspect you have no evidence to support that assertion either, other than you'd like it to be the case.

Just curious, was it "thuggery" when the Bush Administration challenged the non-profit status of the NAACP and churches which featured anti-war speakers? If so, can you point me towards your objections at the time?

Clearly meant to intimidate and stall applications for the tax exempt status of political enemies from a supposedly non political arm of the government.

"Clearly" according to whom or what? You, Fox "News" and the rest of the Rightwing media?

According to the IG's report. Some experienced delays of up to two years. Some also through two election cycles.

Nice segue into Pelosi's MSNBC talking points about citizens united though, I rather thought Ernie would go that route. Citizens United has nothing to do with an arm of the federal government picking out conservative groups for delay of processing applications simply based on their politics. That's where I get thuggery from.

Btw, in the bit with pelosi on MSNBC, watched it on YouTube that channel is whacked, did you notice that they completely ignored the actual story? The host said only that certain groups were picked out by the IRS, neither he or pelosi once mentioned that it was Obama's "enemies" who were singled out.... which of course is the real story

Lets see if pelosi is successful in blaming citizens united for the IRS thuggery. She's already got the bradblog onboard but that was a given.

Oh, also. Congrats for working the right wing media fox news angle into your comment. Considering all the networks have been covering it pretty steadily I'd say that comment was the knee jerk reaction.

Steve Snyder @ 10:

According to the IG's report. Some experienced delays of up to two years. Some also through two election cycles.

Right. A lot of groups seeking tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) status experienced that. A minority of them (about a third) were Tea Party related groups, according to the IG's report.

Of those, an even smaller minority were seeking 501(c)(3) clearance which, unlike (c)(4) groups, may receive tax-deductible donations. A (c)(4), however, does not take tax-deductible donations, nor does it need clearance from the IRS to be a c4 group. So it remains unclear how exactly those seeking c4 approval, whether Tea Party or not, were actually harmed, other than the inappropriate requirement to answer lengthy, invasive, inappropriate questions. (Though it is also unclear, based on the IG's report, as you know, since you read it, whether the non-Tea Party groups which were also flagged and delayed had to respond to similar questions.)

Nice segue into Pelosi's MSNBC talking points about citizens united though, I rather thought Ernie would go that route.

I haven't seen or read what she had to say on this, so if they are Pelosi's talking points, perhaps she got them from me?

Citizens United has nothing to do with an arm of the federal government picking out conservative groups for delay of processing applications simply based on their politics. That's where I get thuggery from.

Actually, it had a great deal to do with it. The influx (more than doubling) of c3 and c4 applications happened after Citizens United, once the floodgates were opened on unlimited political donations and spending. With that flood (as I know, after having read the IG's report), came the need to figure out how to determine which groups were legit "charities" (c3) and legit "social welfare organizations" (c4).

Moreover, the IRS was receiving, at the same time, many complaints from Congress, watchdog groups and the citizenry at large, that these groups were running political operations, in violation of the tax code. That appears to be very true, by the way --- on the Right far more than on the Left, but it happened from groups on both sides.

There is still much we don't know about the decision to flag Tea Party related groups, since the IG offered no evidence or indication that partisan politics had anything to do with using those unfair flags to examine which groups were legit (I hope to write about that soon), but the report offered ZERO indication of "thuggery". Doesn't mean there wasn't any, it just means we have no evidence of it at this time.

Btw, in the bit with pelosi on MSNBC, watched it on YouTube that channel is whacked, did you notice that they completely ignored the actual story?

No. As I said, I didn't see any interview with her, though I understand Chris Hayes did an interview with her, if that's the one you're referring to. It was a taped interview, so may have happened before whatever you believe to be the "actual story" (on whatever) broke. But I can't speak to it, as I didn't see it, and didn't even read anything about it.

The host said only that certain groups were picked out by the IRS, neither he or pelosi once mentioned that it was Obama's "enemies" who were singled out.... which of course is the real story

If you keep telling yourself that enough, maybe it'll be true! But from what I know as of now, there seems to be as much evidence of nefariousness by Obama in the IRS matter as there is in the pretend Benghazi scandal that you are still buying into.

Once of these days you're bound to be right! (I'd put my money on the DoJ/AP outrage, but what do I know, I didn't like that sort of thing anymore when Bush did it then when Obama did it.)

Steve Snyder @ 11:

Lets see if pelosi is successful in blaming citizens united for the IRS thuggery. She's already got the bradblog onboard but that was a given.

Oh, also. Congrats for working the right wing media fox news angle into your comment. Considering all the networks have been covering it pretty steadily I'd say that comment was the knee jerk reaction.

Yes, they're all covering it. But, as far as I've seen to date, only Fox "News" is pretending that it involved "thuggery" on behalf of Obama. Since they have absolutely ZERO evidence to support that assertion, just as you don't, it seems to make sense that you're getting it from Fox or from another RW outlet, no?

Surely you're not just pulling it straight out of your ass all by yourself, are you?!