US government Shutdown

[Kuja]

And we're off.

[NecronLord]

*Obama was the first president of either party to secure at least 51% of the popular vote in two elections since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.

What the hell kind of measure is that?

Oh wait, it's one that makes Obama's election look more comprehensive than say, the thumping poundings Nixon and Reagan meted out when they secured their second terms.

[PeZook]

If this were happening in a parliamentary country, this is when we might have the head of state step in, dissolve the Government, and declare new elections because the current Government clearly is not working.

The Polish constitution outright states that if parliament can't pass a budget inside four months of the budgetary bill being proposed by the council of ministers, the President can announce a premature election because shit, man, if your parliament can't agree on something so basic, they're clearly dysfunctional.

And I think basically all parliamentary countries have some sort of a rule like that which allows an insane parliament to be kicked out without needing a full-scale revolution. Except for one.

The only thing better than this is how there's a whole bunch of Americans who think this insanity is exactly how it should be.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Just a quick update on the ongoing scream fest...

The most recent "Plan" from the House GOP is to pass a bill to fund "SOME" of the government...
Basically they want to pay for the more 'popular' parts, the Federal parks, Museums, the DC Museums, Zoo etc...

You might think, how could this be a bad thing? Well for one, the very idea of funding only certain parts of the government means the GOP now have the power to pick and choose what they think is needed.
Fat chance on them sending funding to the EPA, the NSF, the NEA or other 'Liberal' institutions.

The other thing is that this once again shows that this "fight" is in no way what so every about spending or American debt. It is 'hostage taking' pure and simple.

[phongn]

The only thing better than this is how there's a whole bunch of Americans who think this insanity is exactly how it should be.

The House's original design would deadlock if any strong parties formed, which they promptly did (some consider this a feature, most consider it a bug). Pork became the workaround against this; earmarks greased the wheel of government and made compromise possible via horse-trading. The GOP, in their quest to reduce government spending, renounced earmarks and thus inadvertently ensured that nothing could get done.

[Mr Bean]

Fun fact this is not a shutdown
It's a goverment slimdown!
Thanks Fox News, here I was using words to describe what was happening when I should have been using double speak propaganda phrases to make the shutdown of goverment sound like a good thing.

[Dominus Atheos]

The only thing better than this is how there's a whole bunch of Americans who think this insanity is exactly how it should be.

Right now, nearly everyone would agree our government is dysfunctional.

Also, I'm not sure why you think "elections" would be a magical panacea that would cure all our problems. The House had elections less then a year ago, and will have another election in a little more then a year.

[Mr Bean]

The only thing better than this is how there's a whole bunch of Americans who think this insanity is exactly how it should be.

Right now, nearly everyone would agree our government is dysfunctional.

Also, I'm not sure why you think "elections" would be a magical panacea that would cure all our problems. The House had elections less then a year ago, and will have another election in a little more then a year.

The problem is the delay and the gerrymandering. To many safe districts where the Republicans and Democrats only have to worry about their own party. And many don't even have to worry about that since entrance regiments are so stringent or expensive as to make it impossible for a common American to run for office.

[Agent Sorchus]

Tim you can get fucked. No really. HR departments, public and private have been preparing for the laws to take effect since at least this summer; are you willing to pay costs of business for all the already in effect and soon to be implemented policies that are already adding additional strain on workers to delay this for one year?

Then why did Barry's administration give corporations an extra year before they have to cover their workers? Oh wait - that doesn't fit in your narrative very well.

Strawman or almost strawman.

The problem (and my point) is that there are a large quantity of public sector jobs, (here is my weak part) presumably also Private sector jobs that have already changed or prepared to change hiring and firing practices (let alone already started negotiations for more or less healthcare coverage) based on the ACA comming more fully into effect come January. And cause of these changes and their associated costs a delay in the law coming into effect is really fucking stupid.

EDIT: bs on this besides, cutting a lot of millitary spending or raising taxes on the rich or... really there are a ton of ways that get around all of the nations problems that can't be pursued thanks to Republican Fossils and neo right democrats.

First, where are you going to cut from the DoD? I ask because 'Cut the military!' is a left-wing rallying cry, but then it's very rarely followed up with real suggestions that gut readiness or R&D. Second - I'm in favor of optimizing tax rates across the board. I'm also in favor of removing all exemptions/rebates and having taxes easy enough to do on the back of a note card (or a similarly easy to use look-up table). If you don't like the system get involved (like I do).

Who fucking cares about readiness? Fuck it we don't need to be able to intervene anywhere in the world in less than a week. Any nation that legitimately threatens us basically already has nukes making readiness only a means of bullying lesser nations (which is a hold over from the cold war's policy of containment of communism). We simply don't need it for 96% of nations.

A: fuck the marine corp. They suck money out the system in all kinds of ways, ie unique research requirements that don't respect the realities of modern wars, not letting the other services use their proprietary uniforms. Though this is a long term and small item money saver it comes down to the majority of roles they play the army can do just as well.

B: Likewise the navy can take a hair cut of a pair of Carrier battlegroups easily enough. 9 is still more than what some consider the absolute minimum.

C: worldwide basing can also be diminished, since again there are no commies to wage wars of containment with.

The thing is this still isn't Ideal, but aren't going to cause the US to be conquered by an alliance of North Korea, Iran and ahh say Argentina in 10 years. And the ACA is far from ideal itself, being little more than kickbacks to the Insurance companies. But Single payer was basically not on the table, and almost no other Leftist idea was either. Nope just a bill from Reagan's time.

As for the get involved, you say you have, but what has it actually accomplished from the Right? No changes to the tax code that's for sure. (Not that the democrats are doing any better here, but I never said they would.) Really more parties wouldn't be a bad thing at all to keep the sort of vote trading that brings people to compromise alive.

The problem is the delay and the gerrymandering. To many safe districts where the Republicans and Democrats only have to worry about their own party. And many don't even have to worry about that since entrance regiments are so stringent or expensive as to make it impossible for a common American to run for office.

The delay especially for normal elections allows for long expensive campaigns that a shorter surprise no-confidence election should short circuit some. Of course there are still problems in how low voter turnout is outside presidential election years are but hey most ideas aren't perfect.

[Simon_Jester]

I guess what I'm asking is, what do these presumed moderate Republicans have to show for their status of moderate Republicans? Are they really? Or is it just a case of leveraging their status as not being quite as bad as the crazies whilst at the same time being pretty much just as crazy? What I'm getting at is, if you can't act moderate, as Crossroads Inc. and Simon_Jester are essentially saying, are you really moderate at all? What makes you a moderate if you're not ever acting moderate?

Exactly.

The only place it really becomes apparent is at the state level, where Republicans enjoy a bit more leeway in some cases- though in others you get antidemocratic loonies like Scott Walker.

The only thing better than this is how there's a whole bunch of Americans who think this insanity is exactly how it should be.

Right now, nearly everyone would agree our government is dysfunctional.

Also, I'm not sure why you think "elections" would be a magical panacea that would cure all our problems. The House had elections less then a year ago, and will have another election in a little more then a year.

An election right after a shutdown would tend to favor whichever party didn't cause the shutdown, at least insofar as possible. It wouldn't spell the total defeat and ruin of the party that did it, but it sure wouldn't help.

That said, the problem with gerrymandering is pretty fundamental- and is entirely a product of the way the US defines House districts, by leaving it up to provincial legislatures that are generally pretty strongly controlled by one party or the other.

Hm. I think Sorchus has a point even so- having an election NOT be preceded by a year of systematic, carefully synchronized advertising campaigns might actually be a good thing for America, because it would compress and reduce the horse-race aspect of the election, shifting a bit more of the focus onto the issue that caused a no-confidence scenario in the first place.


I think, considering it, that the reason the US does not have such a provision is that the people who set up the US government were more worried about a king or dictator disbanding their legislature than they were about the legislature itself becoming stupidly unmanageable and useless. There were examples in their history of both (Charles I trying to avoid calling a Parliament during the runup to the English Civil War on the one hand, the Polish Sejm on the other). But if you look at the choice of examples, you may see why the Founders were more worried about people disbanding the legislature than they were about legislative incompetence- one was more a part of their historical memory than the other.

In a sense, the US government as founded was a direct descendant of the republicanism of the English Civil War, which beheaded a king and then tried to figure out how to put a parliament in charge, largely failed, and got Cromwell instead, then had to give up and go back to monarchy all over again. That experience probably explains why the US's government was so categorically unlike the parliamentary system of the UK, and the other European parliamentary states which were partly inspired by it.

[Thanas]

But as I understand it, the primaries are like a pre-election to determine who will stand for a certain position for a certain party, right? So these so-called moderates are vying in their own electorates with Tea Party candidates who presumably are considerably farther to the right of them. But then the question becomes, how moderate can you really be in a district like that? Are they really moderate, or is their presumed moderation just an electoral trick to garner moderate votes, i.e. 'thank god I'm not that nutter next door'?

I guess what I'm asking is, what do these presumed moderate Republicans have to show for their status of moderate Republicans? Are they really? Or is it just a case of leveraging their status as not being quite as bad as the crazies whilst at the same time being pretty much just as crazy? What I'm getting at is, if you can't act moderate, as Crossroads Inc. and Simon_Jester are essentially saying, are you really moderate at all? What makes you a moderate if you're not ever acting moderate?

The problem is that American society has become so very much divided, that true moderates (like Olympia Snowe) were in danger of (or actually were) getting squeezed out. This is by design - if you are a moderate, what makes you appealing also makes you vulnerable because if you are a moderate then the other party can simply counter by having a moderate running as well. If you are a GOP senator in a liberal state like Maine, then sooner or later the persons might ask why they were voting for a GOP candidate when the Democrat candidate is the same and also has the "right" party allegiance.

I blame the two-party system. If there were three or four parties then we might see clearer positions and more dialogue between the candidates.

[phongn]

I blame the two-party system. If there were three or four parties then we might see clearer positions and more dialogue between the candidates.

We'd need a fairly major overhaul of government (like, amendment-level) to make a multiparty system viable; the present system's natural outcome is two parties.

[Terralthra]

I blame the two-party system. If there were three or four parties then we might see clearer positions and more dialogue between the candidates.

We'd need a fairly major overhaul of government (like, amendment-level) to make a multiparty system viable; the present system's natural outcome is two parties.

IRV would go a long way towards erasing the tactical voting advantage 2-party systems have under FPTP, and the Constitution does not specify FPTP voting.

[TimothyC]

So YES, I would rather the Tea Party try this, and fail, and get smacked at the polls for holding the continued function of the US government hostage to their demands, than have them get what they want without a shutdown, and know they are free to do the same damn thing all over again in three months.

Yes, it's just as poisonous as the IRS attacks on conservative groups (if the attacks were directed from on high - which is looking less likely - that's a sign of a corrupt administration, if they were totally internal then they should have been caught and we can't trust the IRS's internal mechanisms to remain non-partisan any more). It's just as poisonous as prosecutors throwing the 2008 Alaskan Senate race (they withheld exculpatory evidence until after the Election - forcing Stevens out of the senate, and handing the 59th seat over to the Democrats in 2008*). Simon, I can respect it when people admit to to the fact that they would rather shut the government down than kill the ACA - and you know that. Honestly, I don't know who is going to take the blame for this - it really could go either way.

When you start holding the continued function of the government hostage, you're starting to cross that line.

As opposed to doing things like refusing to negotiate on the budget? Or even try and pass one for years?

And did you take their political arguments seriously after they started doing that?

I did my best to do so.

*The 60th being the seat that Franken won in Minnesota by a margin right about that of the fraudulent vote count.

The problem (and my point) is that there are a large quantity of public sector jobs, (here is my weak part) presumably also Private sector jobs that have already changed or prepared to change hiring and firing practices (let alone already started negotiations for more or less healthcare coverage) based on the ACA comming more fully into effect come January. And cause of these changes and their associated costs a delay in the law coming into effect is really fucking stupid.

All delaying the individual mandate would do is mean that people could still participate in the exchanges, they just wouldn't be subject to penalties for a year if they didn't buy insurance. The corporate mandate has already been dropped by the administration for 2014 (wouldn't want to let companies be able to show the real costs before the election now would we!), so it's not going to have the same impact that you think it will.

A: fuck the marine corp. They suck money out the system in all kinds of ways, ie unique research requirements that don't respect the realities of modern wars, not letting the other services use their proprietary uniforms. Though this is a long term and small item money saver it comes down to the majority of roles they play the army can do just as well.

B: Likewise the navy can take a hair cut of a pair of Carrier battlegroups easily enough. 9 is still more than what some consider the absolute minimum.

C: worldwide basing can also be diminished, since again there are no commies to wage wars of containment with.

Ah good, you're using your brain. I'm not opposed to A and C, but with B, please try and get your numbers correct. We have 10 carriers (and marginally 9 air wings). This allows the US to maintain two to three on station (one of them almost always in the 5th fleet), and enough of a back stop to surge two more out relatively quickly. It also gives us the buffer if something goes wrong (like it did with the Nimitz last year). Nine carriers is the minimum to maintain a force of three carriers deployed around the world, and right now we've got a one carrier reserve over that number. To properly meet global obligations we really could use 12-15, not 9 - after all, a ship can only be in one place at a time.

[Gaidin]

So YES, I would rather the Tea Party try this, and fail, and get smacked at the polls for holding the continued function of the US government hostage to their demands, than have them get what they want without a shutdown, and know they are free to do the same damn thing all over again in three months.

Yes, it's just as poisonous as the IRS attacks on conservative groups (if the attacks were directed from on high - which is looking less likely - that's a sign of a corrupt administration, if they were totally internal then they should have been caught and we can't trust the IRS's internal mechanisms to remain non-partisan any more). It's just as poisonous as prosecutors throwing the 2008 Alaskan Senate race (they withheld exculpatory evidence until after the Election - forcing Stevens out of the senate, and handing the 59th seat over to the Democrats in 2008*). Simon, I can respect it when people admit to to the fact that they would rather shut the government down than kill the ACA - and you know that. Honestly, I don't know who is going to take the blame for this - it really could go either way.

Are you talking about the IRS inquiries that were also into liberal groups as well? Do you realize that the reason that this stuff doesn't come out except in such a biased fashion against the IRS is because the IRS is prevented by law from contesting what is said against it if it involves personal or group information? That is to make clear, since for months, nobody mentioned the liberal groups, everybody thought that the IRS was targeting conservative groups when in reality it was a general policy regarding whether groups with political interest should have that status at all.

[Terralthra]

So YES, I would rather the Tea Party try this, and fail, and get smacked at the polls for holding the continued function of the US government hostage to their demands, than have them get what they want without a shutdown, and know they are free to do the same damn thing all over again in three months.

Yes, it's just as poisonous as the IRS attacks on conservative groups (if the attacks were directed from on high - which is looking less likely - that's a sign of a corrupt administration, if they were totally internal then they should have been caught and we can't trust the IRS's internal mechanisms to remain non-partisan any more).

You mean the IRS singling purported non-profit groups out because many of them were thinly-disguised political action committees who are not entitled to 501(c)(4) status? That keeps getting lost whenever that story is brought up. It's a catch-22 for these Tea Party groups. If they were actually primarily conservative political groups, then they deserved to get special evaluation when filing as 501(c)(4), because a 501(c)(4) can't have political action as a primary goal or activity. If they were not, in fact, conservative political action groups, then they did not deserve any special scrutiny...but then they can no longer claim that they are being persecuted by a "liberal" administration for being conservative political action committees.

It's just as poisonous as prosecutors throwing the 2008 Alaskan Senate race (they withheld exculpatory evidence until after the Election - forcing Stevens out of the senate, and handing the 59th seat over to the Democrats in 2008*).

Yup. Just goes to show that you can't trust Republican political appointees. All of the prosecutorial team in that case was appointed or promoted to their then-current positions under President George W. Bush.

Simon, I can respect it when people admit to to the fact that they would rather shut the government down than kill the ACA - and you know that. Honestly, I don't know who is going to take the blame for this - it really could go either way.

Not according to any poll data. Even Republican-identified voters are split 49/44 on whether the House GOP should be shutting down the government over the ACA. Independents break against the shutdown 75/25, and Democrats (predictably) say the House GOP is handling it wrong by 90/6.

When you start holding the continued function of the government hostage, you're starting to cross that line.

As opposed to doing things like refusing to negotiate on the budget? Or even try and pass one for years?

Are you mental? The Senate can't originate a budget bill. The House, constitutionally, must initiate any budget bill.

[Thanas]

I blame the two-party system. If there were three or four parties then we might see clearer positions and more dialogue between the candidates.

We'd need a fairly major overhaul of government (like, amendment-level) to make a multiparty system viable; the present system's natural outcome is two parties.

Yeah, not saying this idea of mine is in any way realistic or even achievable.

[TimothyC]

You mean the IRS singling purported non-profit groups out because many of them were thinly-disguised political action committees who are not entitled to 501(c)(4) status? That keeps getting lost whenever that story is brought up. It's a catch-22 for these Tea Party groups. If they were actually primarily conservative political groups, then they deserved to get special evaluation when filing as 501(c)(4), because a 501(c)(4) can't have political action as a primary goal or activity. If they were not, in fact, conservative political action groups, then they did not deserve any special scrutiny...but then they can no longer claim that they are being persecuted by a "liberal" administration for being conservative political action committees.

If they were thinly disguised PACs why did they end up getting the status? If the liberal groups were targeted, why do the statistics show otherwise? The fact that your narrative refuses to have them as anything other than PACs when they are, by IRS decision, not PACs is yet another whole in your argument. A better question is why did the Tea Party applications take so long when OFA got their approval in months?

Also, why did the NOM donor list get leaked by IRS individuals to the media?

It's just as poisonous as prosecutors throwing the 2008 Alaskan Senate race (they withheld exculpatory evidence until after the Election - forcing Stevens out of the senate, and handing the 59th seat over to the Democrats in 2008*).

Yup. Just goes to show that you can't trust Republican political appointees. All of the prosecutorial team in that case was appointed or promoted to their then-current positions under President George W. Bush.

So you admit that the action was poisonous and benefited the democrat in the race.

The Senate can't originate a budget bill. The House, constitutionally, must initiate any budget bill.

They don't have to originate one, but going four years without even voting on one that could pass the senate tells you where Sen. Reid's priorities lie.

[ZOmegaZ]

I blame the two-party system. If there were three or four parties then we might see clearer positions and more dialogue between the candidates.

We'd need a fairly major overhaul of government (like, amendment-level) to make a multiparty system viable; the present system's natural outcome is two parties.

IRV would go a long way towards erasing the tactical voting advantage 2-party systems have under FPTP, and the Constitution does not specify FPTP voting.

This. This this this.

I prefer approval voting to IRV. It's much easier to explain and implement, better in most/all analytical senses, and empirically in simulated elections. But the general point remains: plurality voting is what locks us into a two party system, and that can be changed at a local and state level. Get on it, people! Oh, and read Gaming the Vote if you're interested to learn more. Seriously, I will buy you a copy. It's that good.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My brother, who does not get insurance from an employer and is too old to still be covered by my parents, can now seek affordable health insurance for peace of mind. Fuck these GOP assholes. They likely won't lose the House but I sure hope this does some long term damage to their reputation.

[Terralthra]

You mean the IRS singling purported non-profit groups out because many of them were thinly-disguised political action committees who are not entitled to 501(c)(4) status? That keeps getting lost whenever that story is brought up. It's a catch-22 for these Tea Party groups. If they were actually primarily conservative political groups, then they deserved to get special evaluation when filing as 501(c)(4), because a 501(c)(4) can't have political action as a primary goal or activity. If they were not, in fact, conservative political action groups, then they did not deserve any special scrutiny...but then they can no longer claim that they are being persecuted by a "liberal" administration for being conservative political action committees.

If they were thinly disguised PACs why did they end up getting the status?

Because the "scandal" of the use of conservative (and liberal) buzzwords to target groups was leaked, and the IRS had no choice but to approve their status or be a constant fight for months. Do you dispute the facts of the cases the link laid out?

If the liberal groups were targeted, why do the statistics show otherwise?

Because maybe there aren't as many liberal or progressive groups acting like PACs and filing for non-profit status? I mean, that doesn't strike you as an obvious possibility?

The fact that your narrative refuses to have them as anything other than PACs when they are, by IRS decision, not PACs is yet another whole in your argument.

I like that you seem to think you've been arguing with one person this whole time. It's amusing. Anyway, you started with claiming the IRS was corrupt and couldn't be trusted, and now you're relying on their classification of groups as your evidence. You can't have it both ways.

Also, why did the NOM donor list get leaked by IRS individuals to the media?

I'd love to see your evidence that it was leaked by an IRS employee. Anyway, the NOM is an organization that is bent on denying equal rights to some citizens of the United States, and it really doesn't bring me to tears if the people that support that kind of bigotry have their names in public.

It's just as poisonous as prosecutors throwing the 2008 Alaskan Senate race (they withheld exculpatory evidence until after the Election - forcing Stevens out of the senate, and handing the 59th seat over to the Democrats in 2008*).

Yup. Just goes to show that you can't trust Republican political appointees. All of the prosecutorial team in that case was appointed or promoted to their then-current positions under President George W. Bush.

So you admit that the action was poisonous and benefited the democrat in the race.

Prosecutorial misconduct is always poisonous, and certainly a prosecution against an incumbent in election season will benefit their opponent.

The Senate can't originate a budget bill. The House, constitutionally, must initiate any budget bill.

They don't have to originate one, but going four years without even voting on one that could pass the senate tells you where Sen. Reid's priorities lie.

Again, this argument goes the other way, and it goes even better that way. The House must originate all budget bills, and they went four years without passing one that the Senate would approve. That should tell you where Boehner's priorities lie. Of course, you don't need implied evidence, since both the Senate and House GOP leaders have stated publicly that their number one goal for the past four years was to insure that Obama was a one-term President, and to obstruct his agenda as much as possible.

[TimothyC]

Because the "scandal" of the use of conservative (and liberal) buzzwords to target groups was leaked, and the IRS had no choice but to approve their status or be a constant fight for months. Do you dispute the facts of the cases the link laid out?

The approvals came before the public release of the information, but in some cases after the 2012 election. It still doesn't explain the very rapid approval of OFA. which you have yet to explain.

Because maybe there aren't as many liberal or progressive groups acting like PACs and filing for non-profit status? I mean, that doesn't strike you as an obvious possibility?

Possible, but highly unlikely. I mean, heck OFA got the tax-exempt status.

I like that you seem to think you've been arguing with one person this whole time. It's amusing. Anyway, you started with claiming the IRS was corrupt and couldn't be trusted, and now you're relying on their classification of groups as your evidence. You can't have it both ways.

They have shown themselves to be corrupt, and to be honest, I think all of the groups should be reviewed - to a reasonable set of standards. The problem those who argue against allowing the conservative groups the status ignore is that if the status is revoked prior to cleaning out the entire IRS divisions that were responsible for the misconduct (as well as anyone above them), then it reverts to looking like partisan retribution.

I'd love to see your evidence that it was leaked by an IRS employee. Anyway, the NOM is an organization that is bent on denying equal rights to some citizens of the United States, and it really doesn't bring me to tears if the people that support that kind of bigotry have their names in public.

The pages that were leaked were from the IRS stamped copies of the donor lists. I do note that it looks like you don't protest the violation of the law if someone who holds a different political view than you is on the losing end? If so, you'd make a great Commie.

Prosecutorial misconduct is always poisonous, and certainly a prosecution against an incumbent in election season will benefit their opponent.

Ah, so now the question becomes "Was the Election of Mark Begich fraudulent, and if so, are the bills that were passed with him as a critical vote [ie those that were passed with him as the50, 51, or 60 votes depending on the circumstances] fraudulent?"

Again, this argument goes the other way, and it goes even better that way. The House must originate all budget bills, and they went four years without passing one that the Senate would approve. That should tell you where Boehner's priorities lie. Of course, you don't need implied evidence, since both the Senate and House GOP leaders have stated publicly that their number one goal for the past four years was to insure that Obama was a one-term President, and to obstruct his agenda as much as possible.

Well, seeing as Comrade Pelosi was the one incharge of the House back in 2009 and 2010, you can't blame it on all on Boehner. Also, so what if they established that their goal was to make Obama a one term president - that's part of their job as political party leaders. It's not their job as members of the Legislature, but they do wear two hats.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Their job is to fucking run the country to the best of their abilities, asshat. Not to sabotage every effort of the legally elected president of the country they're supposed to govern. Attitudes like that are why we can't have nice things.

[Terralthra]

Because the "scandal" of the use of conservative (and liberal) buzzwords to target groups was leaked, and the IRS had no choice but to approve their status or be a constant fight for months. Do you dispute the facts of the cases the link laid out?

The approvals came before the public release of the information, but in some cases after the 2012 election. It still doesn't explain the very rapid approval of OFA. which you have yet to explain.

I don't work for the IRS, so, I couldn't tell you. At a guess, the fact that in the years 2010-2012, the rate of applications for 501(c)(4) status more than doubled, while in 2013, it was stable or even dropped, could partially explain it.

Because maybe there aren't as many liberal or progressive groups acting like PACs and filing for non-profit status? I mean, that doesn't strike you as an obvious possibility?

Possible, but highly unlikely. I mean, heck OFA got the tax-exempt status.

So, when discussing the number of groups, you name...one group, and count that as evidence that the number of groups must be roughly equal? There were literally thousands of Tea Party groups applying for 501(c)(4) status. You say "well, here's one liberal group!" as if that's a serious counterargument?

I like that you seem to think you've been arguing with one person this whole time. It's amusing. Anyway, you started with claiming the IRS was corrupt and couldn't be trusted, and now you're relying on their classification of groups as your evidence. You can't have it both ways.

They have shown themselves to be corrupt, and to be honest, I think all of the groups should be reviewed - to a reasonable set of standards. The problem those who argue against allowing the conservative groups the status ignore is that if the status is revoked prior to cleaning out the entire IRS divisions that were responsible for the misconduct (as well as anyone above them), then it reverts to looking like partisan retribution.

Yes, that does adequately explain why they were granted this status, despite clear indicators on some or many of them that their primary goal was, in fact, political. Wait, wasn't that my point? I mean...thanks for helping me out, but I didn't really need the help.

I'd love to see your evidence that it was leaked by an IRS employee. Anyway, the NOM is an organization that is bent on denying equal rights to some citizens of the United States, and it really doesn't bring me to tears if the people that support that kind of bigotry have their names in public.

The pages that were leaked were from the IRS stamped copies of the donor lists. I do note that it looks like you don't protest the violation of the law if someone who holds a different political view than you is on the losing end? If so, you'd make a great Commie.

Actually, I'm in favor of all donations to any organization, regardless of the political view or goals of the organization, being a matter of public record. Largely because for those who donate to things like the Red Cross or MSF, there's a perceived benefit to the transparency, while to those who donate to NOM, the only people harmed by transparency are people actively trying to delete or restrict human rights. It's a win/win! Even more ideal would be getting money out of politics entirely, naturally.

Prosecutorial misconduct is always poisonous, and certainly a prosecution against an incumbent in election season will benefit their opponent.

Ah, so now the question becomes "Was the Election of Mark Begich fraudulent, and if so, are the bills that were passed with him as a critical vote [ie those that were passed with him as the50, 51, or 60 votes depending on the circumstances] fraudulent?"

You're making a bit of a leap from "the prosecution helped one candidate" to "that candidate's election was fraudulent." Couldn't you make the same case about President Bush, given the whole Swift Boat Veterans for Truth thing during the 2004 election?

Again, this argument goes the other way, and it goes even better that way. The House must originate all budget bills, and they went four years without passing one that the Senate would approve. That should tell you where Boehner's priorities lie. Of course, you don't need implied evidence, since both the Senate and House GOP leaders have stated publicly that their number one goal for the past four years was to insure that Obama was a one-term President, and to obstruct his agenda as much as possible.

Well, seeing as Comrade Pelosi was the one in charge of the House back in 2009 and 2010, you can't blame it on all on Boehner. Also, so what if they established that their goal was to make Obama a one term president - that's part of their job as political party leaders. It's not their job as members of the Legislature, but they do wear two hats.

Well, they didn't say "it's one of our goals, in one of our roles," they each said "it's our number one priority." That you are attempting to paint the Senate Democrats as obstructionist when the GOP in both houses came right out and said "we're going to be obstructionist" is....curious. COuldn't they have maybe done a better job as the opposition party by trying to show how their way was better, instead of trying to roll back the previous Congress 42 times? I mean, the first 30 or 31 times, I can understand, but attempt #32 really melts my brain.

[PeZook]

Hm. I think Sorchus has a point even so- having an election NOT be preceded by a year of systematic, carefully synchronized advertising campaigns might actually be a good thing for America, because it would compress and reduce the horse-race aspect of the election, shifting a bit more of the focus onto the issue that caused a no-confidence scenario in the first place.

Also, it just plain lights a fire under the congressman's ass. See, MPs everywhere are not that hot for elections: some love campaigning and the whole shebang, but most are at least stressed over losing their seat, at worst actively hate it. Having their cadence cut can be a real bother for all but the most hardcore ideologues, and even ideologues would have to be re-elected in order to keep pushing their ideology.