Congrats, residents of Missouri! Your brave legislature, fresh off of defunding the driver's license bureau, has gone on further, passing bills to protect you from UN Agenda 21, Sharia Law, and nullified any federal laws regarding guns.

Shape Of Debate In Missouri: Tinfoil Hats And Toy Helicopters : It's All Politics : NPR

The Sharia law thing is ridiculous. The other two don't seem like a big deal. I'm a fan of state rights on the other two.

So what does this have to do with Obama?

I expected nothing less from you, MBBF, and you delivered

1) a state cannot nullify federal laws. In Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court directly ruled that a state cannot nullify a federal law.

2) The US hasn't ratified anything at all related to Agenda 21, and most of the fear attached to it is from a Glenn Beck work of fiction.

It's amazing how this real public push for more gun control has resulted in no more gun control, but a huge gun industry boom and a flurry of state legislative activity to protect gun rights that are not threatened. The NRA wins at politics.

I was simply responding to the notion of the law. You obviously know more about the current status of both situations. It sounds like both situations will be resolved.

So, what up with the IRS targeting the Tea Party?

color me shocked.

oh, and what about the benghazi cover up? and..

oh nevermind.

You know, I can't say I'm the last guy to call this stuff out, but really - can we get past the /rolling eyes phase? While I know the Beghazi thing is largely partisan there is some substance here, and cnn is reporting that an inspector general report to be released next week will admit that IRS agents targeted conservative groups. Aren't we all anti-corruption here?

Benghazi is a big deal and getting bigger. It's bad on so many levels.

How so? Darrell Issa was trumpeting last week that the hearings on Wednesday were going to blow things wide open. No information came out there that wasn't already known. The worst thing they came up with were that there was a number of edits of the administrations talking points, with the CIA and the State Department trying to play down their roles.

AP has rolled today (tonight?) with an exclusive about the IG report. It shows that the targeting was known by the head of the department that handles auditing non-profits as far back as June 2011 ... nearly a year before the IRS Commissioner told a Congressional committe in March 2012 that "There's absolutely no targeting"

My Way News - AP Exclusive: IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

Now here's a kinda interesting tidbit about Commissioner Shulman: he was a Bush appointee

yeah, the only folks believing so (that there's this huge cover up) really are hoping to sink Clinton '16 before it gets started.

As for the IRS thing, anyone who deliberately targeted the Tea Party groups, and anyone who KNEW about the deliberate targeting without raising a protest should be fired, end of story. I disagree vehemently with their politics, but holding an unpopular opinion shouldn't mean that you are more likely to be targeted by the IRS.

The IRS thing is a much bigger deal. I'd like it if the IRS took away tax exempt status for all sorts of political groups, but they can't target only one or two key words to do it. I'm still not convinced that it was evil rather than stupid, but it deserves a thorough investigation.

It depends on what you think the cover-up was for. I think it was mostly just to cover some really bad decisions and they got caught. It's my understanding there were several minor events leading up to the attack that they did not step up security after. That's a pretty bad mistake. Then, to have tried to twist/turn the story into it being about some sort of protest about some video was really bad. Finally, could they have got military intervention to limit things? I guess that's a debatable point.

I don't think it's a cover-up in some sort of conspiracy way but it was an effort to try and make some very poor decisions appear to be defensible and I'm not so sure they are.

Lets look at the IRS thing from a logical perspective. One of the things these tea party groups claim they want to do is abolish the IRS. Why exactly is it shocking that the IRS would put a little more effort into investigating a group who wants to end their livelihoods? It would be as shocking as a police group wanting to investigate a group that advocates hollow tipped bullets.

Before anyone gets too shocked that panerd isn't outraged by an investigation into "tea party" groups that fact is most of those groups are about as small government as Obama/Pelosi. They still want the wars, more Jesus in our lives, and more government health care for rich old white people. Otherwise big government to them just means more bombers and business as usual.

Nobody really wins unless you address root causes and target the big fish instead of small fish. Attacking the gun-toting south and hunters to solve (or seriously degrade) the problem of people shooting people was doomed from the start.

You want to stop crime, target criminals. You want to eliminate firearms that do a majority of the carnage? Go after handguns. Going after semi-automatic rifles by calling them assault rifles was a targeted attack against a certain voting block and it had no intention of solving the problem. Like in the Untouchables, Sean Connery says, "Everybody knows where the crime is...but what are you prepared to do?". Admittedly, I get it though, it's a little harder when you have to go after your own voting block to affect change.

I agree, and we have actually done those things and been wildly successful, per capital violent crime rates have dropped off a cliff in this country. The mainstream debate isn't as subtle though, and its been intense - us v. them, the battle for gun regulations. And in that debate, not only has the gun-side not lost any ground legally, but gun sales are booming, and the % of households which own guns has gone up after decreasing for about 20 years (and most of that "% of households" increase is fueled by Democrats and women.)

It's just interesting to see all of those numbers going in all different directions. Crime is way down, public support for stricter gun regulations is way up, gun ownership is way up.

Sarcasm:

HOWEVER if the targeting of the Conservative groups kept them from auditing me, who can I give a medal too?

/sarcasm

Im not sure what to think of Benghazi other than it falls right in line with what I hated about the Bush Admin. The coverup and the constant spinning. Thats what this harkens back to. Had they just come out and said, "We were attacked at a remote outpost, we didnt have resources to get there in time, heres the plan to fix that going forward, etc." then perhaps it wouldnt be as big a deal as the 'coverup'. It disappoints me greatly.

Ill say however that we now are in our 13th or so year of one party absolutely doing everything in their power to make the other party fail and I cannot wait until there are more then 2 parties. Its a faiure to America when they act like this out of the gates, see McConnell, etc.

haha...which party are you talking about?

Both, so maybe it goes back even longer but the placing of the hatred higher than the good of the people is a detriment to our entire country.

Depends upon whether that which you hate is involved in "the good of the people".

It sounds like the IRS might have been within their bounds to take closer looks at the tax-exempt applications from the Tea Party groups. The statute they were claiming exemption under, 501(c)(4), is supposed to be used for "Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees". They can act as a group in political activities, but their main purpose cannot be political in nature, their main purpose is supposed to be related to social welfare.

It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where a slew of applications came in when tea party groups were first formed that were rejected due to not meeting the requirements of 501(c)(4) and at that point they were met with closer scrutiny.

I don't think they get to decide "conservatives are cheaters" and then target groups exclusively based on their political affiliation for closer inspection. Even Obama has said that.

I didn't say they got to decide they were cheaters. What I said was it isn't too implausible that they got a rash of incorrectly submitted applications, and that was what triggered the closer inspections.

501(c)(4) is abused by political action committees of all ideologies. I don't want the IRS to be one sided, but if they cracked down across the board I'd be happy. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of this mess is going to be reduced scrutiny of 501(c)(4) groups.

And I'm sure that the big groups, like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks knew just how to work the system like the existing PACs. But for the smaller, local groups I can see them getting tripped up by the "primary purpose not being political" requirement on their applications.

It may not have been politically motivated, but they're still not permitted to profile groups based exclusively on their politics and hold them to greater scrutiny. Even if there was a previous "rash of incorrectly submitted applications" involving that or a similar political view.

I didn't say it was exclusively based on their politics, I posited that it would have been due to a pattern of incorrectly/incompletely submitted applications. And I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, but a not implausible scenario.

Dola,

Which is the unsettling thing in all of this, because by their nature, tax exempt 501(c)(4) groups are supposed to be non-political to start with, so it seems kind of strange to say that they are being targeted because of their politics.

Even if that was what happened - they're not allowed to do that. If tea party groups submitted a whole flurry of incorrect applications, the IRS is STILL not allowed to say, "these tea party groups are bad news, from now on, everybody flag everything with the word "patriot" in it, or anything that looks like it might have anything to do with these people, and we'll go over it with a fine toothed comb." If obama is correct, that's still not cool, even if the motivation wasn't political.

If they get a rash of incorrectly submitted applications that certainly does allow them to decide to take a closer look at all of those types of applications though. Which I'm guessing is what happened. It triggered a flag of "let's audit the whole lot of people claiming to be 501(c)(4)."

But shouldn't they be allowed to say something like "the last 25 of these we've gotten in from these groups have had errors, so watch out for errors when these come in"? That is different than if every application had been submitted correctly, and then a mandate came down to go over them with a fine tooth comb.

Actually that's how their audit flagging system works. It's all computerized though, nobody is sitting there making an active political decision. Now maybe the computer is smart enough to flag anything with "American" or "Patriot" based on the incorrect ones that were noted (if they had a whole bunch along those lines), but it's a big stretch to say that somebody was targeting them b/c they were tea party groups.

Persecution complex much? Probably because it fits their narrative of being oppressed. Particularly silly because isn't the IRS guy a Bush appointee? Didn't I see that somewhere?

One of the flags was groups who appear to "criticize the way the country is run". They were going after tea party groups as opposed to government criticism generally, but that illustrates why its so important for the irs not to screen based on politics

Which as I posted earlier, if they were filling out the applications correctly, there should have been nothing overtly mentioning politics as the group's primary mission for the tax exempt status they were seeking.

If this was just fox news complaining I wouldn't have even noticed this. But obama called it "outrageous". What's his angle here? Why do you think he's lying about this being a big deal(if you guys are right and the irs acted appropriately?)

You left out some key words from Obama.

"What's been reported" is exactly what we're talking about here.

And he said if that was true, then it is outrageous. If it ends up not being as reported, then it isn't outrageous, and he wouldn't be lying, as you put it.

Exactly.

cartman wins.

You're disagreeing with obama here. You think its ok to target conservative groups, because those groups aren't even supposed to identify themselves as "conservative" in these filings (which I think is an incorrect interpretation of the law). If liberal groups were being targeted like this during the bush years, you'd be going apeshit. I tend to think obama is right, the irs fucked up, it wasn't politically motivated, heads will roll, and conservative conspiracy theorists will make more out of this than it deserves for years to come

Yes, if its a fake news story, and there was zero targetting of conservative groups, than it wasn't outrageous, agreed. But it sounds like you and dt aren't saying the story is fake, you're justfying the irs' actions.

I don't know how I can make it more clear. I do not think it is ok to target conservative groups, or any group for that matter for no reason other than where they are coming from on the political spectrum. I believe it is entirely ok to take a closer look at applications for tax exemption if a group has shown a pattern of incorrect/incomplete applications. And again, I have no proof one way or the other of what triggered the audits.

This is 100% where I stand too. Not sure why you're not getting that from what we're saying molson.

The latter is still nappropriate is because you can make those kind of accusations against any group and there's no process or oversight. Its creates the appearance of impropriety. Obama knows that tea party groups have been iffy on tax stuff. That's not some new revelation. The irs still can't screen in this manner, looking for political affiliation.

Dude - seriously. YES THEY CAN IF THESE GROUPS ARE CLAIMING A STATUS THAT IS FOR NON-POLITICAL GROUPS.

Whew, she mentioned Oregon as a place she'd go to. I was worried she would say Texas.

Gah, had the link sent to me and was too excited to check out the site and find it was fake. Glad I don't have to apologize to any other state for her at least.

One of the criteria that has come out is they were targeting... "political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement"

Sometimes I really feel like I fell asleep and woke up in an Orwell novel. LOL on the explanation of that one though I am sure Obama will have some doublespeak that someone will say makes sense.

Look at the terms that are being flagged. They're looking beyond "primary purpose" and trying to root out the organizations more subtly. These groups are allowed to have political opinions and are allowed to engage in political activity. The irs is trying to predict what type of political activity these groups might engage in, and flagging them based on that.

So is their contention essentially profiling is okay in crime, immigration, and terrorism. Not so much in paying taxes? Is that essentially the stance here?

A bad week gets worse for this administration. Up to this point, I had likened it to Jimmy Carter's administration. After Benghazi-gate, the IRS story, and now this...it's starting to look downright Nixonian.

Gov't obtains wide AP phone records in probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of calls.

In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

William Miller, a spokesman for Machen, said Monday that in general the U.S. attorney follows "all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations" but he would not address questions about the specifics of the AP records. "We do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations," Miller said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.

Yeah, I'm starting to get a feeling that this is going the WRONG WAY here.

As bad it sounds, if it can be tied to terror, then it is likely covered by the Patriot Act.

That appears to be the stance of the president, and every other legislator from both parties who have been quoted on this. Check out the cnn article, there's a dem legislator who has been an outspoken critic of the way tea party groups have played the tax game. He finds the irs' actions here ridiculous

I'm all for an investigation on the IRS stuff, but let's stop pretending this is some unprecedented abuse of power. I can't recall anyone going crazy when liberal groups were targeted while Bush was president.

1. Absolutely agree that it is nothing new. As long as there has been government there has been corruption, look no further than J Edgar Hoover during the supposed "golden era" of this country. It's just the technology is finally showing how frequently a massively oversized government oversteps its bounds. Sadly when people like me and Bucc try to point this out we are told that we are too preachy or that "the other side does it too". The better question for you all is when is enough enough?

2. I wasn't as active in the political threads but I can certainly attest to being all over how Cindy Sheehan and Valerie Plume and other anti war voices were treated and mocked. Shit the Dixie Chicks were ruined for not being sheepish enough. Or was your post just intended for Molson and SFL in some sort of D/R battle royale?

I was talking about elected officials and media types.

Notice I haven't railed about this all that much? There's nothing new here whatsover. My only real upset is with the targeting, not with the concept.
It's war, you do what you can to discomfit your enemy.


Don't get too carried away. They certainly had their defenders, those were simply drowned out by a larger set of voices.

re: IRS scandal ... I mentioned this earlier but I think it bears some repeating tbh.

This activity occurred while the agency was under the direction of Shulman, a Bush appointee. Miller has since become acting director but he was Shulman's deputy. Meanwhile, Lois Lerner (who seems to be the top of this specific chain of command) went into her position during the Obama administration but was associate general counsel/acting general counsel to the FEC before moving to the IRS in 2001.

My point being that perhaps this isn't an issue of administrations but rather an issue of bureaucrats who are willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain their power, willing to curry favor with whomever is in office at the time.

edit to add: And let's be honest here folks, I'm not exactly what you call a non-partisan kinda guy. But at least I'm pretty consistent about which side I'm on.

1/22/02 US Consulate at Kolkata: 5 killed
6/14/02 US Consulate at Karachi, 12 killed
2/28/03 US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 killed
6/30/04 US Embassy at Taskent, 2 killed
12/6/04 US Compound at Saudia Arabia, 9 killed
3/2/06 US Consulate at Karachi, 2 killed
9/12/06 US Embassy at Syria, 4 killed
3/18/08 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 killed
7/9/08 US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 killed
9/17/08 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 killed.

These attacks all occured during the Bush admin and not a peep came from the GOP. Is all a fucking political game to these guys and it costs our soldiers and innocent people their lives. The outrage about Benghazi is just another part of the shell game pitting half the country against the other. Why don't we live the shithole that is the Middle East and then they won't have all of this innocent blood on their hands? Or at least not act like during Obama's admin was the first time ever our embassies have been attacked.

.

I just hope that every time Ron Paul sticks his head in the sand, somebody runs up & gives him a swift kick in the ass.

Wait, that might be tough.

I mean, if his head is up his ass as usual and then his head is buried in the sand ... I guess that would make him pretty much buried alive.

I just wish Ron Paul woulda dropped some of his more lunatic views.

But he's spot on with his above analysis.

He was doing reasonably well at times right up until he praises the previously "secure" weapons in Libya.

That's kinda like saying that the North Korean nukes were "secure" in cap'n Loony Tunes hands.

And the "U.S.-led" attack on Libya is a bit of a reach, at least the way he's trying to portray it. No matter how little I think of the U.N., this was a U.N. resolution & not one proposed by the U.S. either (it was France/Lebanon/U.K.).

Yeah, good points. I'll give you those.

And if we are being honest a UN action nowadays basically requires US might, US soliders, a US vote, and/or US money. Without it they are pretty much powerless. So show me again where the United States opposition was to funding the rebels.

I forgot your rational solution is to nuke the Middle East. Because all of those children, women, and probably like 99% of the men really follow and agree with their lunatic leaders. Nothing like mass genocide as a solution to show your head isn't straight up your ass!

Paul is simply the latest in a (mercifully short) line of damned fools who seem to think that isolationism is some sort of magic that keeps trouble away from the door.

He's beyond worthless, he's actually detrimental, both to rational policy discussion and to the national average I.Q.

I believe he voted for the initial invasion of Afganistan and against pretty much everything else. He also used to call on Congress to declare war on a country, you know so they actually are accountable to their constituents who (gasp) may have a different worldview then you. But I guess I must be a damned fool with a low IQ as well if I don't think most of our meddling in the Middle East has kept trouble away from our door and in fact seems to be the reason for a lot of it. Would love to hear more about your plan to nuke the Middle East though, murdering innocent people sounds perfectly rational to me.

The percentages of innocents there is awfully scant.

edit to add -- re:Afghanistan vote ... even RP is entitled to the stopped clock exception on occasion


double edit (aka Dola avoidance) -- FTR, lest anyone be confused, even I know that the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would have to be extremely selective. Too hard (or at least expensive) to extract oil from a highly irradiated zone after all.

Lets face it, this "bad news" is a bunch of media shit about nothing. 90% of the news comes from 6 major corporations - GE, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, Time Warner and CBS. As such, the "4th estate" being liberal is a bunch of bullshit. It's all about talking heads trying to get ratings and the conservatives trying to gain leverage for the next elections since there's a hole in the news cycle now that gun control has failed and the Congress is on recess.

Benghazi - there's nothing there. Right now the Rs are trying unsuccessfully to pin this on the White House. If in 2016 Hillary runs, then they'll try to pin it on the State Department. Frankly, it's pretty damn dispicable trying to these deaths to gain political leverage.

IRS - A bunch of bureaucrats fucked up. News at 11:00.

AP - Probably the biggest of the 3 stories in my opinion because it goes back towards the police-state wire tapping laws passed post-9/11. If it has anything remotely to do with terrorism then these taps are probably legal. My biggest problem with Obama has been his failure to roll back these laws. But if anyone thinks this is out of the ordinary then their really out of touch.

So in other words one non-scandal, one Bureaucrats on Parade issue and one thing that should be illegal but probably isn't.

Jon wouldn't use nukes against innocent civilians in the Middle East.













He'd use chemical and biological weapons so he didn't irradiate the oil.

Nor would I use them against unicorns.

In fairness though, there are relatively few images that make me happier than the one conjured by the phrase "black glass" ... if only it weren't for the damned oil.

Props to you - way to sum it all up. I've got huge problems with the AP thing, but like you say...if they can give it some tenuous link to terrorism then under the Patriot Act it's fine. Whether we should still be under the Patriot Act is a different story.

I was just saying to a guy at the gym that I find it disgusting that one side is trying to use the deaths in Benghazi to score political points. May the horse they rode in on fuck them in the ass. American citizens died. Whatever words were used - because that's what we're talking about here, it's a "scandal" that's based on FUCKING SEMANTICS FOR GOD'S SAKE...whatever words were used, doesn't change that fact. If there was ya know...somebody at fault for not guarding the consulate (BECAUSE IT WAS A CONSULATE NOT AN EMBASSY) or the officials well enough, then yes...let's start there. But to manufacture a scandal based on whether the American people were told it was a "riot" an "act of terror" or a "terrorist attack" is just silly semantic partisan bullshit.

Really frustrating to see the Obamacare changes hurting our hospital and local economy. There were warnings that this would happen all along. This isn't the end either. I've heard up to 100 more layoffs expected in the coming weeks.

We'll unfortunately see this repeated many times over in the coming months in our communities as hospitals face issues with bill collection of people who can't afford it along with a reduction in doctors due to reduced reimbursement/pay.

Liberty Hospital laying off 129 workers | Local News - KMBC Home

You're just a sad caricature of yourself at this point. From the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE STORY

You find that to be a bad decision? Expansion of a system that's already broken is a terrible idea.

Something is fishy about a hospital laying off people on May 14 2013 so they can handle Obamacare changes starting Jan 1 2014.

Somebody doesn't fully understand what's been happening here. From the hospital statement........


The bill was a very destructive move by people who don't fully understand how the health care system works. And as was clearly noted in the statement, the state move to stop expansion was not made until after the flawed law was passed at the federal level. Without that law, the state legislatures who blocked expansion (currently over half the states) would have never had to bother with such a move.

At least he didn't say Texas was stealing their jobs.

Texas would agree with it. They've taken a similar stance to Missouri in regards to this mess.

So, without the ACA law, they somehow would have been paid by people who didn't have health insurance? Hasn't that been a problem all along?

I guess there are only 30 states in the union now.

Where each state stands on ACA's Medicaid expansion | The Advisory Board Daily Briefing

Only 15 states have declined to expand. 26 (over half) have expanded.

Your graphic show what the Governors of those states believe should happen, not where things currently stand. It even lists Missouri as 'participating'. Somebody's wrong there.

Yeah, that is showing the governor's views on whether or not they want to expand. The Missouri legislature has been busy with Agenda 21, defunding the driver's license bureau, banning Sharia Law, and nullification of federal gun laws.

In 2010 the only things that might have effected this hospital were:


In 2011 no changes were made that would have effected this hospital.

In 2012 there was a significant change, but it shouldn't have been a significant hit to the hospital budget.


In 2013 the only change that may effect hospitals is the medical device tax, which in theory could cost a hospital.

All the big changes so far have been to insurance plans. The big changes to providers start in 2014. So again, unless they can show where 20 mil of extra costs/lowered revenue is coming from, something is fishy here.

I know they faced $8-9M in unexpected costs just from the 2012 readmission change alone. As noted in the release, they expected unpaid copays to increase as well. I don't know the exact amount they are budgeting for there. I have little doubt there will be a lot of information requested given the impact of the situation, so we should be able to get a good picture of it in the coming days.

FWIW.....I do appreciate you actually making this an informational discussion.

Although I don't believe this hospital has been crippled by Obamacare expenses, another issue here is the constant cries that the ACA didn't do enough to lower costs, yet any lowering of costs is destructive to the healthcare system.

Your choices are some sort of mix of reduced growth in spending on providers or reduced access to care. If you can't reduce reimbursements your only answer to the Medicare/Medicaid problem is reducing access to healthcare. And remember, the ACA lowers the deficit. Getting rid of it means you'll have to reduce access even further.

I don't believe Obama gets all the credit but it (the recovery) did happen on his watch so he gets some credit for this.

2013 Deficit To Shrink To $642 Billion: Congressional Budget Office

As much pork as there is still in the budget, I'm not willing to give any of these idiots credit for anything. Talk to me when they've made meaningful cuts that show they really mean what they say.

Yeah only missed by $642,000,000,000 (Or approx $2500 a person). Great job!

Breaking News: President Obama says Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has requested and received the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, after critical report on targeting of conservative groups.

I haven't been able to find moveon.org's 501(c)(4) filing but I'm curious if they manged to avoid mentioning politics in it. They certainly don't hide their political purpose in practice. I'm sure there's close calls all over the spectrum, which is exactly why the IRS shouldn't pick their battles based on political ideology. For every tea party group there's a moveon.org. I'm glad Obama had a different approach to this than a some of the liberal commentary I've seen. I guess the acting IRS commissioner's term was up in June anyway, so this is no big shakeup, but there was really nothing else to do except express anger, and Obama did that.

There was one Democratic group whose application was denied, as they were ruled to operate primarily for the benefit of one political party and a private group of individuals.

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row - Bloomberg

I forgot all about this...

Remember When Andrew Joseph Stack Flew a Plane Into a Texas IRS Building? - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic

So, it looks like the IRS targeted at least some Dem groups as well as the conservative groups.

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row - Bloomberg

I wonder if this means that at least part of the issue is that we have an easily abused 501(c)(4) loophole that needs to be closed?

Fixed.

Why is it so difficult for people to acknowledge that a few irs employees fucked up? Is it zealous loyalty to obama (who didn't do anything wrong here) or zealous hatred of anything conservative? Yes, there's many, many exemptions requests thay are rejected all over the spectrum. There are many organizations, again all over the spectrum, who get added scrutiny for all sorts of reasons. Here, in this instance, some irs employees engaged in an inappropriate practice. Most everyone is on board with that.