How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?

No, but it does show that you used an early version of the graph. JUNE 2012, prior to most activity. Interesting that you did not take a later version, which would have shown more about what actually happened. So, you are fine then with contributions to political activities being anonymous as long as they come from non profits. Great.
And contributions to SuperPac's can come from any source, and be unreported, and that is fine with you?? As long is it is legal according to the tax code??

How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status

Contact a Delaware corporate lawyer.
Have him setup a shell corporation in your name.
Meet with your board of directors, which is just you.
Elect yourself as president, secretary, and treasurer.
Authorize your corporation to file documents with the IRS as a (c)(4) corporation operating as a "General Welfare Organization."...but don't file until May 2013.
Not filing until May will allow you to get money for your super PAC and nobody will no about until after the election.
What I have just outlined is what Stephen Colbert did on his show with Trevor Potter, the former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He is currently the president of the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan group committed to representing the public interest in enforcement of campaign and media law.
What are PACs and Super PACs and Their Connection to the IRS?

Then there is this type of thing, which allows PAC's to establish corporations to give money to SuperPacs. But information available on the spanking new corporation provides little information. And it is becoming rather common.

A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself.

So who’s behind one of the largest batches of election contributions this year? There’s a questionable trail.

Campaign finance reports filed late Thursday show that the political committee, FreedomWorks for America, received seven donations totaling $5.28 million from Knoxville-based Specialty Group Inc. The money, which accounted for about 90 percent of FreedomWorks for America’s donations during the first 15 days of October, is helping pay for TV ads supporting conservative candidates for federal office.

An Associated Press review of Tennessee business records showed that Specialty Group filed its incorporation papers on Sept. 26, less than a week before it gave several contributions to FreedomWorks worth between $125,000 and $1.5 million apiece. The Specialty Group appears to have no website detailing its products or services. It is registered to a suburban Knoxville home.

Specialty Group’s opaque contributions provide another example of the marked changes to the campaign finance system, in which corporations and individuals can spend unlimited sums of money to support candidate. Major donors, including those to a super PAC benefiting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have been caught routing significant donations through corporate entities, effectively cloaking their identities.
Mystery firm formed days before $5M campaign gift - Boston.com

So, nice. A shadow corporation that discloses it's contribution to a huge superpac. But no one knows a thing about the corporation. And that corporation may be gone next week. And that passes the legal test. So, it must be ok.

So, yes indeed. Since Citizens United things have been going really well for the average citizen. The big spenders have taken over politics in a big way. Unless, of course, you believe they are making contributions just to make contributions, with no thought of financial gain.

A Center for Responsive Politics study found that in 2010 the percentage of “spending coming from groups that did not disclose their donors rose from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 midterm elections,” and “501(c) non-profit spending increased from 0 percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.” The same report found that 72 percent “of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006.”

With House and Senate seats also in play, and control of each chamber potentially up for grabs, we are likely to easily eclipse the total $301 million spent by outside groups in the entire 2008 election. How do I know? In 2010, a midterm congressional election year—when you would expect to see a dip in spending compared to a presidential year—total outside spending hit a record $304.6 million. It was an incredible number for a midterm election season.

Why did that happen? Citizens United was decided early in 2010.

The Supreme Court?s Citizens United decision has led to an explosion of campaign spending. - Slate Magazine

 

[AmazonTania]

Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?

No, but it does show that you used an early version of the graph. JUNE 2012, prior to most activity. Interesting that you did not take a later version, which would have shown more about what actually happened.

I used all of the information from the report YOU provided. If there was a later version, you should have provided that information as well. It's really not my fault you didn't read your own information carefully.

So, you are fine then with contributions to political activities being anonymous as long as they come from non profits. Great.

I don't understand why basic things must be explained so many times to you. A bulk of Non-profit financing originates from donations. Non-profits may use these contributions for political activity if they choose to. Explain why you believe someone should guilty by association simply for making a donation unrelated to politics? Unless the individual donor is making a specific contribution for political matters, they should not be required to have their information disclosed.

Non-profits are required to go through a rigorous screening process to maintain their tax exempt status. Non Profits have to be able to show how their organisation is not in it for the money. The Government knows whom their donors are. As long as you believe the government will do a thorough job of making sure all finances are legit, then there should be no worry where these non-profits receive their financing from. After all, many of their funds gifts from people whom simply just want to lower their marginal taxes.

And contributions to SuperPac's can come from any source, and be unreported, and that is fine with you?? As long is it is legal according to the tax code??

There are no contributions which have gone unreported. Not one. If you are aware that a contribution exist, then said contribution is made available for review by the FEC. Whether the contribution was made anonymous or not depends on varying factors.

How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status

Contact a Delaware corporate lawyer.
Have him setup a shell corporation in your name.
Meet with your board of directors, which is just you.
Elect yourself as president, secretary, and treasurer.
Authorize your corporation to file documents with the IRS as a (c)(4) corporation operating as a "General Welfare Organization."...but don't file until May 2013.
Not filing until May will allow you to get money for your super PAC and nobody will no about until after the election.
What I have just outlined is what Stephen Colbert did on his show with Trevor Potter, the former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He is currently the president of the Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan group committed to representing the public interest in enforcement of campaign and media law.
What are PACs and Super PACs and Their Connection to the IRS?

Then there is this type of thing, which allows PAC's to establish corporations to give money to SuperPacs. But information available on the spanking new corporation provides little information. And it is becoming rather common.

Is it possible for you to read your sources carefully, just once? You source is not explaining how Super PACs may establish corporations, but how Super PACs may establish tax exempt status by filing as a Non Profit organisation. In order to establish a business, regardless of intent (for-profit or non-profit), you must incorporate. This means that you are required to file Articles of Incorporation documents. Articles of Incorporation are official statements that you are creating an organisation, and they are filed with a state's corporations office. In addition to this you must apply for a federal employer identification number.

It hasn't become rather common. People have been doing this for decades. Political Committees do not have to establish corporations to spend money to other Super PACs. They can already do this on their own. They may spend their money on pretty much anything politically related, as long as they're not spending it directly on a campaign or a candidate.

So, nice. A shadow corporation that discloses it's contribution to a huge superpac. But no one knows a thing about the corporation. And that corporation may be gone next week. And that passes the legal test. So, it must be ok.

So, yes indeed. Since Citizens United things have been going really well for the average citizen. The big spenders have taken over politics in a big way. Unless, of course, you believe they are making contributions just to make contributions, with no thought of financial gain.

Try reading more than the first sentence too.

A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself.

So who’s behind one of the largest batches of election contributions this year? There’s a questionable trail.

Campaign finance reports filed late Thursday show that the political committee, FreedomWorks for America, received seven donations totaling $5.28 million from Knoxville-based Specialty Group Inc. The money, which accounted for about 90 percent of FreedomWorks for America’s donations during the first 15 days of October, is helping pay for TV ads supporting conservative candidates for federal office.

An Associated Press review of Tennessee business records showed that Specialty Group filed its incorporation papers on Sept. 26, less than a week before it gave several contributions to FreedomWorks worth between $125,000 and $1.5 million apiece. The Specialty Group appears to have no website detailing its products or services. It is registered to a suburban Knoxville home.

Specialty Group’s opaque contributions provide another example of the marked changes to the campaign finance system, in which corporations and individuals can spend unlimited sums of money to support candidate. Major donors, including those to a super PAC benefiting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have been caught routing significant donations through corporate entities, effectively cloaking their identities.
Mystery firm formed days before $5M campaign gift - Boston.com

Your source clearly knows where these contributions came from, which means these contributions are registered by the FEC. All anyone has to do is look it up, like I just did.

And here are one of their itemized receipts.

13962690430_000169.pdf

It's really not the case at all that these businesses are making secret contributions. The fact that the media is able to find out about this at all proves this. They're not exactly conducting ground breaking journalism and fact finding. They're employing the same resources which are available to any American: The Individual Contribution data Query.

I suggest you try it yourself. You might be surprise about what you might actually learn.

Search Campaign Finance Data by Individual Contributor

 

[Rshermr]

Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?

No, but it does show that you used an early version of the graph. JUNE 2012, prior to most activity. Interesting that you did not take a later version, which would have shown more about what actually happened.

I used all of the information from the report YOU provided. If there was a later version, you should have provided that information as well. It's really not my fault you didn't read your own information carefully.



I don't understand why basic things must be explained so many times to you. A bulk of Non-profit financing originates from donations. Non-profits may use these contributions for political activity if they choose to. Explain why you believe someone should guilty by association simply for making a donation unrelated to politics? Unless the individual donor is making a specific contribution for political matters, they should not be required to have their information disclosed.

Non-profits are required to go through a rigorous screening process to maintain their tax exempt status. Non Profits have to be able to show how their organisation is not in it for the money. The Government knows whom their donors are. As long as you believe the government will do a thorough job of making sure all finances are legit, then there should be no worry where these non-profits receive their financing from. After all, many of their funds gifts from people whom simply just want to lower their marginal taxes.



There are no contributions which have gone unreported. Not one. If you are aware that a contribution exist, then said contribution is made available for review by the FEC. Whether the contribution was made anonymous or not depends on varying factors.



Is it possible for you to read your sources carefully, just once? You source is not explaining how Super PACs may establish corporations, but how Super PACs may establish tax exempt status by filing as a Non Profit organisation. In order to establish a business, regardless of intent (for-profit or non-profit), you must incorporate. This means that you are required to file Articles of Incorporation documents. Articles of Incorporation are official statements that you are creating an organisation, and they are filed with a state's corporations office. In addition to this you must apply for a federal employer identification number.

It hasn't become rather common. People have been doing this for decades. Political Committees do not have to establish corporations to spend money to other Super PACs. They can already do this on their own. They may spend their money on pretty much anything politically related, as long as they're not spending it directly on a campaign or a candidate.

So, nice. A shadow corporation that discloses it's contribution to a huge superpac. But no one knows a thing about the corporation. And that corporation may be gone next week. And that passes the legal test. So, it must be ok.

So, yes indeed. Since Citizens United things have been going really well for the average citizen. The big spenders have taken over politics in a big way. Unless, of course, you believe they are making contributions just to make contributions, with no thought of financial gain.

Try reading more than the first sentence too.

A shadowy Tennessee company donated more than $5 million to a prominent conservative super political action committee days after establishing itself.

So who’s behind one of the largest batches of election contributions this year? There’s a questionable trail.

Campaign finance reports filed late Thursday show that the political committee, FreedomWorks for America, received seven donations totaling $5.28 million from Knoxville-based Specialty Group Inc. The money, which accounted for about 90 percent of FreedomWorks for America’s donations during the first 15 days of October, is helping pay for TV ads supporting conservative candidates for federal office.

An Associated Press review of Tennessee business records showed that Specialty Group filed its incorporation papers on Sept. 26, less than a week before it gave several contributions to FreedomWorks worth between $125,000 and $1.5 million apiece. The Specialty Group appears to have no website detailing its products or services. It is registered to a suburban Knoxville home.

Specialty Group’s opaque contributions provide another example of the marked changes to the campaign finance system, in which corporations and individuals can spend unlimited sums of money to support candidate. Major donors, including those to a super PAC benefiting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have been caught routing significant donations through corporate entities, effectively cloaking their identities.
Mystery firm formed days before $5M campaign gift - Boston.com

Your source clearly knows where these contributions came from, which means these contributions are registered by the FEC. All anyone has to do is look it up, like I just did.

And here are one of their itemized receipts.

13962690430_000169.pdf

It's really not the case at all that these businesses are making secret contributions. The fact that the media is able to find out about this at all proves this. They're not exactly conducting ground breaking journalism and fact finding. They're employing the same resources which are available to any American: The Individual Contribution data Query.

I suggest you try it yourself. You might be surprise about what you might actually learn.

Search Campaign Finance Data by Individual Contributor

Got it, Tania. There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous. They are all reported. And there is no problem at all.

We, the 80 percent of the people in the US that believe that Citizens United is a bad idea are just WRONG. And all of the articles out there, by the HUNDREDS explaining why citizens united has corupted politics are wrong. And all of those investigative articles that show unreported revenue going through SuperPacs are wrong. Got it.
And those named 501c4's set up specifically to provide money to SuperPac's do not exist. And corporations are not being set up to fund SuperPac's that are shell corporations are not happening. The documentation is just not true, eh, Amazon.
Good deal. No problem at all. Citizens united is a great idea, and we are so lucky to have it. Got it, Tania.

Now, here is a little problem. You have nothing but drivel to back you up. You are an obvious con tool. If a far right talking head would be in favor you are right there with him. You name it. Any economic policy of any kind. Now, why is it you think that anyone would believe you. You make statements that are obvious lies(The disclose act failed in the house, there are laws against any contributions over $50 being undisclosed, so therefor there are none) and then move on when caught.
But, on the other hand, we have:
The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.
Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com


But as a result of the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited, untraceable money to be spent on political action groups, we will likely never find out who is behind the mystery dollars.
Read more: Anonymous Donor Writes Huge Check To GOP -- Thanks, Citizens United! | Care2 Causes


The court’s embrace of disclosure could hardly have been clearer. Yet we now have a system awash in anonymous donations to shadowy political groups. According to the reform-minded Center for Responsive Politics, advocacy groups spent approximately $305 million in the 2010 midterm federal elections, more than quadrupling the $70 million spent in the 2006 midterms. Few of these groups disclosed their donors; the "transparency" promised by Justice Kennedy is nonexistent.
Was the Court Conned in Citizens United? - Bloomberg


Independent groups that do not disclose the identity of their donors spent $132.5 million to influence elections nationwide this year, accounting for about a third of all spending by outside groups in the 2010 election cycle, a report released Friday found.
Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads - politics - Decision 2010 | NBC News

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?



"A group aligned with the Tea Party has funneled more than $1.3 million in anonymous contributions to a super PAC working aggressively to unseat Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and other congressional veterans, raising alarms among some watchdogs that these outside groups are emerging as a new avenue for secret political money.

FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that does not have to publicly disclose its donors, provided nearly half the money its affiliated super PAC, FreedomWorks for America, collected last year, as it launched an all-out campaign to defeat Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and others"
Super PAC taps source of anonymous cash to target Hatch ? USATODAY.com

So, Freedomworks takes in donations, keeps them anonymous, and gives money to a superpac. The superpac contributes the money to some political group to make negative adds, or whatever. The SuperPac then discloses that it had received the money from Freedomworks. Now that's disclosure.

So, you have NO sources that say that all superpac money provides actual disclosure of the person or corporate entity that donated. And that if it was a corporation, it was not a shell company. But we should believe you, and not the above sources. Got it.

The only sources that I have found that agree with you are the bat shit crazy conservative web sites. And they line up with you very well.
So, play your games with someone who wants to deal with a dishonest person. I am tired of you. I prefer to deal with people that have class. And people with class rarely lie.

 

[AmazonTania]

Got it, Tania. There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous. They are all reported. And there is no problem at all.

I believe I have found the fallacy in your reasoning: It's your understanding of the terminology. Anonymous Contributions are donations from individuals or an organisation whose information are not disclosed to the public. Reported Information is completely different. This has to do with the compliance of FEC regulations. It is FEC regulations are ALL contributions, receipts, donations and independent expenditures are reported in a timely matter. Whether or not this information is disclosed publicly or privately depends on the actual requirements.

The fact that anyone, anywhere knows of any secret donations at all shows that there are obviously zero neglects of reports filed.

We, the 80 percent of the people in the US that believe that Citizens United is a bad idea are just WRONG.

*Yawn* That's nice. .

And all of the articles out there, by the HUNDREDS explaining why citizens united has corupted politics are wrong. And all of those investigative articles that show unreported revenue going through SuperPacs are wrong. Got it.

So these investigative articles show unreported revenues going to Super PACs,' but somehow the FEC has records of these transactions on their database...

Makes perfect sense... If you're a moron, that is...

And those named 501c4's set up specifically to provide money to SuperPac's do not exist.

The 501(c)4 aren't set up by Super PAC's. The 501(c)4 ARE the Super PACs'. Did you somehow forget that you have to disclose your operational statements and financial statements to the IRS for Non Profit Status Review? Do you really believe the IRS is going to grant this status for anything resembling a dummy corporation? Are you that clueless, or do you believe everyone else is?

And corporations are not being set up to fund SuperPac's that are shell corporations are not happening. The documentation is just not true, eh, Amazon.

Shell corporations are often formed before commencing operations to obtain financing. Sometimes, they're used as a front for tax evasion, but ultimately all Shell Corporations have an originator, and can be found rather easily simply by looking to the SEC database.

To have an honest discussion about these things, this requires research, which you have already admitted you are very poor at.

Now, here is a little problem. You have nothing but drivel to back you up.

Your source claimed that Freedom Works received shadow money from a Business. I've already show you how this is not true, using FEC statistics.

You are angry because you have been thoroughly debunked.

You are an obvious con tool. If a far right talking head would be in favor you are right there with him. You name it. Any economic policy of any kind. Now, why is it you think that anyone would believe you. You make statements that are obvious lies(The disclose act failed in the house, there are laws against any contributions over $50 being undisclosed, so therefor there are none) and then move on when caught.

So I am lying about a law which is clearly in the books? It's always funny, regardless of the evidence, no one else is telling the truth, except you of course.

(3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.

11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

But, on the other hand, we have:
The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.
Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com


But as a result of the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited, untraceable money to be spent on political action groups, we will likely never find out who is behind the mystery dollars.
Read more: Anonymous Donor Writes Huge Check To GOP -- Thanks, Citizens United! | Care2 Causes


The court’s embrace of disclosure could hardly have been clearer. Yet we now have a system awash in anonymous donations to shadowy political groups. According to the reform-minded Center for Responsive Politics, advocacy groups spent approximately $305 million in the 2010 midterm federal elections, more than quadrupling the $70 million spent in the 2006 midterms. Few of these groups disclosed their donors; the "transparency" promised by Justice Kennedy is nonexistent.
Was the Court Conned in Citizens United? - Bloomberg


Independent groups that do not disclose the identity of their donors spent $132.5 million to influence elections nationwide this year, accounting for about a third of all spending by outside groups in the 2010 election cycle, a report released Friday found.
Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads - politics - Decision 2010 | NBC News

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?



"A group aligned with the Tea Party has funneled more than $1.3 million in anonymous contributions to a super PAC working aggressively to unseat Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and other congressional veterans, raising alarms among some watchdogs that these outside groups are emerging as a new avenue for secret political money.

FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that does not have to publicly disclose its donors, provided nearly half the money its affiliated super PAC, FreedomWorks for America, collected last year, as it launched an all-out campaign to defeat Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and others"
Super PAC taps source of anonymous cash to target Hatch ? USATODAY.com

You're backed into a corner. Now you are just recycling the same rhetoric I've already debunked. All I'm going to do is refer you to post #1426 and #1431.

I really don't see why I should have to debunk the same information twice.

So, Freedomworks takes in donations, keeps them anonymous, and gives money to a superpac. The superpac contributes the money to some political group to make negative adds, or whatever. The SuperPac then discloses that it had received the money from Freedomworks. Now that's disclosure.

Freedom Works is a Non-Profit organisation. They're not required to publicly disclose the information of any donors. UNLESS one particular donor makes a contribution for specific political purposes, such as advertisement.

So we both agree that this is happening, which is nice to agree for a change.

So, you have NO sources that say that all superpac money provides actual disclosure of the person or corporate entity that donated. And that if it was a corporation, it was not a shell company. But we should believe you, and not the above sources. Got it.

I have the Federal Elections Commission. That's a source. Not only is it a source, it's a primary source. It doesn't come from a blog, news article or any other secondary source. I've also used information from the Public Interest Research Group, which uses FEC statistics.

The only sources that I have found that agree with you are the bat shit crazy conservative web sites. And they line up with you very well.

I didn't know the FEC was a conservative organisation. Do you think they've made unreported contributions to Freedom Works as well?

So, play your games with someone who wants to deal with a dishonest person. I am tired of you. I prefer to deal with people that have class. And people with class rarely lie.

All the information you have shown supports my initial claims, which are:

1. Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
2. Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
3. Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

This is all verifiable. If you are making the case that it is wrong for a non-profit organisation to be able to donate and not have any of its donors disclosed, that's a legitimate concern. However, it is not true that these types of donations make up a large part of total aggregate contributions, it is not true that these contributions have gone unreported, and it is not true that any individual or ogranisation can make unlimited donations directly to Super PAC's can keep their information from the public.

You have no qualms with calling everyone else a tool, but you believe 100% of everything you read (or rather don't read, since your literacy is so poor), especially if it's a source you find acceptable. If there is anyone here who is a tool, it's most definitely you.

Grow up...

 

[Rshermr]

Got it, Tania. There are absolutely NO contributions that are anonymous. They are all reported. And there is no problem at all.

I believe I have found the fallacy in your reasoning: It's your understanding of the terminology. Anonymous Contributions are donations from individuals or an organisation whose information are not disclosed to the public. Reported Information is completely different. This has to do with the compliance of FEC regulations. It is FEC regulations are ALL contributions, receipts, donations and independent expenditures are reported in a timely matter. Whether or not this information is disclosed publicly or privately depends on the actual requirements.

The fact that anyone, anywhere knows of any secret donations at all shows that there are obviously zero neglects of reports filed.

We, the 80 percent of the people in the US that believe that Citizens United is a bad idea are just WRONG.

*Yawn* That's nice. .



So these investigative articles show unreported revenues going to Super PACs,' but somehow the FEC has records of these transactions on their database...

Makes perfect sense... If you're a moron, that is...



The 501(c)4 aren't set up by Super PAC's. The 501(c)4 ARE the Super PACs'. Did you somehow forget that you have to disclose your operational statements and financial statements to the IRS for Non Profit Status Review? Do you really believe the IRS is going to grant this status for anything resembling a dummy corporation? Are you that clueless, or do you believe everyone else is?



Shell corporations are often formed before commencing operations to obtain financing. Sometimes, they're used as a front for tax evasion, but ultimately all Shell Corporations have an originator, and can be found rather easily simply by looking to the SEC database.

To have an honest discussion about these things, this requires research, which you have already admitted you are very poor at.



Your source claimed that Freedom Works received shadow money from a Business. I've already show you how this is not true, using FEC statistics.

You are angry because you have been thoroughly debunked.



So I am lying about a law which is clearly in the books? It's always funny, regardless of the evidence, no one else is telling the truth, except you of course.





You're backed into a corner. Now you are just recycling the same rhetoric I've already debunked. All I'm going to do is refer you to post #1426 and #1431.

I really don't see why I should have to debunk the same information twice.



Freedom Works is a Non-Profit organisation. They're not required to publicly disclose the information of any donors. UNLESS one particular donor makes a contribution for specific political purposes, such as advertisement.

So we both agree that this is happening, which is nice to agree for a change.



I have the Federal Elections Commission. That's a source. Not only is it a source, it's a primary source. It doesn't come from a blog, news article or any other secondary source. I've also used information from the Public Interest Research Group, which uses FEC statistics.

The only sources that I have found that agree with you are the bat shit crazy conservative web sites. And they line up with you very well.

I didn't know the FEC was a conservative organisation. Do you think they've made unreported contributions to Freedom Works as well?

So, play your games with someone who wants to deal with a dishonest person. I am tired of you. I prefer to deal with people that have class. And people with class rarely lie.

All the information you have shown supports my initial claims, which are:

1. Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
2. Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
3. Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

This is all verifiable. If you are making the case that it is wrong for a non-profit organisation to be able to donate and not have any of its donors disclosed, that's a legitimate concern. However, it is not true that these types of donations make up a large part of total aggregate contributions, it is not true that these contributions have gone unreported, and it is not true that any individual or ogranisation can make unlimited donations directly to Super PAC's can keep their information from the public.

You have no qualms with calling everyone else a tool, but you believe 100% of everything you read (or rather don't read, since your literacy is so poor), especially if it's a source you find acceptable. If there is anyone here who is a tool, it's most definitely you.

Grow up...

So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal. No one said it was not, me clown. It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP. Which is what source after source after source says, tool. It is exactly the purpose. To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money. As you well know. You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool. You know what you are saying. You are saying it is legal, and the superpac does what it is required to do. They disclose the name of the doner, who is a c4. That is easy to understand. Also easy to understand is that it is deceptive, and meant to protect actual doners. Plain and simple. So, see why it is so simple to see that you are playing games. Unless of course, you are just plain stupid.
Same with corporations. A superpac can arrange to set up a corporation, which takes money and donates to a superpac. But it is a shell corporation, and the disclosure tells only the name of the shell corporation. And protects the actual doners, who placed the money in the shell corporation for the purpose of avoiding true disclosure.
So, you got it. It is legal to set up c4's. But it was against the intent. And it is possible to set up corporations, and hide actual donors. So, you apparently believe that because it is legal, it is ok. You see, dipshit. That is why I keep saying the same thing. You think it is ok. Or so you say. The truth is, very few think it is. And that is why, as you also know, the disclose act has been attempted. And killed by those, who like yourself, believe that the public has no right to know who is donating what.
Now I am sure you will want to say again that all you have to do is look at the fec records. And we can see who donated. But, as you know, that money coming from dark sources will be VERY hard to uncover. In general, we will never know. We will not know who the c4 got it's money from, but we will have it's name as a donor to the superpac.

You also will not want to admit, though it has been proven to any rational person, that superpacs can and do postpone those disclosures for months. You can not tell, when looking at fec information, that disclosures have not yet been provided. But that is legal. So I am sure it is ok with you. Because, of course, you do not feel that the citizens have any need to see that information. Just as the corporate interests do not. And why they are fighting to keep disclosure from happening at all.

But the issue is not just hidden contributions. That is a small portion of the damage from Citizens United. But you like it. So, what the hell. I have no argument for that. None at all. That is the argument that you will find in one place, over and over and over. That being the bat shit crazy con sites who always align perfectly with your opinions on everything economic.
So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want. Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens. But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit. That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal. No one said it was not, me clown. It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP. Which is what source after source after source says, tool. It is exactly the purpose. To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money. As you well know. You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.

No, your source is pretty clear on this one:

How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status:

What are PACs and Super PACs and Their Connection to the IRS?

And it's actually not a 501(c)4. It's a 527, which is basically a tax-exempt organisation under the Internal Revenue Code. And it has already been explained to you that Super PACs' are not setting up Non Profit Organisations. Non Profit Organisations are becoming Super PACs. Typically, Super PACs' establish themselves as Non Profit Organisations, OR Non Profit Organisations establish their own Super PACs.' Either way, by law, you are required to have an exempt function to create a political committee.

1) Political organization
The term “political organization” means a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.

(2) Exempt function
The term “exempt function” means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected, or appointed. Such term includes the making of expenditures relating to an office described in the preceding sentence which, if incurred by the individual, would be allowable as a deduction under section 162 (a).

(3) Contributions
The term “contributions” has the meaning given to such term by section 271 (b)(2).

(4) Expenditures
The term “expenditures” has the meaning given to such term by section 271 (b)(3).

26 USC § 527 - Political organizations | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You know what you are saying. You are saying it is legal, and the superpac does what it is required to do. They disclose the name of the doner, who is a c4. That is easy to understand. Also easy to understand is that it is deceptive, and meant to protect actual doners. Plain and simple. So, see why it is so simple to see that you are playing games. Unless of course, you are just plain stupid.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't understand a bloody thing about how this works. You cannot set up a Non Profit organisation for the sole purpose feeding funds into a Super PAC. Not only is it very redundant, it is also not feasible. Of course, everyone is stupid, except for you. You understand more about these regulations than the IRS, and they're the ones who makes these laws.

Filing Requirements

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

Common Tax Law Restrictions on Activities of Exempt Organizations

Same with corporations. A superpac can arrange to set up a corporation, which takes money and donates to a superpac. But it is a shell corporation, and the disclosure tells only the name of the shell corporation. And protects the actual doners, who placed the money in the shell corporation for the purpose of avoiding true disclosure.

Super PACs can already donate money to other Super PACs. It has already been established that a over $30 Million of fundraising to Super PACs' were from other Super PACs'. So maybe you can explain why a Super PAC would need to establish a corporation just for the sole purpose of donating money to another Super PAC. The first part of making an effective argument is making sense.

So, you got it. It is legal to set up c4's. But it was against the intent. And it is possible to set up corporations, and hide actual donors.

You cannot establish a non-profit organisation for the sole purpose of donating money. That's already been confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service requirements. Corporations are another matter. People can decide to incorporate and send money together. It's still not as easy as one makes it sound, but ultimately, the origins of the money will always turn up.

So, you apparently believe that because it is legal, it is ok. You see, dipshit. That is why I keep saying the same thing. You think it is ok. Or so you say. The truth is, very few think it is. And that is why, as you also know, the disclose act has been attempted. And killed by those, who like yourself, believe that the public has no right to know who is donating what.

That's not what I'm saying this time. I'm saying it's time for you to grow up and understand how this all works. Getting your information from Google will only get you so far.

Now I am sure you will want to say again that all you have to do is look at the fec records. And we can see who donated. But, as you know, that money coming from dark sources will be VERY hard to uncover. In general, we will never know. We will not know who the c4 got it's money from, but we will have it's name as a donor to the superpac.

Where is your proof that the money comes from dark sources. Only the IRS knows where the money comes from. And yes, all one has to do is look at FEC records. Unless the contribution is less than $50 dollars, the information is available to the public, whether it's a individual, corporation or organisation. Individuals send money on their own, Corporations send money as a group, and Organisations send money according to their mission statement. It's not to be confused as sending money on behalf of it's donors.

You also will not want to admit, though it has been proven to any rational person, that superpacs can and do postpone those disclosures for months. You can not tell, when looking at fec information, that disclosures have not yet been provided. But that is legal. So I am sure it is ok with you. Because, of course, you do not feel that the citizens have any need to see that information. Just as the corporate interests do not. And why they are fighting to keep disclosure from happening at all.

All contributions and expenditures are updated monthly and/or quarterly. The only instance where the FEC does not allow such leniency is during an election cycle, in which reports must be filed as often as every 48 Hours. It's right here in plan simple text.

FEC Reporting Dates (2013)

But the issue is not just hidden contributions. That is a small portion of the damage from Citizens United. But you like it. So, what the hell. I have no argument for that. None at all. That is the argument that you will find in one place, over and over and over. That being the bat shit crazy con sites who always align perfectly with your opinions on everything economic.

As long as the contributions are above a certain amount, they're not hidden.

So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want. Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens. But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit. That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.

Do you have anything else to add other than meaningless pontificating?

 

[Rshermr]

So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal. No one said it was not, me clown. It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP. Which is what source after source after source says, tool. It is exactly the purpose. To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money. As you well know. You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.

No, your source is pretty clear on this one:

How to Create a Super PAC with Tax Exempt Status:

What are PACs and Super PACs and Their Connection to the IRS?

And it's actually not a 501(c)4. It's a 527, which is basically a tax-exempt organisation under the Internal Revenue Code. And it has already been explained to you that Super PACs' are not setting up Non Profit Organisations. Non Profit Organisations are becoming Super PACs. Typically, Super PACs' establish themselves as Non Profit Organisations, OR Non Profit Organisations establish their own Super PACs.' Either way, by law, you are required to have an exempt function to create a political committee.





That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't understand a bloody thing about how this works. You cannot set up a Non Profit organisation for the sole purpose feeding funds into a Super PAC. Not only is it very redundant, it is also not feasible. Of course, everyone is stupid, except for you. You understand more about these regulations than the IRS, and they're the ones who makes these laws.

Filing Requirements

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

Common Tax Law Restrictions on Activities of Exempt Organizations



Super PACs can already donate money to other Super PACs. It has already been established that a over $30 Million of fundraising to Super PACs' were from other Super PACs'. So maybe you can explain why a Super PAC would need to establish a corporation just for the sole purpose of donating money to another Super PAC. The first part of making an effective argument is making sense.

You cannot establish a non-profit organisation for the sole purpose of donating money. That's already been confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service requirements. Corporations are another matter. People can decide to incorporate and send money together. It's still not as easy as one makes it sound, but ultimately, the origins of the money will always turn up.



That's not what I'm saying this time. I'm saying it's time for you to grow up and understand how this all works. Getting your information from Google will only get you so far.



Where is your proof that the money comes from dark sources. Only the IRS knows where the money comes from. And yes, all one has to do is look at FEC records. Unless the contribution is less than $50 dollars, the information is available to the public, whether it's a individual, corporation or organisation. Individuals send money on their own, Corporations send money as a group, and Organisations send money according to their mission statement. It's not to be confused as sending money on behalf of it's donors.



All contributions and expenditures are updated monthly and/or quarterly. The only instance where the FEC does not allow such leniency is during an election cycle, in which reports must be filed as often as every 48 Hours. It's right here in plan simple text.

FEC Reporting Dates (2013)

But the issue is not just hidden contributions. That is a small portion of the damage from Citizens United. But you like it. So, what the hell. I have no argument for that. None at all. That is the argument that you will find in one place, over and over and over. That being the bat shit crazy con sites who always align perfectly with your opinions on everything economic.

As long as the contributions are above a certain amount, they're not hidden.

So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want. Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens. But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit. That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.

Do you have anything else to add other than meaningless pontificating?

Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no. You are beyond any possibility of discussion. that is what happens when you are a con tool. You believe what you want. Strange malady. But well documented.
A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you. Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe. And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.
Strange illness. I did a lot of his eulogy. We were buddies even with our disagreements. Same strange affliction. He was a con. He believed as he was told.
So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.

What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them. You go in circles. I recognize the pattern. Read a lot about it over the years.

But here is the thing. You know better. You know you are playing a game. You could care less about truth. It is of no interest.

So, we come at things from a completely different perspective. I believe in the truth. And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united. Making silly arguments about minutia. Because you are a con tool. And that is simply what you do.

So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth. Your truth is what you want it to believe. There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong. But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.

Good for you. I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation. You do not. Just another con tool.

 

[Kat3eWhit]

America will be fine. There is no way to legitimately compare us to the mess that's going on in Europe.

 

[jasonnfree]

So, setting up a 501c4 for the express purpose of making donations to a connected superpac is legal. No one said it was not, me clown. It is exactly why the c4 WAS SET UP. Which is what source after source after source says, tool. It is exactly the purpose. To circumvent requirements to actually disclose who it was that donated the money. As you well know. You see, me clown, this is why I cal you a tool.

No, your source is pretty clear on this one:



And it's actually not a 501(c)4. It's a 527, which is basically a tax-exempt organisation under the Internal Revenue Code. And it has already been explained to you that Super PACs' are not setting up Non Profit Organisations. Non Profit Organisations are becoming Super PACs. Typically, Super PACs' establish themselves as Non Profit Organisations, OR Non Profit Organisations establish their own Super PACs.' Either way, by law, you are required to have an exempt function to create a political committee.





That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't understand a bloody thing about how this works. You cannot set up a Non Profit organisation for the sole purpose feeding funds into a Super PAC. Not only is it very redundant, it is also not feasible. Of course, everyone is stupid, except for you. You understand more about these regulations than the IRS, and they're the ones who makes these laws.

Filing Requirements

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

Common Tax Law Restrictions on Activities of Exempt Organizations



Super PACs can already donate money to other Super PACs. It has already been established that a over $30 Million of fundraising to Super PACs' were from other Super PACs'. So maybe you can explain why a Super PAC would need to establish a corporation just for the sole purpose of donating money to another Super PAC. The first part of making an effective argument is making sense.

You cannot establish a non-profit organisation for the sole purpose of donating money. That's already been confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service requirements. Corporations are another matter. People can decide to incorporate and send money together. It's still not as easy as one makes it sound, but ultimately, the origins of the money will always turn up.



That's not what I'm saying this time. I'm saying it's time for you to grow up and understand how this all works. Getting your information from Google will only get you so far.



Where is your proof that the money comes from dark sources. Only the IRS knows where the money comes from. And yes, all one has to do is look at FEC records. Unless the contribution is less than $50 dollars, the information is available to the public, whether it's a individual, corporation or organisation. Individuals send money on their own, Corporations send money as a group, and Organisations send money according to their mission statement. It's not to be confused as sending money on behalf of it's donors.



All contributions and expenditures are updated monthly and/or quarterly. The only instance where the FEC does not allow such leniency is during an election cycle, in which reports must be filed as often as every 48 Hours. It's right here in plan simple text.

FEC Reporting Dates (2013)



As long as the contributions are above a certain amount, they're not hidden.

So you can bypass a hundred rational sources, say they prove nothing, and believe what you want. Which is, citizens united is a good thing, protecting us citizens. But you see, most of us citizens think you are full of shit. That you are simply protecting those that want to own our politics, and thereby our laws.

Do you have anything else to add other than meaningless pontificating?

Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no. You are beyond any possibility of discussion. that is what happens when you are a con tool. You believe what you want. Strange malady. But well documented.
A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you. Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe. And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.
Strange illness. I did a lot of his eulogy. We were buddies even with our disagreements. Same strange affliction. He was a con. He believed as he was told.
So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.

What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them. You go in circles. I recognize the pattern. Read a lot about it over the years.

But here is the thing. You know better. You know you are playing a game. You could care less about truth. It is of no interest.

So, we come at things from a completely different perspective. I believe in the truth. And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united. Making silly arguments about minutia. Because you are a con tool. And that is simply what you do.

So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth. Your truth is what you want it to believe. There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong. But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.

Good for you. I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation. You do not. Just another con tool.

One thing came out of the 501 c 4 scandal a couple of months ago is that this exemption is for organizations whose primary purpose is the common good and general welfare of the community. When you see the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey involved in the common good this should arouse some suspicion. Freedom works was involved in promoting pure right wing politics by organizing tea parties. Getting money out of politics should be a common aim of people of all political persuasions. Calling a corporation a person is beyond ridiculous and shows that money can buy anything. Am I getting ridiculous by demanding to see Exxon's birth certificate before they're allowed to even vote, much less be allowed to buy votes?
Ok, only two more posts and this thread hits the C mark.

 

[AmazonTania]

Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no. You are beyond any possibility of discussion. that is what happens when you are a con tool. You believe what you want. Strange malady. But well documented.

Except for the chart, all of the information I have provided was new. It's not my fault

A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you. Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe. And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.
Strange illness. I did a lot of his eulogy. We were buddies even with our disagreements. Same strange affliction. He was a con. He believed as he was told.
So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.

I don't care about your personal relationships. I really don't.

What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them. You go in circles. I recognize the pattern. Read a lot about it over the years.

But here is the thing. You know better. You know you are playing a game. You could care less about truth. It is of no interest.

So you consider Journalism more truthful than Governmental Statistics, Legal Statutes and Federal Documents. Is that what I'm reading?

So, we come at things from a completely different perspective. I believe in the truth. And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united. Making silly arguments about minutia. Because you are a con tool. And that is simply what you do.

So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth. Your truth is what you want it to believe. There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong. But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.

Good for you. I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation. You do not. Just another con tool.

If you weren't such a bloody crybaby throwing ad homeniem attacks, I'd take you seriously.

The Facts are I have provided tonnes and tonnes of legal statutes currently in the books regarding Political Contributions and Independent Expenditures, FEC Statistics regarding donations within the past 3 years, Personal donor information of an organisation which was reported to have given 'dark money,' IRS rules and regulations regarding tax exempt status, a tonne of your own sources substantiating my claims, and a tonne of other things.

The sources I have provided are completely neutral. They don't advocate for policy and they don't have an agenda, which I thought was right up your ally. Of course, when these sources do not support your worldview, you can pretend it doesn't exist.

These aren't my truths. I don't make the laws, rules or the regulations. I don't compile data for the FEC. I don't conduct studies on behalf of the US PRIG. I don't review tax regulations either. I am not a Barrister, Statistician, Accountant or Political Researcher.

I just show what the facts are and you're crying because the facts are not what you want them to be. That's not my problem. You need to just live with it.

Federal Election Commission Home Page

Internal Revenue Service

LII | LII / Legal Information Institute

U.S. PIRG | The Federation of State PIRGs

 

[Rshermr]

No, your source is pretty clear on this one:



And it's actually not a 501(c)4. It's a 527, which is basically a tax-exempt organisation under the Internal Revenue Code. And it has already been explained to you that Super PACs' are not setting up Non Profit Organisations. Non Profit Organisations are becoming Super PACs. Typically, Super PACs' establish themselves as Non Profit Organisations, OR Non Profit Organisations establish their own Super PACs.' Either way, by law, you are required to have an exempt function to create a political committee.





That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying you don't understand a bloody thing about how this works. You cannot set up a Non Profit organisation for the sole purpose feeding funds into a Super PAC. Not only is it very redundant, it is also not feasible. Of course, everyone is stupid, except for you. You understand more about these regulations than the IRS, and they're the ones who makes these laws.

Filing Requirements

Exemption Requirements - Political Organizations

Common Tax Law Restrictions on Activities of Exempt Organizations



Super PACs can already donate money to other Super PACs. It has already been established that a over $30 Million of fundraising to Super PACs' were from other Super PACs'. So maybe you can explain why a Super PAC would need to establish a corporation just for the sole purpose of donating money to another Super PAC. The first part of making an effective argument is making sense.

You cannot establish a non-profit organisation for the sole purpose of donating money. That's already been confirmed by the Internal Revenue Service requirements. Corporations are another matter. People can decide to incorporate and send money together. It's still not as easy as one makes it sound, but ultimately, the origins of the money will always turn up.



That's not what I'm saying this time. I'm saying it's time for you to grow up and understand how this all works. Getting your information from Google will only get you so far.



Where is your proof that the money comes from dark sources. Only the IRS knows where the money comes from. And yes, all one has to do is look at FEC records. Unless the contribution is less than $50 dollars, the information is available to the public, whether it's a individual, corporation or organisation. Individuals send money on their own, Corporations send money as a group, and Organisations send money according to their mission statement. It's not to be confused as sending money on behalf of it's donors.



All contributions and expenditures are updated monthly and/or quarterly. The only instance where the FEC does not allow such leniency is during an election cycle, in which reports must be filed as often as every 48 Hours. It's right here in plan simple text.

FEC Reporting Dates (2013)



As long as the contributions are above a certain amount, they're not hidden.



Do you have anything else to add other than meaningless pontificating?

Since you had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW, no. You are beyond any possibility of discussion. that is what happens when you are a con tool. You believe what you want. Strange malady. But well documented.
A really close personal friend of mine, dead now, used to argue in the same way as you. Finally admitted that he did not believe anything that he did not want to believe. And he did indeed believe what he wanted to.
Strange illness. I did a lot of his eulogy. We were buddies even with our disagreements. Same strange affliction. He was a con. He believed as he was told.
So I have come to be able to recognize your sort.

What you all seem to know is that it takes a few seconds to make accusations or claims, but minutes to hours to disprove them. You go in circles. I recognize the pattern. Read a lot about it over the years.

But here is the thing. You know better. You know you are playing a game. You could care less about truth. It is of no interest.

So, we come at things from a completely different perspective. I believe in the truth. And you are on the wrong side relative to citizens united. Making silly arguments about minutia. Because you are a con tool. And that is simply what you do.

So the preponderance of evidence makes no dent in your truth. Your truth is what you want it to believe. There may be hundreds, and in this case there are, of sources proving you are wrong. But you will go along making statements you know to be untrue in order to support your agenda.

Good for you. I thought at one point you had interest in rational conversation. You do not. Just another con tool.

One thing came out of the 501 c 4 scandal a couple of months ago is that this exemption is for organizations whose primary purpose is the common good and general welfare of the community. When you see the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey involved in the common good this should arouse some suspicion. Freedom works was involved in promoting pure right wing politics by organizing tea parties. Getting money out of politics should be a common aim of people of all political persuasions. Calling a corporation a person is beyond ridiculous and shows that money can buy anything. Am I getting ridiculous by demanding to see Exxon's birth certificate before they're allowed to even vote, much less be allowed to buy votes?
Ok, only two more posts and this thread hits the C mark.

Agreed. You, I, and the vast majority of the nation believe that 1. Corporations are not people, and 2. Money is not speech. Any other concept is just plain support for those with enough money to control politics. Easy to see by those with an open mind.

 

[Rshermr]

So those there has been a revolt against austerity in a number of those countries that have seen sustained downturns attributed to austerity measures. It will be interesting. With the major push for more austerity in european nations coming from german politicians, and with push back now quite heavy even in Germany, it will be interesting. But here is a sample of the analysis and the overall thought of some of the more rational sources of information. The following specifically about the effects of lessened austerity in a number of nations:

So, overall, it’s more good news out of Europe as the national economies eke their way towards growth. Obviously there are still major issues, most notably the continued lack of demand for credit in many nations and the underlying issue of debt imbalances across the region. As I stated last week , the question now is whether the same adjustments in austerity policy that are supporting this recovery will continue after the German election, or whether we will see a return to old form and a renewed slow down. We’ll obviously have to wait until after September 22nd to find that out.

How bad did it get:

Faced with soaring unemployment, deepening recession, and a widening political backlash, European officials are easing up on two-year-old demands for painful budget cuts from its most debt-gorged members.

The scope of the economic pain was brought into sharper focus last week with the latest jobless data for the 17 euro-area member countries. Nearly 20 million Europeans—some 12.2 percent of the workforce—are without work.

In struggling southern periphery countries locked in a downward spiral of tax increases and spending cuts mandated by Brussels, the job outlook is especially grim. More than one in four Spaniards is out of a job; in Portugal 17.8 percent are unemployed. In February, the latest data available, the Greek unemployment rate had risen to 27 percent.

It took a while, but those who most prospered from austerity, the very wealthy business officials, have been overpowered by a combination of logic, bad economic news, and the citizenry of the countries anger over their activities. The net result is that things are actually starting to improve.

For the most part, the lesson is learned. Those with the most to gain personally and in their business ventures are still fighting to maintain austerity measures. But overall, the great majority have been able to watch a very painful experiment gone awry. And the resultant emphasis has been to stop austerity measures in most nations. Now, the real question: Will the political and economic leaders have the guts to make the correct moves this time. Or will they cave to the powers that be??

Should be another really interesting experiment to watch. And a really great opportunity for those that benefited most from austerity to make (more) untrue statements about cause and effect.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

For the most part, the lesson is learned.

how idiotic!! the idea that tax and spend can create real jobs is absurd. A real job comes from an invention that free people want to buy. Thats how we got from the stone age to here.

Since government libturd bureaucrats do not invent things they can't help, but they can hurt by throwing a monkey wrench into the economy. Is that really over your head?

 

[Rshermr]

For the most part, the lesson is learned.

how idiotic!! the idea that tax and spend can create real jobs is absurd. A real job comes from an invention that free people want to buy. Thats how we got from the stone age to here.

Since government libturd bureaucrats do not invent things they can't help, but they can hurt by throwing a monkey wrench into the economy. Is that really over your head?

It is ED. You were gone and.... Well not missed, just gone. And back with your normal irrational comments. Perfect.
Now, this one is really cool. You say "Since government libturd bureaucrats do not invent things they can't help". So, apparently you believe R. Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat. Perfect. He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, the highest ever except for the great depression. Perfect non intervention. Then, he raised taxes 11 times, tripled the national debt, and increased the size of the gov significantly. Damned libturd bureaucrat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat. Perfect. He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, .

of course thats a idiotic lie. Check you history and you'll see Volkers record 20% interest rates made unemployment shoot up. It does not bother you to lie at all does it?

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan was a libturd bureaucrat. Perfect. He reduced taxes and spending, saw unemployment go to 10.8%, .

of course thats a idiotic lie. Check you history and you'll see Volkers record 20% interest rates made unemployment shoot up. It does not bother you to lie at all does it?

It had been quite close to that under the prior president, yet unemployment never got close to 10.8% under Carter. Never got above 8% and Carter handed Ronnie the presidency with unemployment at 7.3% But nice try, my mentally challenged cut and paste expert.
But here is the real problem for you, dipshit. Ronnie was a true believer in lowering taxes and decreasing gov spending in pretty much ANY situation, but certainly always in the case of high unemployment. So, he has the highest unnemployment rate since the great republican depression of 1929. And he does not lower taxes as he said he would, but RAISES TAX RATES INSTEAD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. So, he believes that he needs to raise taxes in bad times now. Must have changed his mind after seeing what a mess he made when he lowered them. Because he needs to spend stimulatively. Which he then does. Spends like a drunken sailor to get the economy going. Why, ED, think about it. He used good old democratic thought, democratic policy, and raised taxes to get money to spend stimulatively. AND, ED, IT WORKED FOR YOUR HERO. JUST AS ECONOMISTS AND HIS ECONONOMIC TEAM KNEW IT WOULD. DAMN,,,,,,,

 

[Rshermr]

So, the beat goes on. Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe. As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
It became obvious that the right wingers did not want to believe anything that was being said by investigative journalists and economists unless it was favorable to austerity. I could care less what the verdict is, just a bit of truth would be useful. Because what is important is that people get back to work, and that economies expand in general. Whether it is because of austerity or spending programs is immaterial. So, try and leave agenda at the door.
By the way, another favorite of the right wing web sites and fox is that austerity is not being practiced anywhere. That is a claim that has been dealt with by numerous economists, and silly IMHO. But, knock yourselves out.
Anything new???

 

[boedicca]

So, the beat goes on. Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe. As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
It became obvious that the right wingers did not want to believe anything that was being said by investigative journalists and economists unless it was favorable to austerity. I could care less what the verdict is, just a bit of truth would be useful. Because what is important is that people get back to work, and that economies expand in general. Whether it is because of austerity or spending programs is immaterial. So, try and leave agenda at the door.
By the way, another favorite of the right wing web sites and fox is that austerity is not being practiced anywhere. That is a claim that has been dealt with by numerous economists, and silly IMHO. But, knock yourselves out.
Anything new???

What you call austerity is really just the welfare state system collapsing under its own weight.

Not spending money one doesn't have isn't unnecessary austerity, it's REALITY.

 

[Rshermr]

So, the beat goes on. Austerity is still being used as a tool throughout europe. As time passes, we have a good look at how it has worked, so I am trying to reactivate the thread to see what people think after another 6 months or more.
It became obvious that the right wingers did not want to believe anything that was being said by investigative journalists and economists unless it was favorable to austerity. I could care less what the verdict is, just a bit of truth would be useful. Because what is important is that people get back to work, and that economies expand in general. Whether it is because of austerity or spending programs is immaterial. So, try and leave agenda at the door.
By the way, another favorite of the right wing web sites and fox is that austerity is not being practiced anywhere. That is a claim that has been dealt with by numerous economists, and silly IMHO. But, knock yourselves out.
Anything new???

What you call austerity is really just the welfare state system collapsing under its own weight.

Not spending money one doesn't have isn't unnecessary austerity, it's REALITY.

Ah. So all of those nations have no money to spend. Got it. Though that is not true, at all. So, you like austerity. Is it working well for any nation, or are you simply suggesting that whatever happens, no more spending and go down with the ship if that is what the ship is doing.

Next.

 

[Toro]

Austerity seems to be doing pretty well in Ireland. They appear to be coming out of their deep recession.