the IRS and AP Scandals

[Panacea]

It seems to me that the more information that comes out about the IRS problem the finger is pointing closer and closer to the WH. So far nothing I've heard has mentioned that POTUS knew anything about this but it seems that his COS offered advice on how to handle this mess.

Well, of course he did. That's the Chief of Staff's job: to advise the President.

No matter how hard Issa has tried to point fingers at the WH, he has yet to come up with anything that proves anything.

If so it's not hard to believe that POTUS might know something. It seems that this problem was known about before the past POTUS election but was kept quiet so it wouldn't effect said election. There was error in believing that because keeping it quiet could have affected the election and it wasn't their decision to make.

You'd have to be able to prove that Obama actually knew there was an issue at the IRS to make that case. Despite all attempts, no one has any evidence that is the case.

With all the knowns, unknowns and speculations floating around I don't think it's too much to appoint a special investigator. Discover it all good and bad.

I can tell you why that hasn't happened. It was done during the Clinton administration. Ken Starr went too far afield investigating things that had NOTHING to do with his mandate (Whitewater), and blew through 60 million dollars in a case that put a lot of people in jail, but ultimately did not touch Clinton.

It's an incredible waste of resources when we can scarce afford it. Republicans could theoretically impeach Obama in the House, but he would be acquitted in the Senate easily. I think mainstream Republicans realize that would hurt them in 2014; there would be a backlash. Obama is still a popular President compared to Congress and the GOP as a whole.

AFA the tax code goes: It's in governments best interests to keep it complicated and nearly-nonunderstandable. The fair thing would be no deductions at all for anyone.

I'd be the first to agree that our tax code needs massive reform. Most of the tax code is designed to benefit corporations, but even then there are far fewer of them than from before the last time we reformed taxes, back when marginal rates were as high at 90%. No one paid those rates because of the massive amount of deductions.

Eliminating all deductions would be incredibly unpopular because it would impact the mortgage deduction. That deduction is why as many people own their own homes as they do. Home ownership is a major driver of our economy. So while the deduction probably won't go away, we are going to have to figure out how to pay for keeping it.

[Panacea]

Aaaaannnnnddd the latest twist in all this.

Brietbart is accusing Public Campaign, a non-partisan watchdog for campaign finance reform, of being involved. The wife of the IRS department head is on staff with Public Campaign.

There's no proof of this mind . . . just innuendo. But even if true, that would seem to take away from the allegation that the White House was involved.

[Gravekeeper]

The reason the tax code is complicated is because every time a company tries to find a way to exploit it, a new rule has to be added to stop that. Its a bitter cycle. Throw in the opposite effect: Politicians adding new rules to allow their lobbyist corporations better benefits and loopholes, and you end up with a mess.

Also, to be bluntly honest, I think Obama has much bigger things to worry about than going after the tax returns of some Tea Party groups.

[Panacea]

Also, to be bluntly honest, I think Obama has much bigger things to worry about than going after the tax returns of some Tea Party groups.

The wingnuts don't care. It isn't about the truth. It's about defeating Obama's agenda, right or wrong.

[lordlundar]

Aaaaannnnnddd the latest twist in all this.

Brietbart...

And disregarded it right there. Brietbart is the internet GOP equivalent to the drunk looney on the corner screaming "The world is going to end!!!!"

[HYHYBT]

It's unfortunate that his site didn't die with him.

[Panacea]

It's unfortunate that his site didn't die with him.

Agreed. He was more interested in obfuscating and "creating" truth, than what the real truth actually was.

Well, and now there's more twists. The IRS has been wasting millions of dollars on conferences they can't prove anyone attended the sessions of, where the attendees booked the presidential suites instead of getting lodging through a bid process or at a convention rate.

And the IRS employees are engaging in a game of he said she said, claiming higher ups are throwing them under the bus.

I'm really pissed at the IRS: I think the employees there have had a culture of waste and abuse of power, got caught, and are trying to shift the blame.

[lordlundar]

I'm really pissed at the IRS: I think the employees there have had a culture of waste and abuse of power, got caught, and are trying to shift the blame.

Standard MO of Bureaucracy, regardless of the country.

[Tanasi]

Well, of course he did. That's the Chief of Staff's job: to advise the President.

No matter how hard Issa has tried to point fingers at the WH, he has yet to come up with anything that proves anything.

You'd have to be able to prove that Obama actually knew there was an issue at the IRS to make that case. Despite all attempts, no one has any evidence that is the case.

I'm not implying that the COS told POTUS about IRS problem, what I was trying to convey was he advised those that were covering this up and when/how to leak said problem. IRS admits they planted the question in the press corp. I don't think the IRS would have done what they did without someone higher up the food chain giving the OK. Again not saying it was Obama.
Issa would be lucky to get any info from the WH regarding this and if he did it would either be a mistake or a whistle-blower. The WH isn't going to take the chance of being pulled in and will do as they always have an claim executive privilige. Just like GWD and Bill Clinton did. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't try, after all it's part of his job.

I can tell you why that hasn't happened. It was done during the Clinton administration. Ken Starr went too far afield investigating things that had NOTHING to do with his mandate (Whitewater), and blew through 60 million dollars in a case that put a lot of people in jail, but ultimately did not touch Clinton.

It's an incredible waste of resources when we can scarce afford it. Republicans could theoretically impeach Obama in the House, but he would be acquitted in the Senate easily. I think mainstream Republicans realize that would hurt them in 2014; there would be a backlash. Obama is still a popular President compared to Congress and the GOP as a whole.

The Whitewater investigation wasn't entirely Ken Starrs fault. More and more was piled on his plate with a lot of it being unrelated to Whitewater. Yep he did spend a lot of money but when you're talking trillions somehow millions looses luster. While he didn't "get" Bill Clinton, Clinton didn't get away scot free. That being said I'd still much rather have Bill as POTUS than the current one.

I'd be the first to agree that our tax code needs massive reform. Most of the tax code is designed to benefit corporations, but even then there are far fewer of them than from before the last time we reformed taxes, back when marginal rates were as high at 90%. No one paid those rates because of the massive amount of deductions.

Eliminating all deductions would be incredibly unpopular because it would impact the mortgage deduction. That deduction is why as many people own their own homes as they do. Home ownership is a major driver of our economy. So while the deduction probably won't go away, we are going to have to figure out how to pay for keeping it.

I think eliminating all deductions would be popular and especially so if it was tax neutral for the first several years. I never picked a bar for X but when it's picked it's the same for everyone.
The same was said when credit card interest was eliminated as a deduction. The extinction of revolving credit accounts was predicted within a few years. I don't think that come true. Once folks get used to the idea that "NO" interest is deductible for "EVERYONE" then it will more palatable.
I'm curious in that in other countries is home mortgage interest tax deductible???

[Tanasi]

Aaaaannnnnddd the latest twist in all this.

Brietbart is accusing Public Campaign, a non-partisan watchdog for campaign finance reform, of being involved. The wife of the IRS department head is on staff with Public Campaign.

There's no proof of this mind . . . just innuendo. But even if true, that would seem to take away from the allegation that the White House was involved.

Wasn't Clarence Thomas demanded to recuse himself from certain cases in next to the last secession because of his wife's politics.

[Panacea]

I'm not implying that the COS told POTUS about IRS problem, what I was trying to convey was he advised those that were covering this up and when/how to leak said problem. IRS admits they planted the question in the press corp. I don't think the IRS would have done what they did without someone higher up the food chain giving the OK.

What proof do you have that it went up the food chain? Answer: none.

I got that you what you were trying to convey. Again: that is the JOB of the COS: to advise the President. However, since you are alleging the COS advised the President before the revelations came out, you need to prove that happened, and prove any advice given was illegal for him to give.

The Whitewater investigation wasn't entirely Ken Starrs fault. More and more was piled on his plate with a lot of it being unrelated to Whitewater. Yep he did spend a lot of money but when you're talking trillions somehow millions looses luster. While he didn't "get" Bill Clinton, Clinton didn't get away scot free. That being said I'd still much rather have Bill as POTUS than the current one.

Whitewater was Ken Starr's ballgame. He couldn't get the Clinton's on Whitewater, and so he went off on tangents hoping to get them on SOMETHING. He wasted millions chasing wild geese. 60 million dollars isn't chump change.

Bill Clinton got a slap on the wrist and is still one of the most popular Presidents ever. Republicans lost big time in congress in the 2000 elections.

I think eliminating all deductions would be popular and especially so if it was tax neutral for the first several years.
I'm curious in that in other countries is home mortgage interest tax deductible???

That's the problem. It won't be tax neutral. It will raise revenues by tons, which conservatives won't like because they want to "starve the beast."

Other countries don't allow a mortgage deduction that I know of.

Wasn't Clarence Thomas demanded to recuse himself from certain cases in next to the last secession because of his wife's politics.

I have no idea what this question has to do with anything, but yes that did come up in regards to his vote on Obamacare. He did not recuse himself.

[draco664]

A slightly different point of view...

[lordlundar]

Naw, that picture needs to be off congress. Much more accurate that way.

[Gravekeeper]

Well then.

The GOP? Over react just to create a scandal? The hell you say!

[s_stabeler]

this is exactly what is wrong with american politics. poeple will do anything to prevent "that guy" from winning/doing anything once he is in power. Need |I point out that the Republican party have been talking up how the economy hasn't improved or the National Debt paid down under Obama, when thye are blocking hi at every turn? ( how many times has Obama tried to get a bill throuhg Congress to boost jobs? not to mention the clusterfuck that has been the varous problems that culminated in the Fiscal Cliff.)