OMG if Obama or Hilary were still in Office OMG but theres no partisan slant here

If anyone else was president, they wouldn't get attacked for making condolence calls to gold star families. When Trump says "he knew what he was signing up for", OBVIOUSLY he means that the guy knew it was dangerous, but did it anyway, in a selfless act of service. It's a compliment. But the sick-in-the-head lunatics, are claiming that Trump meant that in a derogatory sense? Something like "he knew the risks, so don't complain to me that he died?" kind of a thing?

This congresswoman Wilson, is a real piece of work. She's equal parts crazy, hate-filled, and stupid. She makes Maxine Waters look like Margaret Thatcher, and that's really saying something. Her, Deb Wasserman Schultz, and Alan Greyson...they really know how to elect Democrats in Florida, boy...

If Trump passes tax reform leading up to the midterms, and people see that it's putting more money in their pockets, the left will go bonkers. Absolutely bonkers, anything to avoid making it seem like Trump actually accomplished something.

If anyone else was president, they wouldn't get attacked for making condolence calls to gold star families. When Trump says "he knew what he was signing up for", OBVIOUSLY he means that the guy knew it was dangerous, but did it anyway, in a selfless act of service. It's a compliment. But the sick-in-the-head lunatics, are claiming that Trump meant that in a derogatory sense? Something like "he knew the risks, so don't complain to me that he died?" kind of a thing?He couldn't even remember the soldiers name. If it was Pres. Obama, you would be calling him a POS.

This congresswoman Wilson, is a real piece of work. She's equal parts crazy, hate-filledShe hasn't called anyone a POS like you have., and stupid.Taking a play right out of Trumpville - attack the messenger. She makes Maxine Waters look like Margaret Thatcher, and that's really saying something. Her, Deb Wasserman Schultz, and Alan Greyson...they really know how to elect Democrats in Florida, boy...

General Kelly lied about what she said (and why would he even need to bring that speach up as it had nothing to do with the soldier). Don't anyone hold their breath for an apology.

Was this the "have you no decency" moment?

General Kelly lied about what she said (and why would he even need to bring that speach up as it had nothing to do with the soldier). Don't anyone hold their breath for an apology.

Was this the "have you no decency" moment?

As for not remembering the soldier's name...if that happened (and we don't know if it did, do we?), that doesn't surprise me at all with Trump. He, of all presidents, should probably not be making these calls, he's too prone to being offensive.

But Paul, a lot of hay is being made about Trump's saying "he knew what he signed up for". He meant that as a compliment for Christ's sake. But they can't treat Trump fairly, it's not possible.

I'd be critical of Obama for mis-remembering a name. And I'm critical of Trump for it.

"She hasn't called anyone a POS like you have". No, but she called Kelly a racist. For an expression (empty barrels make the most noise) that she was too stupid to comprehend.

"attack the messenger" - this particular messenger deserves attacking. She took a compliment that Trump paid the man, and used it as a club against him for political reasons. Wilson is lower than dogsh*t. Trump tried to pay a condolence call, that's all he did. His chief of staff advsed him not to make these calls, but he feels obligated to do so. That's not a character flaw. Trump has a lot of flaws. This isn't one of them. Wilson is exploiting the widow's agony to attack Trump.

"General Kelly lied about what she said". He was wrong about what she said. Lying involves intent. You can read his mind? She made a self-congratulatory statement at a building dedicated to slain FDBI agents. He thought she bragged about getting funding, when in fact she bragged about naming the building. But he absolutely deserves criticism for getting it wrong. And Wilson absolutely belongs in a nuthouse.

OMG if Obama or Hilary were still in Office OMG but theres no partisan slant here



61 million Americans (me included) don’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about what you think 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

61 million Americans (me included) don’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about what you think 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just fell outta my chair......

61 million Americans (me included) don’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about what you think ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


and 65,844,954 million me included are shaking our heads seems you all didn't think at all :kewl:

If Trump passes tax reform leading up to the midterms, and people see that it's putting more money in their pockets, the left will go bonkers. Absolutely bonkers, anything to avoid making it seem like Trump actually accomplished something.

do you really think its going in your pocket do you qualify to be taxed under the death Tax ? NOPE nor do 99% of those who voted for him but they dont care

If anyone else was president, they wouldn't get attacked for making condolence calls to gold star families. When Trump says "he knew what he was signing up for", OBVIOUSLY he means that the guy knew it was dangerous, but did it anyway, in a selfless act of service. It's a compliment. But the sick-in-the-head lunatics, are claiming that Trump meant that in a derogatory sense? Something like "he knew the risks, so don't complain to me that he died?" kind of a thing?

This congresswoman Wilson, is a real piece of work. She's equal parts crazy, hate-filled, and stupid. She makes Maxine Waters look like Margaret Thatcher, and that's really saying something. Her, Deb Wasserman Schultz, and Alan Greyson...they really know how to elect Democrats in Florida, boy...

Trump in no way meant to disrespect that women true .. but your covering for him again its what he did after thats the issue ..

All he had to do was say he was sorry it was taken that way .. but no he has no leadership skill he attacked

1st he bluffs (gets caught ) then he lies (phase 2) gets caught then attacks (phase 3) and Phase 4 all his minions once again tell us what he meant (please note current responses ) (i cant take credit for the phases but their spot on)

and 65,844,954 million me included are shaking our heads seems you all didn't think at all :kewl:



No.
You 65,844,954 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing idiots are in denial that he won and will do anything to obstruct.
Fortunately for you idiots you got most every member of the senate & Congress, Democraps & republican and the POS media working every day to obstruct
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.
You 65,844,954 #^&#^&#^&#^&ing idiots are in denial that he won and will do anything to obstruct.
Fortunately for you idiots you got most every member of the senate & Congress, Democraps & republican and the POS media working every day to obstruct
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you slept the past 8 years if you think what your seeing is obstruction . I guess Trump hasn't done or said anything we've seen on TV it's a stunt double and all fakenews... and we're the idiots :sleeps:

do you really think its going in your pocket do you qualify to be taxed under the death Tax ? NOPE nor do 99% of those who voted for him but they dont care

If he lowers the corporate tax rate, that's good for everyone who works in the private sector. It's not just the death tax. Get some facts.

"Trump in no way meant to disrespect that women true .. but your covering for him again its what he did after thats the issue .."

I am not covering for him. What he did after, was defend himself against dishonest attacks from a moron congresswoman...

"All he had to do was say he was sorry it was taken that way"

True, but he's too thin-skinned to handle it with maturity.

If he lowers the corporate tax rate, that's good for everyone who works in the private sector. It's not just the death tax. Get some facts.

"Trump in no way meant to disrespect that women true .. but your covering for him again its what he did after thats the issue .."

I am not covering for him. What he did after, was defend himself against dishonest attacks from a moron congresswoman...

"All he had to do was say he was sorry it was taken that way"

True, but he's too thin-skinned to handle it with maturity.


Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ... like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

.. and hows he paying for this ?



this always amused me....

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1130462]

True, but he's too thin-skinned to handle it with maturity.

QUOTE]

the impeachment should be great theatre

Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ... like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

One thing obama and trump have in common is thin skin, and the inability to resist striking back at any and all criticism. How many times did obama attack foxnews?

Trump will hopefully pay for the tax cuts the way that bill Clinton did...by stimulating the economy. Bill Clinton cut tax rates. But tax revenue collected, went up. Then bush cut taxes more, and tax revenue collected, went up again.

Tax cuts do not always cost money. They can be stimulative. The issue is, they aren't always stimulative, and it's hard to predict. Here in CT, we increased income tax rates last year, and tax revenue collected, dropped like a rock. Because people were sick of paying taxes.

Tax revenue does not always go up or down with tax rates. If you cut tax rates, yet tax revenue collected goes up, how is that not a good thing??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OMG if Obama or Hilary were still in Office OMG but theres no partisan slant here

There is unfortunate slant everywhere, particularly in the media, college campuses, and other places of great (disproportional?) influence

If Trump passes tax reform leading up to the midterms, and people see that it's putting more money in their pockets, the left will go bonkers. Absolutely bonkers, anything to avoid making it seem like Trump actually accomplished something.

If he doesn't fix the deficit portion he is no better than the EFFING USELESS predecessor(s).

61 million Americans (me included) don’t give a #^&#^&#^&#^& about what you think 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Electoral College Does not Care

and 65,844,954 million me included are shaking our heads seems you all didn't think at all :kewl:

The Electoral College Does not Care

There is unfortunate slant everywhere, particularly in the media, college campuses, and other places of great (disproportional?) influence



If he doesn't fix the deficit portion he is no better than the EFFING USELESS predecessor(s).



The Electoral College Does not Care



The Electoral College Does not Care

"If he doesn't fix the deficit portion he is no better than the EFFING USELESS predecessor(s). "

Very true.

Bush's AIDS relief plan in Africa, is credited with saving over one million lives. A million. I'm damn happy and proud to pay my share of that cost, and I think that alone, makes it tough to say he was useless. He gets almost zero credit for that, because the media and the left, hate his guts.

Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ... like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

We all agree he's a baby and a jerk.

But what do you think of a US congresswoman, acting as if Trumps compliment to the gold star widow, was actually an attack? This incident shows the lengths that the left will go to, to attack Trump. Trump made a condolence call, that's all he did, and this hideous gargoyle of a congresswoman tries to exploit the widows agony, to use against trump. All you see is Trumos flaws? Wilson didn't act horribly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS

I think you're misusing the notion of presidential maturity. Unless you believe that one can be "immature" about how to do something yet still succeed in doing it. In which case the supposed immaturity is hardly relevant.

Trump certainly was "mature" enough in the down and dirty ways politicians are able to get elected. He seems to be "mature" in the ways of media. How to manipulate it to his advantage. How to provoke into foolishness the media adversaries who wish to destroy him. He seems to have had, or have acquired in office, the historical use of a bully pulpit that was used by powerful Presidents of the past.

No doubt that all creates enemies and condemnations. But those exist anyway. How it all shakes out in the end will determine how presidentially "mature" he was.

As far as some supposed personal maturity, he has succeeded in many ways that most folks have not. Like most folks, he probably has some areas of "immaturity."

but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ...

Sounds pretty much how most folks have always felt about their President.

like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy? Why do you support or believe in an all powerful central government bureaucracy, which is bigger than any corporation, trickling money down to the masses?

Trump in no way meant to disrespect that women true ..


Maybe someone should tell "The Whacko Kid" that down in Florida. Because she certainly doesn't comprehend that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe someone should tell "The Whacko Kid" that down in Florida. Because she certainly doesn't comprehend that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh blame the the women ... who took the call... classic .. and ignore everything Trump said after she said she felt disrespected ...

If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy? Why do you support or believe in an all powerful central government bureaucracy, which is bigger than any corporation, trickling money down to the masses?


Just admit it ,,, who every he slights what ever he does and what ever he says it wont matter..your a Trump Lemming (you got what you wanted a stolen justice )

I think you're missing the bigger story. Kelly had to tell him what to say...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh blame the the women ... who took the call... classic .. and ignore everything Trump said after she said she felt disrespected ...

He is blaming the person that even according to you, mis-characterized what Trump said. You said that Trump's words "he knew what he was signing up for", were in no way disrespectful. But that's exactly what this horse's ass of a congresswoman claimed. She lied, about a condolence call to a Gold Star Widow, in order to attack Trump. She is an unbelievable piece of dirt. She happens to be black and a female, which means nothing to anyone who is rational, but she played the race card, you played the sexist card.

The widow gets a pass. And Trump deserves some criticism for the babylike way in which he handled it. But it never would have happened, if not for this wretched, jackass congresswoman.

I think you're missing the bigger story. Kelly had to tell him what to say...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it' snot a good idea to ask a 4-star general who happens to be a Gold Star dad, how to make a condolence call, to a Gold Star family?

Everything Trump does is wrong, If he says "the Earth is round", that makes him Hitler.

Just admit it ,,, who every he slights what ever he does and what ever he says it wont matter..your a Trump Lemming (you got what you wanted a stolen justice )

Just admit it . . . you really don't understand how economies work, you just regurgitate political talking points. And it won't matter if a market based policy results in the things you or your parroted sources say would not happen, it won't matter . . . you're an anti-Trump lemming.

Gosh, that was so easy to say. Thanks for showing me how to do it. I usually respond with long, as you put it, "verbal gymnastics" with various historical or philosophical or constitutional arguments ("semantics" according to you).

And what "stolen justice" did I get? Is that verbal gymnastic semantics?

I think you're missing the bigger story. Kelly had to tell him what to say...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kelly probably said something like "These guys know what they can happen and they in a way signed up for this and sadly know this could happen, so here is what I recommend you say to his widow..." followed by something proper and understanding.

And then DJT had flashes of the conversation pop up faster than his filter (hahaha) could process them and the words leapt out of his mouth.

Ahh blame the the women ... who took the call... classic .. and ignore everything Trump said after she said she felt disrespected ...

No, I blamed the woman who USED the call.

You know, the chick in the glitter cowboy hats.....and Trump can't be professional :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ... like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

Since you conveniently avoided answering the question " If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy?", you should absolutely read this entire article by Thomas Sowell regarding the bogus notion of "Trickle Down theory of economics":

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There is no such theory. This fabricated notion of "trickle down" is used in trying to discredit the proven connection between lowering tax rates, including and especially for the wealthy, and the following increase in federal tax revenue. How successful this ruse is in convincing those who don't know the real history, nor how economy and taxation work together, is demonstrated by how you refer to the trickle down theory and confidently state that it doesn't work.

If you're interested in the truth of the matter rather than regurgitating false political talking points, please read the whole article.

Kelly probably said something like "These guys know what they can happen and they in a way signed up for this and sadly know this could happen, so here is what I recommend you say to his widow..." followed by something proper and understanding.

And then DJT had flashes of the conversation pop up faster than his filter (hahaha) could process them and the words leapt out of his mouth.
Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

It may not be necessary, it may not be required, but it seems that Trump has always sought the advice of "experts" to accomplish what he wants to do. Is that a bad thing? You make it sound God-awful.

It may not be necessary, it may not be required, but it seems that Trump has always sought the advice of "experts" to accomplish what he wants to do. Is that a bad thing? You make it sound God-awful.
Another log on the fire.

Another log on the fire.

Why do you guys keep throwing logs in this frenzied fire meant to burn his house down. Not much empathy there. Mean spirited.

Since you conveniently avoided answering the question " If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy?", you should absolutely read this entire article by Thomas Sowell regarding the bogus notion of "Trickle Down theory of economics":

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There is no such theory. This fabricated notion of "trickle down" is used in trying to discredit the proven connection between lowering tax rates, including and especially for the wealthy, and the following increase in federal tax revenue. How successful this ruse is in convincing those who don't know the real history, nor how economy and taxation work together, is demonstrated by how you refer to the trickle down theory and confidently state that it doesn't work.

If you're interested in the truth of the matter rather than regurgitating false political talking points, please read the whole article.

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. In fact, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.

is that a talking point ? no those are the facts... funny how your the only one here that posts the Truth .

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

Hillary would feign shriek "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??"

Income inequality worsened.

after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great so you're saying everyone's income went up



doesn't income have more to do with the motivation and drive of the individual than government policy? and that would be directly affected by opportunity available and a vibrant economy with as much money flowing through it as possible?....the idea with "trickle down" was/is that there was more money moving through the free market economy as opposed to more money controlled and doled out through government agencies and coffers...I don't think there was ever any promise of "Income Equality"....whether the individual takes advantage of that or not is up to them....I guess if you are locked into a job where your pay scale and advancement opportunity is pre-determined it would not matter either way except to complain that others are getting "richer"

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.


Ohh he lies, he is just not anywhere as competent at clearing up the lying as his predecessor and he doesn't have the benefit of the media that generally covered Obama favorably.

Had Obama been a real centrist or a moderate rather than a progressive he could have been great - he was just great to his fans.

When you are a narcissistic sociopath, empathy is non existent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ohh he lies, he is just not anywhere as competent at clearing up the lying as his predecessor and he doesn't have the benefit of the media that generally covered Obama favorably.

Had Obama been a real centrist or a moderate rather than a progressive he could have been great - he was just great to his fans.
What did Obama ever lie about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary would feign shriek "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??"
Sexist.

doesn't income have more to do with the motivation and drive of the individual than government policy? and that would be directly affected by opportunity available and a vibrant economy with as much money flowing through it as possible?....the idea with "trickle down" was/is that there was more money moving through the free market economy as opposed to more money controlled and doled out through government agencies and coffers...I don't think there was ever any promise of "Income Equality"....whether the individual takes advantage of that or not is up to them....I guess if you are locked into a job where your pay scale and advancement opportunity is pre-determined it would not matter either way except to complain that others are getting "richer"
What a crock.

What did Obama ever lie about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



“If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it”
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”
Benghazi was result of a video (it was a planned attack by local forces )
Calling ISIS the JV team and then saying he didn't
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future.”
“I’m proud of the fact that with two weeks to go, we’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”
That the Obama Administration will be the most Transparent, ever.
He certainly lied on Hillary's email server - he knew.
And of course this winner: Hillary is most qualified presidential candidate in history

What did Obama ever lie about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Easier to list what he did NOT lie about!


He certainly did not try to tell the truth about the IRS targeting conservatives. If you need links to timeline of his lies and cover ups, just search, it's all there on the internet.

from 2015

On The Daily Show, President Obama blamed Republicans for the IRS scandal:

“You’ve got this back office, and they’re going after the Tea Party. Well, it turned out, no, Congress had passed a crummy law that didn’t give people guidance in terms of what it was they were trying to do. They did it poorly and stupidly. The truth of the matter is that there was not some big conspiracy there. They were trying to sort out these conflicting demands. You don’t want all this money pouring through non-for- profits, but you also want to make sure everybody is being treated fairly.”

Really, Mr. President? For effect, perhaps he should reprise his testy “not even a smidgen of corruption” remark to Fox News. The President keeps claiming there is no evidence the IRS was used for political targeting. You be the judge:



And now the IRS is apologizing when they should be prosecuted not apologizing.


Do you want to get into the Russian collusion beginning with uranium?

you asked


Let's ALL make America great again

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

The approach that served Trump well in business (be bold, and if necessary, a jerk) doesn't always carry over well into every human endeavor.

"It just requires a little empathy"

For Gods sake man, Trump has a 4-star general who is a gold star father, as his right hand man. How on earth is it a character flaw, for Trump to seek his guidance, to make sure he is using the best words possible, when speaking to people who are grieving?

When you are a narcissistic sociopath, empathy is non existent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Narcissist, yes.

Sociopath? Come on. There are plenty of stories of his generosity. That doesn't come close to making him a good guy, he's not a sociopath.

He certainly did not try to tell the truth about the IRS targeting conservatives. If you need links to timeline of his lies and cover ups, just search, it's all there on the internet.
The IRS wasn't targeting conservatives.

For Gods sake man, Trump has a 4-star general who is a gold star father, as his right hand man. How on earth is it a character flaw, for Trump to seek his guidance, to make sure he is using the best words possible, when speaking to people who are grieving?
I thought Trump had spoken with nearly every family of those killed on duty? And now he needs coaching??? Doesn't make any sense. Oh wait, sure it does...it's called yet ANOTHER cover up story.

“If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it”
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.”
Benghazi was result of a video (it was a planned attack by local forces )
Calling ISIS the JV team and then saying he didn't
“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, now or in the future.”
“I’m proud of the fact that with two weeks to go, we’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House.”
That the Obama Administration will be the most Transparent, ever.
He certainly lied on Hillary's email server - he knew.
And of course this winner: Hillary is most qualified presidential candidate in history

None of those are lies.

WDMSO--from your article:
Definition: Trickle-down economics is a theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are usually tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners capital gains and dividends.


It is not an actual economic theory. Sowell, if you read the article I posted, said "No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories, Including J. A. Schumpeter's monumental 1260 page History of Economic Analysis. Yet this non-existent theory has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena. It has been attacked by Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton, and Professor Peter Corning of Stanford, among others, and similar attacks have been repeated as far away as India. It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made."

Further from your article:
Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers and company owners are the real drivers of growth (they are real drivers, not the only drivers). It assumes they’ll use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand businesses. Investors will buy more companies or stocks. Banks will increase business lending. Owners will invest in their operations and hire workers. The theory says these workers will spend their wages, driving demand and economic growth.

This caricature, not theory, oversimplifies what is assumed. The reason tax RATES were originally lowered under Coolidge was because the rates were so high that it was more profitable for investors and businesses to put money into tax shelters. The assumption was that lowering tax rates would encourage the money holders to return to making profit by spending on those things that grow business rather than sheltering the money for dividends and tax evasion. When such tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush were made, less money was put into tax shelters and was spent on business growth, and the economy did expand and the federal government actually received greater tax income. Saying that the results might have been because of other factors, therefor merely coincidental, is not convincing when the result occurred every time the tax rates were lowered.


Further from your article:
Trickle-down economic theory is similar to supply-side economics. That theory states that all tax cuts, whether for businesses or workers, spur economic growth. Trickle-down theory is more specific. It says targeted tax cuts work better than general ones.

Wait . . . I thought that "targeted tax cuts" are what Progressive economists like. Oh, that's right, they are the true believers in trickle down, government trickle down economics--from government to the masses.


Further from your article:
It [trickle down] advocates cuts to corporations, capital gains and savings taxes. It doesn't promote across-the-board tax cuts. Instead, the tax cuts go to the wealthy.

But Trump's, and Bush's, and Reagan's tax cuts were across-the-board cuts. So they must not be considered trickle down. Your article is very confusing.


Further from your article:
Did It Work?
During the Reagan Administration, it seemed like trickle-down economics worked.

But it wasn't trickle down. It was across-the-board tax cuts.

His policies, known as Reaganomics, helped end the 1980 recession.

Trickle-down economics was not the only (Oh, "not the only"--so it was part of the equation?) reason for the recovery, though. Reagan also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year.
That almost tripled the federal debt. It grew from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989. Most of the new spending went to defense. It supported Reagan's successful efforts to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union. Trickle-down economics, in its pure form, was never tested. (Because there is no such theory of economics. It doesn't exist.) It's just as likely that massive government spending ended the recession.

Every time the rates were lowered, economy was spurred. But not every time massive government spending occurred (without tax cuts) did the economy respond--at best it remained stagnant as in Obama. Or worse as in Franklin Roosevelt. So why is it just as likely that massive government spending ended the recession? What historical evidence is there for such a "just as likely" scenario?

Further from your article:
President George W. Bush used trickle-down theory to address the 2001 recession. He cut income taxes with EGTRRA. That ended the recession by November of that year.
But unemployment rose to 6 percent. That often occurs, because unemployment is a lagging indicator.

It takes time for companies to start hiring again, even after a recession has ended. Nevertheless, Bush cut business taxes with JGTRRA in 2003.
It appeared that the tax cuts worked. But, at the same time, the Federal Reserve lowered the fed funds rate. It fell from 6 percent to 1 percent. It's unclear . . .

If it's unclear, what is the argument against tax cuts? And your author admits that the initial Bush tax cuts ended the recession by November, and that the rise to 6% unemployment was the result of the past recession--it was a lagging indicator.


. . . whether tax cuts or another monetary policy caused the recovery.

If the other monetary policy is low fed rates, then why did the economy resist recovering under Obama's several years of extremely low Federal Reserve rates? Again, where is the empirical, historical evidence that low fed rates are the cause of economic recovery?

Further from your article:
Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. (it did.) In fact, the opposite occurred. (No, all income levels were helped. And, oh, BTW, it was not, by the author's own definition, not Trickle-down, it was across-the-board.) Income inequality worsened. (worsened is a value judgment. If all are financially improved, but some more than others, that is not an inherently bad or "worse" thing. And to expect that there should be a dollar for dollar equivalency in gains between different scales of income is ridiculous. What the difference should be may be debatable, but if all are actually better off is not debatable, it is a fact.) Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great (It was great.) until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.

So if it took a lowering of the tax rate to achieve 80 percent or more income at the top in order to get a 6 percent increase at the bottom, it would be better just to stay in recession? And how much of that greater income gain at the top made it possible or favorable for the top to spend and invest in ways that spurred the economy thus make it feasible to rise out of recession and aid the bottom to get their 6 percent. If the bottom got their tax rate lowered, and the top did not get a low enough tax rate to invest in spending rather than hiding money in tax shelters, would the economy have improved or would it have remained stagnant thus depriving the bottom of the chance to gain a six percent rise in income or greater chance of employment?

Despite its shortcomings, Republicans use trickle-down economic theory to guide policy. In 2017, Republican President Donald Trump proposed cutting taxes for the wealthy. (He is proposing an across-the-board cut in taxes--which by your author's definition, is not "Trickle down.") He also wants to end taxes on capital gains and dividends for everyone making less than $50,000 a year. (That's another tax reduction at the bottom end of wage earners.) Trump's tax plan would reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent. That's been upped to 25 percent) He said it would boost growth enough to make up for the debt increase.

Nothing in your article, nor in historical evidence, says that he is wrong. Generally, debt increases because of spending. Cutting taxes has historically led to (or consistently "coincided" with) increased federal tax revenue. Your article doesn't dispute that. So, if the federal government gets more revenue, how does that increase the debt? It will increase only if spending increases beyond the ability to pay for the spending.

Your article finishes with:
In 2010, the Tea Party movement rode into power during the midterm elections. They wanted to cut government spending and taxes. As a result, Congress extended the Bush tax cuts, even for those making $250,000 or more.

Sowell's article ends with:
"Even when empirical evidence substantiates the arguments made for cuts in tax rates, such facts are not treated as evidence relevant to testing a disputed hypothesis, but as isolated curiosities. Thus, when tax revenues rose in the wake of the tax rate cuts made during the George W. Bush administration, the New York Times reported: 'An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.' Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder. However surprising the increases in tax revenues may have been to the New York Times, they are exactly what proponents of reducing high tax rates have been expecting, not only from these particular tax rate cuts, but from similar reductions in high tax rates at various times going back more than three-quarters of a century. To the extent that the American economy has changed since the time of Andrew Mellon, it has changed in ways that make it even easier for wealthy investors to escape high tax rates. A globalized economy makes overseas investments a readily available alternative to buying taxexempt bonds domestically. Even if the domestic tax rate is not 'high' by historic standards, what matters now is whether it is high compared to tax rates in other countries to which large sums of money can be readily sent electronically. Meanwhile, unemployed workers cannot nearly so readily relocate to other countries to take the jobs created there by American investments fleeing higher tax rates at home."

I'll wrap up this long reply to you by saying that your article does not address what Sowell says. Your article deflects from the true nature of reduced tax rates into some mythic theory of "Trickle down economics." Reduced tax rates encourage and enable needed money to stay at home rather than going abroad. Reduced tax rates are not based on the assumption that people will react as your author says. Rather, they are based on where, historically, money goes when rates are too high. They are based on evidence, not assumption.

From your response, it sounds as if you didn't read Sowell's article, or if you did, you do not understand it. More's the pity.

The IRS wasn't targeting conservatives.


Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
The Tea Party are conservatives and they were certainly targeted by the IRS on orders
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
The Tea Party are conservatives and they were certainly targeted by the IRS on orders
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hahahahahaha nope.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The IRS wasn't targeting conservatives.

Funny, the DOJ concluded otherwise, and settled lawsuits with conservative groups who were victimized. If Obama said the earth was flat, would you believe it?

I thought Trump had spoken with nearly every family of those killed on duty? And now he needs coaching??? Doesn't make any sense. Oh wait, sure it does...it's called yet ANOTHER cover up story.

Do you wear your tinfoil hat to bed at night?

None of those are lies.

He sure was wrong a lot, about some big things. Possibly not lies, but a lot of yuuge mistakes.

How about when he said the McCain campaign was going to make people afraid that Obama was black?

None of those are lies.

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is what is known, as backing someone into a corner, from which there is literally no escape.

love all the defection But but Hillary or But but Obama . rather than answers the issues at hand and the behavior

What abut the GOP and SALT in their tax cut

The deduction reduces income taxes for millions of families across the country. Nationwide, almost 30 percent of taxpayers benefit — and at least 17 percent of households in every state benefit. The Republican tax plan would eliminate the deduction, which disproportionately benefits the upper middle class, largely to help pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy.

or attacks on 401K's

All theses things may or may not happen the issue is that that are even talking about it which clears shows me they dont care about the avg Joe or the Middle class and many here have been blinded by their BS and once again support a plan and party and POTUS that goes against their own self interest

ignore comments from Republicans against Trump and excuse them away

Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified. Jeff flake

"Helping inspire divisions because it generates support from your political base is not a formula for causing our nation to advance, our nation to overcome the many issues we have to deal with right now," Corker said.

Donald Trump hasn’t shown the stability or competency to succeed as president, Corker


Trumps lack of service John McCain

"One aspect of the conflict, by the way, that I will never, ever countenance is that we drafted the lowest income level of America, and the highest income level found a doctor that would say they had a bone spur. That is wrong. That is wrong. If we are going to ask every American to serve, every American should serve."


direction of Trump vision John McCain

“They (europe) would be alarmed by an increasing turn away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism. They would be alarmed by the hardening resentment we see toward immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups, especially Muslims. They would be alarmed by the growing inability, and even unwillingness to separate truth from lies. They would be alarmed that more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as our moral equivalent.”

now these men once pillars of the GOP are seen a Traitors by trumps base and some here towards the Supreme leader Donald Trump these things are all happening closing one eyes and plugging your ears and closing one mouth only shows support for the madness displayed .. dont blame the media or the fake news or liberals just look in the mirror if you want to blame anyone .... and repeat the conservative mantra its all about personal responsibility.. its the Fable of the Snake

One winter a farmer (voter)found a snake (Trump)stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The warmth quickly revived the Snake, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound.

Funny, the DOJ concluded otherwise, and settled lawsuits with conservative groups who were victimized. If Obama said the earth was flat, would you believe it?
They found the IRS acted improperly out of convenience, not political motivation.

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bad info. Things change. Etc...

its the Fable of the Snake

One winter a farmer (voter)found a snake (Trump)stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The warmth quickly revived the Snake, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound.

You do realize that you can make anyone or any group or any ideology the "snake" in your fable. e.g.--Obama, Clinton, illegal immigrants, Muslim refugees, McCain, Democrat Party, Republican Party, Socialism, etc. The "snake" is in the eye of the beholder.

Bad info. Things change. Etc...

Isn't most stupidity the result of bad info?

Isn't most stupidity the result of bad info?
No.

No.

Merriam-Webster Definition of stupid
1
a :slow of mind :obtuse

The speed of mind (whatever that is) does not, in itself, prevent right or wrong, good or bad, decisions or ideas. Given the right (good) info, a slow mind can make a good decision. Or, given wrong info the slow mind, or fast mind, can make a bad decision

b :given to unintelligent decisions or acts :acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

If intelligence is defined as "one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving . . . more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge," it would require good info to gather and retain knowledge that is beneficially useful. An "intelligent" person (Lenin for example) whose knowledge is composed of bad info would necessarily have bad knowledge, which would be considered "stupid" because it would lead to harmful or destructive or useless or "unintelligent" decisions or acts.

c :lacking intelligence or reason :brutish

Don't know how one can lack intelligence other than either your mind being filled with bad info or your brain being functionally, physically deficient (which would be a result of its receptors not receiving sufficient or good info).

2
:dulled in feeling or sensation :torpid still stupid from the sedative

Again, for whatever reason, being physically unable or disabled from receiving signals (info) relating to actual conditions.

3
:marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :senseless a stupid decision

Reason requires information. Bad info leads to bad reasoning.

4
a :lacking interest or point a stupid event

It requires info to create "interest" or "point." No info leads to no interest or point. Ergo, an event about which there is no info, or bad info could be considered a "stupid" event.

b :vexatious, exasperating the stupid car won't start

This is totally a colloquial expression. A car is not actually stupid, it is inanimate. Metaphorically, however, it won't start because it's "brain" (its mechanism) is not receiving the mechanical signals (info) in order to function properly. And the ensuing exasperation of the would be driver results from his immediate inability (lack of knowledge or info) to make the car start. He emotionally blames the car, but eventually settles down and gets help from those who have the proper info to get the car working.

So, yes, bad info which includes lack of info (which is a bad thing) is the cause of most stupidity.

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

Lacking the curiosity to understand something is endemic to somewhere in the highest percentile of the human population. Except for a miniscule minority, most of us lack the curiosity to understand SOME things. That doesn't make us stupid. Just willingly ignorant in those areas which we lack curiosity.

And the "inability to understand" is either a lack of the physical mental capability to function at the normal human level, which is not "stupid" except in the sense that the brain is not able to process information. That is, it is not capable of properly receiving information. In which case only mentally impaired people would, by your definition, be "stupid." That is not how that word is used.

Or, otherwise, in a physically sound brain/body connection, the "inability to understand" would be a result of bad information as described in my "really long response."

I'll stick with Webster's definition over yours.

You do realize that you can make anyone or any group or any ideology the "snake" in your fable. e.g.--Obama, Clinton, illegal immigrants, Muslim refugees, McCain, Democrat Party, Republican Party, Socialism, etc. The "snake" is in the eye of the beholder.


No just Trump in my example .. the eye of the beholder has nothing to do with its the actions of the snake that concern me

you knew what he was when you picked him up...

No just Trump in my example .. the eye of the beholder has nothing to do with its the actions of the snake that concern me

you knew what he was when you picked him up...

It's true that your eye saw your example. That's a tautology. A needless repetition. It's also true that other's eyes could see the opposite example, or the examples I gave. Your example is your opinion. Others would disagree with you, and others would give whatever variation of examples they came up with. They all would be as valid as yours.

You used a "fable" as a metaphor for what you think is reality. A reality that is contingent on future possibility. A reality based on biased opinion. Your thrice removed from reality metaphor is no better or truer in any real sense than other such metaphors.

In short, your little fiction is not worth much.

And yes, I knew something about what he was, as I did about his opponent. When I considered what would be the most important outcome in terms of the impact either candidate would have on our constitutional form of government, the choice was not difficult. There have been several scoundrel Presidents who, in spite of their flaws, did not damage our system of government. There have been some very "intelligent," slick ones who promised various collective groups more money in their pocket, but did harm to our constitutional foundation in order to fulfill their promises. And individuals in the collective groups were happy to get their goodies, not concerned about the change in the nature and power of government.

Using your fable as metaphor for the harmless, even beneficial sounding, snake, brought to life by voters who cared more for their pockets than for a system that guaranteed them freedom, I insert in place of the snake all the Progressive Presidents of the past whose resuscitation by unaware, ignorant, voters brought us to the point where we either elected another one of them who could potentially wrap her Progressive snake body around the Constitution and squeeze the final life out of it (after all, it's a living breathing thing, right?), or elect a reproachable character who might do one of the things left, and necessary, to help reverse the trend. You know, the supposedly "stolen" Justice. Hopefully Trump gets the chance to nominate a few more.

And if expanding your pocketbook a little more is so important to you that you would prefer, in order to get a few more shekels, an unbridled government which can dictate what and how your life is, and spend our way to oblivion in order to hold on to its power, then I don't give a fig about your little, useless fable.

None of those are lies.

Not to a Strategic Messaging guy that can pirouette around a tune - but to most other non-beleivers it was crap.

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think he was pretty smart but he is a politician with a streak of narcissism mixed with bad ideology

They found the IRS acted improperly out of convenience, not political motivation.

The evidence was on Lerner's hard drive :tooth:

They found the IRS acted improperly out of convenience, not political motivation.

"conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/justice-department-agrees-to-pay-tea-party-victims-in-irs-targeting-scandal/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

WASHINGTON — A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013.

The findings by the Treasury Department’s inspector general mark the end of a political firestorm that embroiled the I.R.S. in controversy, led to the ouster of its commissioner and prompted accusations the tax collection agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

The exhaustive report, which examined nine years worth of applications for tax-exempt status, comes after a similar audit in 2013 found that groups with conservative names like “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12” were unfairly targeted for further review.

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint
Maybe, just maybe...there's no conspiracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought you'd like that :)

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim wrote...."conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology"

your article simply confirms that this was happening after years of denial and claims that this was not the case...that some liberal groups were scrutinized should not be news as all applications should have been "scrutinized" through the process....the complaint was that applications were unfairly delayed based on viewpoint/ideology.....based on what has been reported, Lerner and crew were overstepping their bounds...not surprised the NY Times took this angle on the story

“The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determination process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS said in court documents. “For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.”

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

who is whining?...winning?...yes... the IRS/DOJ settled with hundreds of groups...apparently no wrong doing...The DOJ reached an undisclosed monetary settlement with over 400 conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday.

someone should notify Trump that you and the left have no problem with the IRS acting in such a way going forward....he'll have fun with that

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

your article only stated that a few lib keywords were used...there was no mention that or if those groups after being "identified" were subjected to the same harassment that the conservative groups alleged...

they clearly targeted and impeded conservative groups...not sure regarding the lib groups...we'll assume that they(libs) wouldn't mind..OK

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

I thought they were stretched thin because Obamacare was taking all their time and effort

they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political.



why?

BC to be a nonprofit there are certain requirements. Maybe there are different type of nonprofit status' and for the status they were applying required they not engage in political activities.

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

"Low level ees made that decision. " Agreed. But it happened. You seemed to be saying that conservatives were not targeted by the IRS.

"What did Obama have to do w/it "

Nothing. It happened on his watch though. Except these employees, presumably, thought they were doing the just thing. I wonder where they got that idea.

BC to be a nonprofit there are certain requirements. Maybe there are different type of nonprofit status' and for the status they were applying required they not engage in political activities.

you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, or that it's not ok, or that it was intentional or that it was a mistake

"Low level ees made that decision. " Agreed. But it happened. You seemed to be saying that conservatives were not targeted by the IRS.never said that. There were more Cons. target than Lib. but there more Cons. applying.

"What did Obama have to do w/it "

Nothing. It happened on his watch though. Except these employees, presumably, thought they were doing the just thing. I wonder where they got that idea.

NM

you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, or that it's not ok, or that it was intentional or that it was a mistake

See post 80.

NM

The Justice Dept didn't conclude (I don't think) that liberal groups were targeted specifically for their politics. Conservatives were.

The Justice Dept didn't conclude (I don't think) that liberal groups were targeted specifically for their politics. Conservatives were.
Wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See post 80.


you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, The IRS targeted both sides

or that it's not ok, No one said it was appropriate.

or that it was intentional They looked at keywords, ideology, etc.

or that it was a mistake Low level ees made that decision.



I've not seen anything to indicate that any liberal groups were similarly "subjected to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status"


have you?.....that would be the important difference which the IRS admitted to and apologized for and settled over as a result ...and that you are conveniently ignoring though it has been pointed out repeatedly

From the 122 page treasury inspector general report.

"While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing. In order to centralize these cases for review and processing, names and descriptions of several left-leaning groups were placed on the BOLO spreadsheet. Some left-leaning applicants experienced lengthy processing delays and inappropriate and burdensome requests for information."

From the 122 page treasury inspector general report.

"While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing. In order to centralize these cases for review and processing, names and descriptions of several left-leaning groups were placed on the BOLO spreadsheet. Some left-leaning applicants experienced lengthy processing delays and inappropriate and burdensome requests for information."

wow...several.....so more than two but not many more than two...I think that's the definition

wow...several.....so more than two but not many more than two...I think that's the definition

But Spence says "wrong". I mean, when someone says "wrong", that is a very compelling, convincing, one-word argument...With so much supporting his opinion, it's hard to argue with it...What does the DOJ know, anyway?

I think George Carlin would say...." 469 to several(more than two but not many more than 2)..hmmmmm......that's quite a ratio"