Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 242

Thread: Puke Watch

  1. #11
    Atypical is offline

    Ladies And Gentleman - Meet Your New Congress.

    Darrell Issa To Lead Obama Investigations: Suspected Arson, Car Theft, Weapons Charges! Wait! That Is Issa's Past!


    Darrell Issa, Multi-Millionaire Congressman Is Not Mr. Clean!

    Darrell Issa, Republican Congressman from California, who has a checkered past, with multiple arrests for auto theft and weapons charges, was also suspected of arson for a fire that destroyed one of the buildings he owned. Now, the man who sobbed for television cameras when his party backed Arnold for governor of California instead of him, is planning to spend the next two years
    of his Congressional life investigating the Obama administration, but this time he will be using taxpayer money to pursue Obama.

    When Issa became the Republican hatchet man who was almost solely responsible for the recall of California's Governor Gray Davis in 2003, he had to use his own money. At that time, Issa donated almost 2 million dollars to the recall effort because he had plans to be crowned the new and improved governor of California. Issa's ambitions to govern the state in which he was, years earlier, indicted along with his brother for auto theft, never came to fruition because the Republican party pulled the rug out from under Issa and his dreams of power. He sobbed openly when withdrawing
    his name as the chosen one. His party had betrayed him, so now when the new Congress convenes in January, Issa will try again to make a name for himself with his party. He has stated that he plans to hold at least seven hearings a week as head of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

    Just who is Darrell Issa and what is his past? First, Issa's history with auto theft charges: In 1971, Issa reportedly took a Dodge sedan from an Army post where he was stationed near Pittsburgh. There were no charges filed in that case, but the story was leaked to the press by a retired Army sergeant, who says he threatened Issa and then was able to retrieve the car. As a college student in 1972, Issa and his brother were arrested in Cleveland, suspected of stealing a red Maserati from a dealership. The witnesses recognized Darrell and his brother, William as they pushed the Maserati down the street. The third incident took place in San Jose, California. In 1980, Issa, then 27 years old, and his brother William, 29, were again arrested and this time indicted on felony auto theft charges. William Issa, using his brother's second driver's license, sold younger Darrell's cherry red Mercedes to a dealer for $16,000.00. Three hours after William received and cashed the check, Darrell reported the car stolen. The police also charged Darrell because his answers to questions were inconsistent. Why did he have two driver's licenses? Initially, Issa denied having two driver's licenses, but then changed his story. Simple, responded Issa. He did not like the way his picture came out in the first one. As to whether Darrell knew the identity of the man pictured in the composite drawing of the suspect (his brother), Issa stated he did not know who the man was, but would like to send the picture to his mother to see if she knew who it was. According to detectives, the composite was so detailed that it was clearly a composite of William. That answer and answers to other questions created so much doubt in the minds of the police officers involved, they arrested and charged both brothers, even though Darrell reportedly offered to pay the auto dealer more than the $16,000.00 that William was paid.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Darrell-Issa...ats-Issas-Past

    Suspicious Fire and the Weapons Charges!

    In 1982, Issa was suspected, but never charged in a suspicious fire that burned his Ohio manufacturing plant. Although there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Issa, the police suspected he was behind the fire based on two facts. Just a few weeks prior to the fire, Issa increased the fire insurance coverage to quadruple the original amount and according to the company bookkeeper, Karen Brasdovich, a few days before the fire, records and a company computer were removed from the plant, which was completely out of character for Issa. Charges were not filed due to lack of evidence, but the suspicions remain.

    Issa was arrested twice for weapons charges, once in Ohio and once in Michigan. While Issa was
    in Ohio, he was given the job of firing a high level executive, Jack Frantz. Frantz recalls that Issa came into his office carrying a box. Issa opened the box and showed Frantz the gun. Frantz knew
    he was being fired and felt that was Issa's method of intimidating him. Frantz relayed the story to
    the Los Angeles Times and in response, Issa told the reporter, "No shots were ever fired." He further stated that he doesn't even remember whether he had a gun that day. The bookkeeper backed up Frantz's story, telling the LA Times that day was frightening. In the Michigan case, Issa received probation and paid a fine.

    http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201006010007

    Issa Becomes A Multi-Millionaire Selling Car Alarms! Isn't It Ironic?

    Darrell Issa made his millions by developing and selling car alarms, including the top-selling Viper. Issa's own voice was used for the Viper, which would say things like, "Step away from the car." He has stated that he started the company because his brother was a prolific car thief.
    The company, Directed Electronics, is responsible for Issa's listed worth of $303 million dollars (reported by CNBC in November of 2010). He was listed in 2009 as the second wealthiest member of Congress, with only John Kerry being worth more money. In November of 2010, CNBC reported that Darrell Issa is the richest member of Congress, surpassing John Kerry.

    Issa Just A Kid When He Was In Trouble!

    Whenever Congressman Issa is pressed by reporters to explain past arrests and scandals, he has almost always bristled and brushed off the questions. He has repeatedly stated that he was "just a kid" or that it "was my brother." He additionally states that these things happened so long ago that he really doesn't remember the details.

    In 1980, when Issa was indicted for felony auto theft, he was 27 years old. In 1982, when he was under suspicion for the arson fire, he was 29 years old. Just a kid? Too long ago to remember?
    Issa's motivations for making his most recent threats of non-stop subpoenas are unknown. When he attacked Gray Davis, he wanted the Governorship of California to be his prize. Many stated at the time that Issa had a longer history of arrests than of service to the state of California. Outside the state of California, Issa is a relative nobody. Clearly, he will be making a national name for himself in his soon to be position of power. If he conducts seven hearings a week as promised, his name should make almost every daily news cycle. What reward will Issa expect this time? If his efforts go unrewarded over the next two years, will there be a national update to his infamous California crying scene? California is holding its collective breath, waiting to see the latest chapter of the Issa saga!

    ____________________________

    The wealthiest member of congress. He wants to investigate EVERYTHING. Maybe he should start with...HIMSELF! Repuke hypocrite! Soooo easy to find these examples. Let the excuses begin!

    1/31 UPDATE: See additional article about this jerk on page three of this thread.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-31-2011 at 03:54 PM.

  2. #12
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    We'll see if he ends up like these two fine public servants lol.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-02/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

    or maybe like this fine democrat

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-02/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

    Or how about this puke

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/john-edwar...ory?id=9620812

    And let's not forget what "is" "is"!!!

    I'll leave you with this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 01-08-2011 at 10:06 AM.

  3. #13
    Atypical is offline

    This Is Who They Are - The Definition Of Puke

    Tucson Tea Party Founder Blames Giffords For Getting Shot: The Real Case Is That She Had No Security

    In March 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) warned that the rhetoric from the tea parties and Sarah Palin was potentially dangerous. I can say that in the years that some of my colleagues have served 20, 30 years theyve never seen it like thiswhen people do that, theyve gotta realize theres consequences to that action, she said on MSNBC. Tuscon Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries called Giffords previous concerns about violent rhetoric political gamesmenship, claiming that if Giffords was so concerned, then she is to blame for Saturdays shootings because she had no security whatsoever:

    Its political gamesmanship. The real case is that she [Giffords] had no security whatsoever at this event. So if she lived under a constant fear of being targeted, if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public with no security whatsoever? he said. For all the stuff they accuse her [Palin] of, that gun poster has not done a tenth of the damage to the political discourse as what were hearing right now.

    Humphries also told the Guardian that Saturdays shootings in Tuscon are evolving into a conspiracy to destroy his organisation and silence criticism of the government. Watch excerpts of interview here:

    http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...rity%E2%80%99/

    Incidentally, the same Tea Party rhetoric Humphries is so quick to defend is keeping him from attending the memorial service with President Obama tonight. Humphries told TPM that he received an anonymous phone call saying, were going to stand against you and were going to use our First and Second Amendment rights to stop you will keep him out of public view for a while.

    (If it's true - being a victim is one of their main tactics. Atypical)

  4. #14
    Atypical is offline

    Religion Rears Its Ugly Repuke Head Again!

    New Alabama Governor: Only Christians Are My Brothers And Sisters
    by Eric Lach - TPM

    Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the very church where Dr. King once pastored, new Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley gave a speech in which he said that those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior are not his "brothers."

    Bentley spoke at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery just minutes after taking the oath of office on Monday. The new governor, who has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, first said that though he ran as a Republican, once he took office he "became
    the governor of all the people."

    "I am color blind," Bentley said, according to The Birmingham News.

    But Bentley then said that only those who are Christians and "saved" like he is are his brothers and sisters.

    "There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

    Bentley stopped just short of calling for non-Christians to accept Jesus Christ.

    ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters," he said. "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

    Asked by The Birmingham News afterwords if his words where meant to insult other faiths, Bentley said, ''We're not trying to insult anybody."

    ''He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike," Rebekah Caldwell Mason, Bentley's communications director, told the News.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-19-2011 at 12:16 PM.

  5. #15
    Atypical is offline
    Targeted Ugandan Gay Activist Murdered

    Note: As of Thursday afternoon, the New York Times reports that the local police are already characterizing Kato's murder as a robbery rather than a hate crime, while Don Schmierer, one of the American evangelicals who toured Uganda in 2009 is quoted as saying “Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that." He also complains of feeling "bludgeoned."

    It worked. Last fall a Ugandan tabloid splashed the headline “100 Pictures of Uganda’s Top Homos” next to his picture, and called for the murder of all Ugandan queers. Yesterday David Kato was found beaten to death in his home in Mukono, Kampala.

    The press statement from Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), where Kato, one of his country’s best-known human rights activists, worked as an advocacy officer, noted that “David’s death comes directly after the Supreme Court of Uganda ruled that people must stop inciting violence against homosexuals and must respect the right to privacy and human dignity” in response to Kato’s suit against the tabloid earlier this month. Which just goes to show that people who bludgeon gay men to death don’t spend a **** of a lot of time pondering the law.

    They may not even read tabloids. But it’s almost certain that they pick up on the steady beat of state sanctioned full-on hatred for LGBT people that pervades Ugandan culture, where Kato was a leading voice against the country’s notorious “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” also known as the "Kill the Gays" bill. As Nation Institute Fellow Jeff Sharlet notes, the bill’s provisions include “up to three years in prison for failing to report a homosexual; seven years for ‘promotion’; life imprisonment for a single homosexual act; and for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ (which includes gay sex while HIV-positive, gay sex with a disabled person, or, if you’re a recidivist, gay sex with anyone—marking the criminal as a ‘serial offender’), death.”

    It was introduced in 2009 by a member of parliament named David Bahati, whom Sharlet identifies as a “rising star” in the powerful American evangelical movement known as The Family. And it was written, and heavily promoted, with the help of three American evangelicals who toured Uganda in March of that year. These self-described “experts,” goaded packed houses of Ugandans to persecute LGBT people by feeding them the usual garbage—no longer quite so salable in the United States—about LGBT people undermining family values, along with the usual claims about gay men preying on teenage boys.

    In short, while only one person is likely to be held responsible for Kato’s murder—and only then if we are very, very, very lucky, given the foul history between Uganda’s police and its LGBT community—there’s a long line of people who helped create a climate where the act could be considered a blow for the common good. As Val Kalende, the board chair at Freedom and Roam Uganda, said: “David’s death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by US Evangelicals in 2009. The Ugandan Government and the so-called US Evangelicals must take responsibility for David’s blood!”

    Don’t hold your breath.

    http://www.elabs10.com/c.html?rtr=on...3m76,j980,gjd0

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/wo...uganda.html?hp

    __________________________________________________ _____________

    This murder occurred because of the anti-gay hate that American evangelicals created in that country. Same as the hate generated here against the government, liberals, et al. This is what conservatives do, especially the "religious" ones, who hide behind their phony piousness.

    It is not an exaggeration to say these people are vicious and dangerous. Hate is their favorite emotion.

    Read it for yourself.

    Jeff Sharlet's The Family and his new book, C Street., The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy.

    Additional reliable sources on this subject available upon request.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-29-2011 at 01:59 PM.

  6. #16
    Havakasha is offline
    Thanks for posting all these articles Atypical. Very powerful stuff. Too bad more don't respond to it.

  7. #17
    Atypical is offline
    The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

    Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding. By Nick Baumann

    Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

    For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act [1],"a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

    With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

    Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions [2], that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

    There used to be a quasi-truce between the pro- and anti-choice forces on the issue of federal funding for abortion. Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used. The Smith bill represents a frontal attack on these long-standing exceptions.

    "This bill takes us back to a time when just saying 'no' wasn't enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women's Law Center. Laurie Levenson, a former assistant US attorney and expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, notes that the new bill's authors are "using language that's not particularly clear, and some people are going to lose protection." Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

    As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

    The bill hasn't been carefully constructed, Levenson notes. The term "forcible rape" is not defined in the federal criminal code [3], and the bill's authors don't offer their own definition. In some states, there is no legal definition of "forcible rape," making it unclear whether any abortions would be covered by the rape exemption in those jurisdictions.

    The main abortion-rights groups despise the Smith bill as a whole [4], but they are particularly outraged by its rape provisions. Tait Sye, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the proposed changes "unacceptable." Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that making the "already narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive" is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."

    "This bill goes far beyond current law," says Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus. The "re-definition" of the rape exception "is only one element" of an "extreme" bill, she adds, citing other provisions in the law that pro-abortion rights groups believe would lead to the end of private health insurance coverage for abortion [2].

    "Somebody needs to look closely at this," Levenson says. "This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn't want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law."

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...-rape-abortion

    __________________________________________________ __________

    This evil crap is from the party of 'government should stay out of our lives'; the party of compassionate conservatism; the party of smaller government; the party of 'the people'.
    ________________________________________
    UPDATE: 2/4/11

    Recognizing their incendiary error, House GOP lawmakers removed the term "forcible rape" from the anti-abortion No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Chief sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) decided to change the term because it was being "misconstrued" and now the bill -- which would permanently bar federal funds for abortions -- will allow exceptions in all rape cases. (Thinkprogress.org)
    ________________________

    No, the term was not being "misconstrued". Your party are a-holes and this is the 700,600,214 example of it.
    Last edited by Atypical; 02-04-2011 at 01:37 PM.

  8. #18
    Atypical is offline

    Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare

    At least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of the real world.

    January 29, 2011

    Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.

    Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

    As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”

    Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”

    “Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”

    Journalist Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:

    [She] called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

    Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

    Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.

    “She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.

    The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”

    Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It's true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand's fellow travelers remained true to their principles.

    Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.

    Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.

    But at least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of the real world – one in which people get sick, and old, and many who are perfectly decent and hardworking don't end up being independently wealthy.

    The degree to which Ayn Rand has become a touchstone for the modern conservative movement is striking. She was a sexual libertine, and, according to writer Mark Ames, she modeled her heroic characters on one of the most despicable sociopaths of her time. Ames’ conclusion is important for understanding today’s political economy. “Whenever you hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between ‘producers’ and ‘collectivism,’” he wrote, “just know that those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie....And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—and bragging about how they are slashing these programs for ‘moral’ reasons, just remember Rand’s morality and who inspired her.”

    Now we know that Rand was also just as hypocritical as the Tea Party freshman who railed against “government health care” to get elected and then whined that he had to wait a month before getting his own Cadillac plan courtesy of the taxpayers.

    But, as I note in my book, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy, that's par for the course. A central rule of the U.S. political economy is that people are attracted to the idea of “limited government” in the abstract—and certainly don’t want the government intruding in their homes—but they really, really like living in a society with adequately funded public services.

    That's just as true for an icon of modern conservatism as it is for a poor mother getting public health care for her kids.

    __________________________________________________ ____________

    If you know where some of these major theories come from, like libertarianism, if you know who the people were and why they thought the way they did, well, sometimes you would see how stupid or at least baseless these theories are.
    Last edited by Atypical; 01-31-2011 at 01:30 PM.

  9. #19
    Atypical is offline

    Tea Partier Who Ran on Tax Revolt Line Causes Massive Local Budget Crisis; Situation

    a "Black Eye for the Tea Party"

    In 2009, Republican Edward Mangano was one of the first politicians to channel the Tea Party’s anti-tax fervor into a political victory when he knocked off Democrat Tom Suozzi for Nassau County Executive in New York State. Suozzi was a major political figure with ambitions for statewide office, and Magnano was a local legislator “given little chance of winning leading up to Election Day.”

    Upon taking office, Mangano — who ran on both the Republican and Tax Revolt Party lines — made good on a key campaign promise. On his inauguration day, Mangano signed a repeal of an unpopular home energy tax, instituted by Suozzi. The tax was implemented two years before as part of a deferred-pay deal Suozzi brokered with public worker unions, which was intended to spread around the sacrifice to deal with the county’s budget problems.

    In a special report, Reuters details how the repeal of that tax lead to a budgetary crisis and ultimately a takeover of the county’s finances by a state-appointed fiscal overseer. Noting that Mangano’s actions are “a black eye for the Tea Party,” the report explains how the Tea Party county executive had no plans for how to replace the lost tax revenue:

    The home energy tax cost households on average $7.27 each month — a fraction of most tax bills. But in an area already paying some of the highest taxes in the country, it took on symbolic importance. [...]

    [Mangano's] struggle began almost the minute he repealed the energy tax. “I’m not sure that (Mangano) understood the magnitude of the fiscal problems that he faced and he had promises from the campaign that he had to keep,” said Lawrence Levy, a dean at Hofstra University and a former member of the editorial board at Long Island daily Newsday. Eliminating the energy tax “blew a bigger hole in his budget and added to the problem with really no plan to replace the revenue,” he said.

    Within two working days of Mangano’s inauguration, a letter from [the Nassau County Interim Financial Authority] landed on his desk — the opening salvo of what would fast become a testy relationship. In a two-page letter, NIFA’s chairman Ronald Stack requested a revised multi-year plan and asked Mangano how he planned to make up for the lost revenue.

    He never did provide an answer that satisfied them. On Wednesday, NIFA said the county’s $2.6 billion budget was out of balance by $176 million, meaning it could take control of its finances. Mangano said he would sue NIFA….In November, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the county and put its finances on outlook negative, citing weak liquidity and an over-reliance on nonrecurring revenues. The rating agency singled out the energy tax repeal as problematic.

    A June 2010 study found that 65 percent of counties in the United States are suffering from large budget shortfalls. Reuters quotes Richard Ravitch, who advised New York City during its fiscal crisis in the 1970s, about the situation in Nassau: “It’s a metaphor for what is happening in the Western world,” he said. “People don’t want to tax but there is a point below which they don’t want to cut.”

    If politicians like Mangano continue to demagogue against reasonable tax measures, many communities may reach that point and beyond. Last year, for example, the “tax-averse” city of Colorado Springs, CO shut off one third of its streetlights and laid off large numbers of public workers, including police and firefighters, after voters continually rejected tax increases.

    By George Zornick | Sourced from ThinkProgress

    _________________________________________________

    This person (Mangano), and I use that term hesitantly, is the stereotypical definition of a rigid ideologue. Act first - think later - if at all. A real puke.

  10. #20
    Atypical is offline

    Bachmann Eyes Cuts To Veterans Health Benefits

    WASHINGTON – Tea party hero Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) this week proposed a blueprint to eliminate $400 billion from the federal budget, which included billions in cuts to veterans' health care and disability benefits.

    Her plan would freeze health care funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and slash $4.5 billion in disability benefits to military veterans.

    Bachmann posted the document on her official Web site, calling the spending cuts "real and necessary" to avoid increasing the debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion. She supports the United States wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Oh hell no! In the middle of 2 wars?" remarked Paul Rieckhoff, a veterans advocate who served during the Iraq war, in a Twitter post echoed by dozens.

    The Minnesota Republican's plan seeks to "[c]ap increases in Department of Veterans Affairs health care spending, and reduce disability compensation to account for SS disability payments. Reduce Veterans’ Disability Compensation to account for Social Security Disability Insurance payments."

    The US federal deficit is poised to hit $1.5 trillion in 2011, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected this week, and while Congress debates ways to cut spending, veterans' benefits have not yet been targeted.

    "It is really astonishing to see this," Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, told the Army Times, noting that VA expenses have risen in recent years with thousands of US troops in need of medical attention.

    Bachmann has garnered something of a cult following among tea partyers across the nation, and recently elevated her profile by offering her own "tea party" response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday.

    By Sahil Kapur
    Raw Story
    __________________________________________________

    The rethuglican party is riddled with idiots like this. It must be a requirement to get in.
    Why would anyone respect, listen to or vote for someone who says these things.

    __________________________________________________ _
    Update: 2/4/11

    Bachmann backs off plan to cut veterans benefits.

    Last month, Michele Bachmann proposed cutting $4.5 billion in veterans benefits as part of her austerity plan. But look now that VFW is fighting back, suddenly her teahadist courage has disappeared!

    “One point on my discussion list was a $4.5 billion proposal that would affect payments made to our veterans,” Bachmann said in a statement. “That has received a lot of attention and I have decided that it should be removed from consideration."

    So much for fearlessly cutting where no representative had dared to cut before, eh? Unfortunately, instead of learning that government actually does provide valuable services to the public, the lesson that Bachmann will actually take away from this is that she she should focus her budget axe on the least powerful and most vulnerable people. In other words, she's going to go after people she doesn't think matter to her constituency. And that's not courageous. In fact, it's cowardly.

    http://jed-lewison.dailykos.com/

    __________________________________________________
    So, let me get this straight. Say something vicious, stupid and anti-human (no empathy - no sympathy - no understanding of reality) and then retract it when everyone else sees it as disguting.

    Okay, I got it. Repukes are all disgusting.
    Last edited by Atypical; 02-04-2011 at 08:56 PM.

Page 2 of 25 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •