<![CDATA[Forums - agweb.com - Policy & Politics]]> http://discussions.agweb.com/ Discuss the latest agricultural and/or political issues that concern you at the state and federal levels. en Sun, 26 May 2013 06:00:28 GMT vBulletin 60 http://discussions.agweb.com/images/misc/rss.png <![CDATA[Forums - agweb.com - Policy & Politics]]> http://discussions.agweb.com/ Department of the media get their assignments http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63436-Department-of-the-media-get-their-assignments&goto=newpost Fri, 24 May 2013 23:42:50 GMT snip- President Obama held a private meeting with top national security journalists on Thursday afternoon following his national security policy... snip-

President Obama held a private meeting with top national security journalists on Thursday afternoon following his national security policy address at the National Defense University in Washington, POLITICO has learned.
Present at the meeting were Thomas Friedman, The New York Times columnist; Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau chief; Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of The Washington Post; David Igantius, The Washington Post columnist; Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic correspondent and Bloomberg View columnist; and Joe Klein, the Time magazine columnist.
The meeting, which was scheduled to last for one hour but lasted for two, was held in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
President Obama also met earlier this week with a number of progressive journalists, including the Post's Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, and MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...tc-164743.html ]]> r3020 http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63436-Department-of-the-media-get-their-assignments Kicking obummer EPA butt http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63430-Kicking-obummer-EPA-butt&goto=newpost Fri, 24 May 2013 01:50:42 GMT http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/21/study-backs-farmers-in-pollution-fight-with-epa/?test=latestnews http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/21...est=latestnews ]]> glowplug http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63430-Kicking-obummer-EPA-butt <![CDATA[Committee Republicans:"Welfare For Me But None For You...]]> http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63429-Committee-Republicans-quot-Welfare-For-Me-But-None-For-You...&goto=newpost Thu, 23 May 2013 21:27:48 GMT To clarify things. I don't need assistance or draw anything from the government.

How is it determined(or is it not determined?) whether or not a farm is just poorly managed and should fail?


Fincer has said his farm would have shut down without the subsidies

since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million in that time. Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574

Committee Republicans:"Welfare For Me But None For You..."
House Agriculture Committee Republicans who vocally supported billions in cuts to federal food assistance are big-time recipients of government help in the form of farm subsidies. Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) both cited the Bible last week to argue that while individual Christians have a responsibility to feed the poor, the federal government does not. "We're all here on this committee making decisions about other people's money," Fincher said. LaMalfa said that while it's nice for politicians to boast about how they've helped their constituents, "That's all someone else's money."

Yet both men's farms have received millions in federal assistance, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that advocates for more conservation and fewer subsidies. LaMalfa's family rice farm has received more than $5 million in commodity subsidies since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million in that time. Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574 and LaMalfa's got $188,570.
Spokespeople for the congressmen did not respond to requests for comment, but both LaMalfa and Fincher have defended their right to receive subsidies in the past when challenged by conservatives during primary elections. LaMalfa told a California paper that the subsidy system is needed to keep struggling farmers "on life support."

Fincer has said his farm would have shut down without the subsidiesh, which he argued protect American farmers from more heavily subsidized foreign competition. "We would be all for not having government in our business," Fincher told the Washington Post in 2010, "but we need a fair system." The federal government's complex system of farm subsidies is supposed to shield farmers from some of the uncertainties inherent to the industry, but critics like the Environmental Working Group say the safety net unfairly benefits the biggest farms at the expense of smaller ones.

"Fincher's $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee's median household income," Carr wrote in a blog on The Huffington Post. "After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years."

FULL STORY:

Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries ]]> Tall Grass http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63429-Committee-Republicans-quot-Welfare-For-Me-But-None-For-You... 49 more states to go!!!! http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63414-49-more-states-to-go!!!!&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 18:28:03 GMT Only 49 more states to go! Hooray for Florida ! I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North... Only 49 more states to go! Hooray for Florida !

I-95 and I-75 will be jammed for the next month or so with druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida , because this is the first state in the union to require drug testing to receive welfare!

Hooray for Florida ! In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free."

Applicants must pay for the drug test, but are reimbursed if they test drug-free. Applicants who test positive for illicit substances, won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.
How is this unconstitutional? It's a legal requirement that every person applying for a job has to pass drug tests in order to get the job, why not those who receive welfare?

Now, lets do one for food stamps. ]]> Tom In Ont http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63414-49-more-states-to-go!!!! Thanks,Mr President http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63413-Thanks-Mr-President&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 17:36:51 GMT Whatever the outcome of the scandals that have beset the Obama administration over the past few days — especially IRS scrutiny of government critics... Whatever the outcome of the scandals that have beset the Obama administration over the past few days — especially IRS scrutiny of government critics and the Justice Department's snooping on the Associated Press — they've taken on a special importance simply by capturing our attention. A presidency that began with such high hopes of "hope" and "change" has conducted itself just like so many administrations before it. A president who, just ten days ago, mocked "voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity," has been caught presiding over an Internal Revenue Service that, yet again, applied inquisitorial scrutiny to critics of the government, a Justice Department that, once more, snooped on journalists, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation that can't help spying on the public's communications. These abuses remind us not that the Obama administration has invented new ways to abuse power, but rather that even this supposedly fresh start commits the same old excesses that inevitably result from a surfeit of coercive power and plenty of targets of opportunity on which to wield it.

At Ohio State University, President Obama said:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all of our faith in government to solve our problems; we shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us; it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. (Applause.) And, Class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process. (Applause.)

The founders trusted us with this awesome authority. We should trust ourselves with it, too. ...

To take him at his word, President Obama believes that democracy is somehow immune to the abuses that otherwise beset government. That because the use of coercive power in a democratic system is "done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government," therefore "we should trust ourselves with it."

But even assuming that "we" are as worthy of wielding coercive power as the president suggests (a dubious proposition for anybody who is familiar with the trial of Socrates, which saw the poor ******* sentenced to death for offending the sensibilities of the citizens of Athens) "we" are usually busy working, raising families, having drinks with friends and otherwise living our lives. The power of government is inevitably really wielded by a professional political class, with a good deal of input from well-organized groups with interests in specific areas of policy. That's the way it always is. And that power is always used against critics of those in power, dissenters to majority views, and inconvenient scrutinizers of officeholders and their activities.

The founders, for all of their many flaws, understood that coercive power is inevitably abused, which is why they didn't trust us with anything like the "awesome authority" that is currently wielded by the government. It's impossible to believe that veterans of the stamp tax and the trial of John Peter Zenger would have been even slightly surprised by the use of tax collectors against political targets, or by the targeting of journalists.

And yet here we are, with a president who simultaneously professes the goodness of government even as that government misuses power in all the old familiar ways, changing only to adapt to new technology.

So, as we prepare to hand authority over our health care system to a tax agency that has, time and again, wielded its power for political purposes on behalf of whoever is currently in power, we owe thanks. Thank you, Mr. President, for demonstrating that you're just as untrustworthy a ******* as all of your predecessors. Thank you for reminding us that, no matter the public assurances we receive, every iota of power given to the government will be misused. We repeatedly forget these lessons, and we need our reminders. ]]> 420 http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63413-Thanks-Mr-President obummer the LIAR http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63411-obummer-the-LIAR&goto=newpost Tue, 21 May 2013 12:52:27 GMT obummer's minions are doing their deep spin on keeping him above the IRS scandal. Look for more underlings to fall on their swords to protect their oba-messiah. Now reality is that obummer will not be impeached and removed from office. The best we can hope for is to expose the Chicago Machine on the Potomac corruption.

Would love to see the current IRS complex tax system replaced with a simple 15% Flat Tax. Meanwhile, the Dem Talking Points trolls are now attempting to spin this:



But over here at the Washington Post, we have, buried in a story about the Cincinnati office of the IRS, this key phrase:

“Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

Got that?

“Everything comes from the top.”

The top is where Colleen Kelley, the head of all those unionized IRS workers in Cincinnati, operates.

The top is the White House, the IRS offices in Washington, D.C., and the IRS Oversight Board.

The top is what makes it possible for the IRS union to have the run of the IRS, to get an Executive Order (# 13522) from the President to “allow employee and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….”

The top is where Colleen Kelley goes to a White House Christmas party as the guest of President and Mrs. Obama — six days before that Executive Order 13522 is issued.

The top is where Colleen Kelley can be the head of the IRS union that gets its dues, its very survival money, from employees being paid by taxpayer dollars — and not have to answer questions about the details of her “collaboration” with the White House, the Obama-run IRS and the IRS Oversight Board.

And being at the top is what gives Ms. Kelley the belief that she can head an IRS public employees union — and do the old Nixon stonewall.

She isn’t the only one at the top busy stonewalling right now.

And as with Watergate, the place to get to the bottom of the top is Congress.

Where a new version of an old question should be asked:

What did the IRS union president know — and when did she know it? ]]> glowplug http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63411-obummer-the-LIAR <![CDATA[Hsus & irs]]> http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63406-Hsus-amp-irs&goto=newpost Mon, 20 May 2013 11:56:29 GMT BEEF Daily HSUS Appears To Have A Powerful Friend Within the IRS May 20, 2013 by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily RSS EMAIL ... BEEF Daily
HSUS Appears To Have A Powerful Friend Within the IRS
May 20, 2013 by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily

RSS

EMAIL
inShare
Tweet

Comments 0

Lois Lerner, who is director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, is a member of the Humane Society of the U.S. Could this be why there hasn’t been an official investigation of HSUS?
Related Media
Readers Show The Love For Their Ranch Sweethearts

65 Photos That Celebrate Cowgirls & Cattlewomen
80+ Photos Of Our Favorite Calves & Cowboys

When it comes to business, sometimes it’s not what you know, but who you know. The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) appears to have a powerful friend within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It's Lois Lerner, who serves as director of the in the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, and is also a proud member and supporter of HSUS.

Lerner has been a popular name in the headlines lately, after a press conference where she confessed, “I’m not good at math.” Wait, an IRS employee is bad at math? Does that make sense?

The press conference was held to address the IRS admission that it inappropriately targeted conservative groups seeking non-profit status from the agency. Lerner was unable to answer questions about political bias behind the targeting of these groups, but the IRS is admitting that such abuse has been occurring.

It’s quite evident that if you are disliked by the IRS, you will most certainly be overly scrutinized, taxed and audited, but if you are a bedfellow with this government agency, you might just be exempt from paying in at all.

That’s exactly what might be happening with HSUS, given the organization’s cozy relationship with Lerner and the IRS. Even though several members of Congress have written letters to the IRS requesting that IRS investigate the questionable tax-exempt status of HSUS, there has been no action. It makes you wonder if it’s time to look closer at Lerner and her HSUS ties.

Note that HSUS spends less than 1% of its $150-million annual budget actually supporting animal shelters, despite raising millions from consumers via heart-wrenching commercials about homeless and abused pets. Meanwhile, the organization continues to spend bundles of money lobbying and launching ballot initiative campaigns attacking American agriculture. Their promise to save puppies and kittens is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the true agenda of eliminating meat, dairy and eggs from the dinner table by regulating farmers and ranchers out of business.

A great blog post at Protect The Harvest explains how the IRS has increased its scrutiny of political organizations -- namely the ones they don’t like -- while it lets HSUS slide. Check it out all the details here.

As Protect The Harvest aptly states, “Only time will tell, but hardworking American taxpayers deserve answers. Government shouldn’t be picking favorites and the IRS should be applying the same rules to everyone.”

What do you think about the IRS targeting certain organizations over others? Why do you suppose an investigation of HSUS has yet to be conducted in full? Do you think Lerner’s affiliation with HSUS has anything to do with it? ]]> dennis1 http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63406-Hsus-amp-irs Prince of the outback. http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63403-Prince-of-the-outback.&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 20:49:42 GMT http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/14/prince-of-the-outback Sorry about the cut and paste but the article was too long to post. OBG, this is an... http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/1...of-the-outback

Sorry about the cut and paste but the article was too long to post. OBG, this is an example that needs further study, but looks right up your alley. ]]> jb197 http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63403-Prince-of-the-outback. <![CDATA[The Lyin' King]]> http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63401-The-Lyin-King&goto=newpost Sun, 19 May 2013 12:31:59 GMT Lying isn’t free. One of the reasons that the United States has remained the last refuge for money fleeing instability abroad is that those... Lying isn’t free.

One of the reasons that the United States has remained the last refuge for money fleeing instability abroad is that those investors trust its institutions. They believed — reasonably until now — that in America the rule of law reigned supreme. They thought — until the administration cast the question into serious doubt — that America was not the banana republic that the possessors of those fortunes sought to flee. That’s why the money comes to America and not, let us say, to the Congo.

Similarly, as Lee Smith points out, the word of an American president was trusted enough in the past to make the actual use of arms unnecessary. All that was necessary was for the United States to send a signal and that message would have the effect of armies.

But what happens when an administration makes dishonesty and untrustworthiness a feature? What occurs when the president conditions us to subliminally think — perhaps in spite of ourselves — that in God we Trust but of Obama we can expect nothing but lies? What then?

Well, we’re about to find out.

Or perhaps, more accurately, the administration is about to find out. To a large extent the multiple crises engulfing the Obama administration are economic and informational — it’s a rebellion against the cost of lying. The sheer mendacity of key institutions has jacked up the risk premium on everything, and people instinctively know this.

A friend asked whether “the IRS scandal makes it necessary to consider the call not to pay taxes, or not to file returns, or participate in the all-cash economy. People are thinking these things.” Of course they would be thinking of those things. It would be unnatural if they didn’t.

If you destroy trust in the institutions, then people do business outside the institutions.

The president has made it hard to do business — even for the Left. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the administration’s decision to spy on the Associated Press. That essentially cheapened the meaning of “political friend.” For if the administration could do that to its water-carriers, then what was the point of being his friend? Liberals, like anyone else, feel the pain of being stabbed in the back. It has the same effect as Obama’s assurance to allies than Iran will never get the bomb. Right, sure. Of course.

The emotional impact of Benghazi was probably this: if he could do this to Stevens and to SEALs, then he could do it to anybody.

A lying president debases his own words and undermines his own ability to hold a coalition together. Nobody completely trusts reassurances from a double-crosser. Only a fool would accept a kiss from Judas. The day comes when not even the liberals can fail to notice.

A nation as large as the United States works only if trust in its institutions is maintained. Destroy that and it’s pay as you go and as-is-where-is. Once everything comes down to the caprice of one man, to basing contracts on the secret will of cabals, then it’s all over. It’s bad for business — whatever business you happen to be in.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ]]> glowplug http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63401-The-Lyin-King No there there.... http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63395-No-there-there....&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 03:35:48 GMT >>LOOK OVER HERE!!!* ---End Quote--- TPM...]]>
Quote:
As expected the witch hunt continues and there is no stopping Issa from the "LOOK OVER HERE>>>LOOK OVER HERE!!!
TPM Editor’s Blog
Wow, This is Pretty Epic

JOSH MARSHALL MAY 16, 2013, 7:12 PM 10999
Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true. Quick transcript after the jump …

SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?
MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.” The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes. ]]> BarryJHealy http://discussions.agweb.com/showthread.php?63395-No-there-there....