kamui

Thousands of New IRS Agents Hired to Enforce Obamacare

 

Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, warns that the IRS will hire up to 16,500 new enforcers in the coming months to go after citizens who do not pay the new Obamacare tax. The expansion is said to include criminal investigators who “make cases†in order to levy penalties on scofflaws.

 

http://www.infowars....orce-obamacare/

I love the US news-/blogsphere. Creativity and invention rates much higher than boring research and validating sources (this is soo 20th century journalism).

Just look at this quote how they came across the number fo 16.500 IRS workers:

In January of 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann claimed the IRS planned to hire 16,500 IRS agents to police Obamacare compliance. CNN reported at the time that the number cited by the Minnesota Congresswoman originated in a GOP committee report, based on a preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

CNN saids that Bachmann had it from a GOP committee which had from a "preliminary estimate" from the Budget Office. CNN didn't check the facts and the original source and neither of course did Bachman nor did it Infowars.

So we only have the word of mouth from Bachmann who is known to get the facts completely wrong or just making them up.

PS: I just looked up the guy behind infowars.com at Wikipedia. He is a rightwing conservative who loves conspiracy theories and who even built a memorial for the psycho sect members who got killed in Wako. He is an advocate of the New World Order conspiracy theory. I guess he watched too many James Bond movies in his youth.

What amazes me is that Republicans as well as Dems MUST be part of that 2/3 that have gone through that brutal bankruptcy process due to medical bills but are fighting any changes tooth and nail. That's a head scratcher to me. I have many conservative friends, who I know are one paycheck away from the street if they were to get sick but their only view about health care is that Obamacare is somewhere between Mao and Stalin. They don't demand that the health care system changes. They don't demand the Republican proposed changes. They only say 'Obamacare is socialist' parrotting Rush and Glen Beck. My own family members who are conservative. Its utterly amazing to me.

 

We as a people need to get our collective heads out of our asses and stop seeing the party affiliation as the country and the opposition party as the enemy. They are your fellow citizens, fellow Americans and in many cases your friends and family.

It took me a long time to understand the difference between European and US elections.

In Europe people _mainly_ vote with their standard of living in mind. The party which promises the most stable living condtions (job, health care, education, e.g.), or even better, increasing living conditions, gets the majority of the votes. Of course ideology, religion, nationalism play a factor as well, but in a smaller part.

In the USA it seems that elections are mostly decided by ideological and religious interests. It seems to be clear that on long term the majority of the US citizens are doing better under a democrat government, nevertheless they frequently vote for the party which promises to cut their standard of living (health care, local and national infrastructure, education, while spending a major part on military and wars). The reason is that the ideology/religion behind the destruction of the individual standard of living has a much stronger pull than the reality of their living condition...

And of course, there are is major ideological difference in how Europeans and the US Americans are seing the role of their government. In Europe in most countries the government is partly responsible for the weak (unemployed, ill, old) and all people are paying for it via taxes. While the USA seems to have a more Darwinist approach and for many the government seems to be the enemy of the people...

PS: Every European government which supported GWB's wars went down. Surprisingly, the two ongoing wars don't seem to play any role in the current public debate in the USA.

Americans are moving to Canada because of the Health Care ruling.

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

Canada has European style health care system, covering all citizens.

Easy solution...ALL Americans will have the same health care insurance, that means ALL the politicians....while were at it, ALL Americans will have Social Security, no more special retirement funds for politicians!

 

Wanna see how quickly things get "fixed"!!!

Why did GWB appoint a communist/socialist?

When it comes to appointing judges, the prez in power generally appoints "some" who would be considered "from the other side" - ie Republican president appoints a token number of Democratically inclined judges, so they can say they are being fair and equitable. At least that's what I read somewhere. They wouldn't want to *only* install their mates, could look corrupt.

I guess you got it completely wrong. The appointment of supreme court judges can have a lasting effect on the country for decades. Therefore usually presidents chose judges most close to their political interests.

Just have a look at judge Scalia. He is a real right wing judge, who could be called an "activist judge" (a term invented by right wingers actually). He was appointed by Reagan. Here most recent comment on Saclia: Justice Scalia must resign

It seems everything in the USA becomes more and more politicized and radicalized.

Chief Justice Roberts - appointed by GW Bush - voted in positive.

 

Re-election of President Obama assured.

 

The whining or wining can cease.

 

 

 

 

 

It will definitely heaten up the election campaigns. It's a hard hit for the GOP, but gives them a lot of talking points...

wanna see Rihanna......and its been 3-4 years since I have seen a good thai movie....but how else can you judge the movie if you have not seen it yet ?

Buy the pirated DVD in BKK...

Watching it on large movie screen is a waste of time and money.

BB is keen on a review!

I guess he is only permitted to watch Thai movies.

but you watched it ?

Yep, I faked may age here on the board.

Looks like things running political party lines....

 

Colorado is burning under their Democrate Govenor

while Florida is drowning under their Republican Govenor.

This has nothing to do with climate change of course, neither do the upcoming water wars in the south of the USA...

Saw 'Battleship' and didn't like it. It was contrived and unrealistic in many areas. The love story scenario and the 'hero' was not believable at all. Some good special effects but too many things just not adding up for my cycical self to enjoy it.

Yep, a movie for 14 year old boys in puberty.

Great photo, but those folks look too poor ever to have owned a single slave. (Slaves were very expensive!) They presumably dressed up in their best clothes - which aren't much more than ordinary work clothes, and not a watch chain to be seen. The house isn't much different from a slave's cabin. Wonder who the black folks in the rear are. They almost certainly are former slaves.

Before jumping to conclusion, you might read the original article here:

http://www.nytimes.c...amas-roots.html

Michelle Obama has white slave owners as ancestors:

The white man who owned Mrs. Obama’s great-great-great grandmother, Melvinia Shields, and his son, who most likely fathered Melvinia’s child.

The photograph of those two men and their relatives, which is believed to have been taken in Georgia sometime around 1884, is being published here for the first time.

The slaveowner was Henry Wells Shields, who inherited Melvinia when his father-in-law died in 1852. DNA testing and research indicate that he and his wife, Christian Patterson Shields, are the first lady’s great-great-great-great grandparents.

Their son, Charles Marion Shields, worked as a farmer and a teacher. DNA testing and research point to him as the father of Melvinia’s son, Dolphus Shields. That would make Charles Mrs. Obama’s great-great-great grandfather.

NYT

This might not decide this election, but 2016+ will become very interesting due to the ongoing demographic shift in favor of non-whites...

Race gap hardens in 2012 contest

By: Alexander Burns

June 21, 2012 12:46 PM EDT

The demographic battle lines of the 2012 campaign are rapidly solidifying as Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama gear up for a campaign defined by significant gaps between the candidates in voters’ race, gender and age.

A trickle of recent swing-state surveys confirms a racial divide that’s already been on vivid display in national polling: Obama has failed to gain new traction with white voters whileRomney has either stalled out or lost ground with Latinos and other non-white voting groups.

That pattern is only likely to intensify after Obama’s decision to allow some children of illegal immigrants to stay in the country. Romney criticized it for being a stop-gap measure but has not said whether he would maintain that policy as president.

It’s not only race that divides the two candidates: the generational and gender gaps that have characterized both the Obama and Romney coalitions haven’t budged. The racial gap may be the most striking, given the rapidly growing Hispanic population and the relative decline of the white vote share.

A Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters threw the divisions into relief Thursday morning. In the poll, Romney won voters over 55, white voters and men. All other demographic groups broke for the president: women, black and Latino voters, and voters 54 and younger.

The survey gave Obama a 4-point lead against Romney overall, 46 to 42 percent.

....

http://www.politico....0612/77700.html

The British Wonder "Does Obama HATE Us?"

 

<< Small wonder that his relationship with Gordon Brown borders upon the disastrous.

 

Even some of our Prime Minister's sternest critics - myself among them - thought he was appallingly treated by the Obama administration when he visited Washington in March.

Assembly.

 

Once again, Obama's refusal to grasp that opportunity to stress the special relationship was seen as an insult to Britain.

... the speed at which the special relationship - an alliance that had endured for seven decades - has fallen apart in barely 11 months is both remarkable and deeply alarming.

 

One of the greatest forces for good, liberty and freedom - not to mention the defence of the free world - is in very real danger of being banished to the history books for ever. >>

 

My link

The British media (right and left) has the tendency to overreact. In Germany we are used to it.

Just today there is an article which says that Chancellor Angela Merkel is much more dangerous than Ahmadinejad (Iran) or Kim Jong-un (Korea).

Just have a look at the latest magazine cover:

The first paragraph of the article:

Which world leader poses the biggest threat to global order and prosperity? The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Wrong. Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu? Nope. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un? Wrong again.

 

The answer is a mild-mannered opera fan and former chemist who has been in office for seven years. Yes, step forward, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany,...

 

http://www.newstates...stroying-europe

I guess soon we will need a special visa for the enter the UK and we will have a secret service agent attached to every German visitor.

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

 

 

p.s. This is how obscure David Maraniss is. Ever heard of The Washington Post before? Think "Watergate".

 

David Maraniss (born 1949) is an American journalist and author, currently serving as an associate-editor for The Washington Post. He received a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1993 for his coverage of then-candidate Bill Clinton during the 1992 United States presidential election.

 

Maraniss began his journalism career as a high school student in Madison, Wisconsin, where he covered antiwar protests and high school football for a local daily newspaper. He joined The Washington Post in 1977 and has served it in various capacities since. The Post assigned him the job of biographer for their coverage of 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama.

 

http://en.wikipedia..../David_Maraniss

Couldn't find it, this wasn't one of your last three links...

Sounds like a storm in a (British) teacup.

PS: Flash, I really enjoy you frequent presentation of the most obscure anti Obama article/websites on the web.

As I said, Obama has cornered Romney in regard to the immigration problem:

Romney dodges immigration questions

By REID J. EPSTEIN |

6/17/12 10:28 AM EDT

Mitt Romney refuses to say whether he’d repeal the Obama administration’s decision to stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants.

In an interview with Bob Schieffer aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,†the presumptive Republican presidential nominee five different times declined to answer whether he would conduct the same policy President Barack Obama on Friday announced his Department of Homeland Security will now pursue.

Instead of answering the question posed, Romney called for a permanent solution.

“With regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is,†Romney said. “This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Sen. Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the president jumped in and said I'm going to take this action, he called it a stop-gap measure. I don't know why he feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.â€

After Schieffer asked, directly, four additional times if Romney would repeal the policy without receiving an answer, Romney called the move political.

“I think the timing is pretty clear, if he really wanted to make a solution that dealt with these kids or with illegal immigration in America, than this is something he would have taken up in his first three and a half years, not in his last few months,†he said.

Romney has yet to offer an opinion on the merits of Obama’s immigration policy change. On Friday, he told reporters in New Hampshire that he supports Rubio’s proposal, which has yet to be introduced in the Senate.

On “Fox News Sunday,†Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said Obama’s moved successfully undercut both Rubio and Romney.

“This was the anti-Marco Rubio initiative by the administration,†Kristol said. “They were scared. Sen. Rubio was about to introduce his version of the Dream Act, which would have been closer to what President Obama announced than the actual Democratic Dream Act. I wish Rubio had introduced it over the last month or two. He got stalled, not every Republican was on board, the Romney campaign’s been cautious about it.â€

And Kristol said Romney, who during the GOP primary staked out a more conservative position on immigration than his opponents, in particular Texas Gov. Rick Perry, is now in a tight spot.

“This is a big problem for Romney,†Kristol said. “He needs to take the lead on this, and in my view embrace Marco Rubio’s Dream Act if that’s what he wants and say, ‘Let’s pass this in Congress over the next few months, this is what I’m for.â€

Politico

It also shows his contempt for the Democrats in Congress. I wonder how they feel being made irrelevant.

 

Good question. I wonder if it does matter to them that they did their bidding. I guess the GOP pols feel worse.

Anyway, until the election the Dems will keep their mouth shut.

I disagree with this. In I think its a wonderful thing. It can only be good for the nation for these folks to get as educated as possible. In the long run (and short run even) it makes the country stronger.

 

I don't want them to be under educated and not realize their potential. What's wrong with competition? Its unAmerican to not want competition. It brings out the best out of us.

 

These illegals aren't going back home. We're stuck with them no matter what kind of legislation you make. The overwhelming majority will be here and if so I want them to be as productive as possible.

 

Weak argument against illegals in my humble opinion.

Yep, the argument against the competition for jobs is a really weak. 800.000 educated, but undocumented, immigrants now can have a career in the USA. To keep them away from the white collar job market was a total waste of "human capital" (and public money).

It shows the helplessness of the conservatives in regard to Obama's immigration decision.

My guess is overall it helps him.

I wonder if Obama is executing a well prepared plan after being politically almost impotent in the past years.

First the women: ordering the health insurance companies to pay for birth control pills. The GOP and the Catholic church took the bait and ran straight into his trap and thus mobilized women associations around the country.

Second the gay, buy supporting gay marriage and shutting down don't ask don't tell. The GOP couldn't really react, since more and more Americans are pro gay.

And now the Latinos, by bringing substantial relief to hundreds of thousands of young Latinos, who traditionally do not vote at presidential elections. Especially in regard to the immigration topic the GOP is now cornered and gave contradicting responses.

Every time it was done just with the strike of his pen, without endless fights with congress and senate. And every time it was aimed at group which was disappointed by Obama.

But of course this doesn't make Obama a winner - especially if the economy will tank further.

The latino population in America is very diverse and often at odds with each other. The immigration issue is a non issue for Cubans and Puerto Ricans. Cubans are seen as political refugees and so they have an easier time to become citizens. They are accepted when they come here illegally. Puerto Rico is an American territory. No one likes cubans. Puerto Ricans don't get along with them and there is a rift within the cuban community with pre Castro and Post Castro cubans. Those who fled as he was coming to power were almost always middle class and rich Cubans. The ones that come in the boats in the '80s and '90s were poor. They don't see eye to eye. Also, amongst Mexican Americans, there are the ones who were here for decades and are American. They are politically conservative Republicans as opposed to the ones that came accross the border in the last 20 or 30 years who are liberal and Dems. The old line are often just as much if not moreso against illegal immigration. They see the new arrivals as besmirching the repuration of Mexicans.

Salvadoreans and Mexicans hate each other. Don't EVER call one the other. It can be dangerous. Trust me on this. Mexican Americans claim a lot of the crime committed by Salvadoreas gets lumped in with them. Salvadoreans say they are looked down upon by Mexicans. I dated a Salvadorean in LA and although her father didn't like that I was black and told her to break up with me, the absolute no tolerance was for a Mexican American. She didn't get along wtih them as well. In jobs I had both groups didn't socialize. Other central americans don't like the Mexicans as well but the Salvadoreans gangs fight with them.

South Americans look down on all of them. Argentinians, Chileans especially see themselves as the cream of the crop of latinos in California. They kinda see themselves as white (which they oftne are, blond blue eyed white).

Dominicans are fairly new arrivals and are sorta Puerto Rican rivals. The cubans, dominicans and boricuas (slang for Puerto Ricans) are mainy east coast latinos. Chicago used to be puerto rican but there is now a very large mexican popuation. Same in atlanta. Mexican americans is the group that is rising fast and spreading outside the west and southwest. Salvodoreans are big in the Washington DC area as are their gangs who are probably some of the most violent gangs you'll ever see. Worse than the Mexican gang if that can be possible. They are often the product of a brutal civil war back home years ago.

Does this have any consequences for Obama? Except the Cubans and the Puertoricans all other young Latinos will gain from Obama's decision.

I don't mind amnesty for those that have been here a long time, speak English, aren't criminals, contributing members of society and have demonstrable love for America. Fuck the rest.

Obama energizes Latino vote

By: Edward-Isaac Dovere and Darren Samuelsohn

June 15, 2012 08:20 PM EDT

President Barack Obama on Friday tried to grab back the mantle of change — and remind his base why they came out in force for him four years ago.

The broad strokes are the same as when he declared his support for gay marriage last month: a key 2008 constituency that had spent three and a half years nursing its disappointment, now thrown a late-breaking move to ramp up its enthusiasm.

In both, the president had very little to lose — many voters who dislike his support for gay marriage or refusal to deport young immigrants probably weren’t in play anyway. But he had a huge amount to gain in enthusiasm, in reconnecting with the spirit of his first campaign, and most of all, in driving up turnout.

In an election that could well turn on the margin of Latinos supporting him in key swing states— and coming out to the polls — that’s no small matter.

.....

The bold move by Obama shows that he is still playing to win. He hit one of the weakest spots of Romney who is now cornered in the immigration debate. Romney was against the Dream-Act and for "self-deportation". It will be difficult for him to move away from this position without alienating the hardcore GOPs, while he knows that the Latinos will be able to decide _any_ election the future. The decision affects up 800.000 Latinos directly and millions of Lationo indirectly who have a family member or relative who is now secure to pursue his/hers career in the USA.

Additionally the order is temporary as the GOP has pointed out (how stupid can they be?) which means that the Latinos know what will happen when Romney becomes president.

IMHO this raises Obama's chances, because Lations are playing a major role especially in the swing states.

The political analysts are still saying Obama will have signifcantly more money.

Are you sure?