Random Politics & Religion #00

So, what are you going to do when there's not enough work to give to people, and you have half of your employees doing nothing while the other half actually does something? And what are you going to do about the negative net income you just created because of your inefficiencies?

You forgot the trademark.

You didn't even read the report from the House Ways and Means Committee, did you? Because, guess what, that is what that link is....

Or can you tell us which page, which paragraph, which sentence did you form your conclusions from?

It's ok to admit that you didn't read the link because the words are too hard for you. It is pretty obvious by your response that is the case...

It says outright that they slashed their budget in 2010 by almost 10% in response to their "inappropriate" activities and wasteful spending. They called that 11 billion dollar budget "unsustainable". Then they go on to spend a few pages accusing the IRS of reducing spending on customer service to try and tip public opinion about their funding. Then it makes wild projections about increases in wait times being unreflective of the actual funding cuts. Then it spends another 4 or 5 pages making accusations about the IRS failing to catch fraudulent EITC payouts with more wild projections.

It's a propaganda piece, notice how it's a "majority staff report"? Paul Ryan's channel to condemn taxes and the poor. Try harder.

Senators of both parties worked Wednesday to revive trade legislation that's a top priority for President Barack Obama, a day after Obama's fellow Democrats repudiated him nearly unanimously on the issue.

Despite intense lobbying by Obama, every Democratic senator except one, Delaware's Tom Carper, voted on Tuesday against moving forward on the legislation to award the president "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals that can pass Congress without being amended. The vote failed 52-45, falling eight short of the 60 votes needed and dealing a stinging setback to the centerpiece of Obama's second-term economic agenda, his hopes for a landmark pact with Asian nations.

The administration moved quickly to resurrect the legislation, summoning key Democrats to the White House after the vote to discuss possible strategies. Democrats said they had agreed to drop a contentious provision aimed at cracking down on countries that manipulate their currency, and Republicans were weighing the offer Wednesday.

"Look, we want to have a serious discussion. We want to actually get a good policy outcome. That's always been our goal," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConell, R-Ky., said in a floor speech Wednesday. "I hope more will now join us to allow debate on the trade discussion our constituents deserve."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., appeared on the floor a few minutes after McConnell to say: "We have put a reasonable offer on the table for Senate Republicans to accept. All the Republican leader needs to do is say 'yes' and we can open debate on these trade bills."

In the House, which is waiting for the Senate to move first on trade, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters: "At the end of the day I think there's a majority in both the House and the Senate for giving the president" the authority he is seeking to conclude trade deals.

The outcome of Tuesday's Senate vote stunned the Capitol and highlighted Democratic divisions on trade heading into a presidential election year with control of the Senate at stake. Obama says it's essential for U.S. goods and services to have easier access to other countries in a globalizing economy, while many Democrats and the labor unions that back them still feel the pain of job losses they blame on earlier trade deals and fear more could be yet to come.

The vote also laid bare the strained relations between Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have spent years complaining of neglect by a president who tends grudgingly, if at all, to the relationship-building aspects of politics.

The president's tough sell on the trade legislation included Oval Office meetings, flights on Air Force One, promises of political support and concerted outreach by officials from Vice President Joe Biden on down. Obama mounted a public relations campaign to exert pressure, attacking his Democratic opponents as "wrong" in interviews and speeches, and even directly engaging liberal standard-bearer Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, dismissing her over the weekend as "a politician like everybody else."

None of it worked. And for a president grasping for a final legacy achievement in the waning years of his administration, with Congress fully controlled by the opposition party, his inability to gather more than a sole Democratic supporter to move forward stood as an embarrassing rebuke.

"It is the president's party," said GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. "It's amazing to me that they would do this to the president on a bill of this magnitude."

They're separating themselves from him no doubt so Hilary has room to run.

I'm surprised nobody pick up on this story. Democrats turning against Obama now.

Trade offers contrast between Obama, Senate Democrats

Senate leaders reached a deal Wednesday to revive trade legislation that Democrats had appeared to have scuttled just a day earlier, breathing new life into the centerpiece of President Obama’s economic agenda — though House Democrats vowed a tougher fight still awaits.

The new agreement paves the way for passage of the deal through the Senate, but Mr. Obama’s own troops in the House said their opposition is intensifying, and they blamed the president for mishandling the politics of his top second-term priority.

“If the administration thought it was tough going in the Senate, in the House it will be even harder,” said Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat and a leading opponent of giving the president special authority to negotiate the trade pact. “I believe they underestimated the depth of feeling.”

Follow up story: Trade deal reached, votes set.

In addition to the weighty policy issues, the White House also had to grapple with criticism about Mr. Obama’s bungled personal outreach, as some of his own usual allies accused him as coming off as condescending and even sexist. Liberals from Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, to NOW President Terry O’Neill said it was sexist for the president to refer to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat and a vocal opponent of the deal, as “Elizabeth.”

“I think it is sexist,” Ms. O’Neill told The Hill newspaper. “I think the president was trying to build up his own trustworthiness on this issue by convincing us that Senator Warren’s concerns are not to be taken seriously. But he did it in a sexist way.”

Well I disagree with your views, but I think too the Democratic Senate and House doesn't want to risk their re-election. Mid term elections are always so lame anyway. usually whoever is angrier is who votes.

Sure, it's a propaganda piece when it goes counter to whatever you say. But if it's aligned with your agenda, it's the absolute truth.

Grow up, will you? The federal government, through Congress, has shown how an agency has misappropriated funds and wasted a budget because the agency had budget cuts over it's own bad behavior. Unfortunately, this falls under the executive branch to fix, but they outright refuse to fix it, instead blaming Congress for causing the mess, when it's the agency who's actually acting on it's own....

Just admit, you did not read it (it's pretty obvious you cherry picked certain things, because you yourself said "4 or 5 pages attacking EITC" which the section is barely half a page in entirety), nor will you read it because it is a source used against your argument, and in your mind, is invalid and "propaganda against the liberal mind."

Bringing this discussion from a different thread so not to derail it further


I would love for you to show evidence of such practices. And guess what, evidence would be available (if it is true) in financial statements because of SOX Act of 2002. So, if you think a company is doing this, go to the annual report and look at their merger practices section and show it to us there. They are required by law to disclose such information if it were to happen. Doesn't mean that doing that is illegal, but not disclosing it is.

I'm talking about the reducing pay from the merger part.

Also, you are projecting your negativity on companies by creating something that doesn't happen. You can prove me wrong by showing us a merger where the number of people from the acquisition company and the number of people after the acquisition takes place are equal and/or less than before. Also required by SOX Act to be disclosed.

If you're a low level worker in retail (a large majority of the US), you're likely treated like a blowup doll. Pumped and then dumped.

Other sectors may vary. But most people when they talked about being treated like a battered wife are talking retail.

Jobs shouldn't rely on the backbone of this complicated system of creating things people want and then making it for them.

Seriously... It's written from a single viewpoint and has very little actual data, it reads like an editorial. My "argument" is that the IRS receives very little funding in comparison to other departments with much more demand and one major difference: It's the only department that GENERATES funds.

I'm Joe Six pack. I represent the every woman. I could be a doctor lawyer burger flipper whatever the topic requires !

I highly doubt you would wait an hour to an hour and a half at any call center for any company.

Companies are, as a survival technique, required to be efficient. The more successful ones are more efficient than the least successful ones.

Comcast? <insert your cable or telephone company here>

Those evil people at Comcast provided me two years of service with no problems whatsoever those *** !

Go to another one?

(Incoming "there's only one provider of internet in my area because I either set very specific guidelines, like 1 TB/sec speeds or greater, or I just don't want to look at anyone beyond the top offering" excuses)